If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Romney campaign: We're going to talk about Barack Obama's admitted cocaine use. Democrats: i'mokwiththis.jpg   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 337
    More: Amusing, obama, Tony Rezko, Bill Burton, Mitt Romney, Blagojevich  
•       •       •

8181 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2012 at 3:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 08:37:10 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, of course CEO salaries are set by their market value. It's what they receive in the market!

So you don't understand what market forces are and how they operate. Got it. I'd accept this level of ignorance out of you if I and a dozen other people hadn't explained how CEO salaries are set a dozen times in a dozen threads and watched you conveniently skip the posts or leave.

Debeo Summa Credo: I've voted for Clinton, gore, Kerry and Obama

Sure you have. You spend 99% of your time in this forum talking one way and the remaining 1% tacking the economic equivalent of "I'm not a racist but" onto your posts.

Explain to me how the "market value of CEO salaries" is determined in your mind. What is the "market value", of say, Jamie Dimon?

And I talk 99% of the way one way in here because fark has transformed into a left wing circle jerk. When a right winger says something stupid, there are 20 of you clowns jumping in. But when left wingers make dumb misinformed comments there's few of us around to correct you and help you understand.


Well lets think about it here:

If the market is deciding the value of the labor, the business looks at the pool of employees and tries to find the point where they get the best quality employee for the least amount of money. If we compare the relative pay of CEOs vs. lower level workers today to that of 50 years ago, we see that the CEO salary has gone up dramatically. If market forces were determining the CEO pay, then that increase could only be explained by one thing: the supply of good CEOs is lower relative to the demand by corporations.

Meanwhile, if we compare the pay of a CEO in this country to a CEO in other countries (Germany and Japan come to mind), then we find that our CEOs are being paid quite a bit more relative to the average worker than the German and Japanese CEOs. Once again, if market forces determining the value of labor are at work, that would mean that the Japanese and Germans have significantly more potential CEOs in their labor pool than we do, or that our best CEOs are worth multiple times that of theirs for some other reason.

Do you believe that these things are likely? That both over the past 50 years, and relative to other countries in the present, that the American CEO has just become such a rare and wondrous breed as to justify the relative pay?

Or is it more likely that a CEO's pay is determined by what he can milk out of a board of directors, and that the big fish sit on multiple boards and multiple companies and scratch each other's backs.

This is now the 7th time I've typed a version of this in response to you. You failed to respond the last six times I typed it out. As you claim you are here to correct us ignorant masses and educate us, would you mind responding this time?
 
2012-07-18 08:47:25 PM

AkaDad: When I was doing cocaine, I was always ready to take those 3 AM phone calls.


I see what you did there; nicely done.
 
2012-07-18 08:49:35 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: More_Like_A_Stain: Debeo Summa Credo: If you're so concerned about obfuscating history, were you similarly concerned about Obama's reluctance to release the long form gift certificate?

So it wasn't enough to hound the guy over his birth certificate, which no other President has ever had to provide. Now you want to see his gift certificates too? What's next?

Oh jebus cripes that's funny. D'oh!

FWIW I don't think he should have been hounded to provide his birth certificates or gift certificates. I recognize that he is constitutionally eligible to be president and I don't care either way whether Michelle and the girls are uncreative and lazy with the birthday and fathers day gifts they give him.


And they, in turn, probably don't hold it aginst you that you are fat, ugly, and unhygenic.
 
2012-07-18 09:18:05 PM
randomjsa (favorite: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): vernonFL: I heard Obama also knew Rev. Wright

I know my doctor. In as much as I go see him occasionally and chat it up while he figures out what's wrong with me and if I meet him in public we talk.

I don't hang out with him for 20 years, let him perform my wedding, and baptize my children, and then pretend like I had no idea what kind of person he was.

I know my friends that I've had for years. I know precisely what kind of people they are. Apparently Obama can't say the same thing.


img99.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-18 09:18:07 PM

theorellior: James F. Campbell: Magorn: I'm a little persnickety about my brain and haven't really wanted randomly fark with it, so I've always said no thanks.

This.

"That brain thing" is all I basically have in my favor.

I like to say my grip on reality is sweaty enough without indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals.


I hope you read this, because I mean it. Indulging in timed, controlled doses of quasi-reality (drugs) might actually be the best thing to help you understand what is and isn't real.
 
2012-07-18 09:31:46 PM

Felgraf: incendi: That's fine, and maybe a plus, if you can express that in a way that doesn't tend to alienate people. But the "people who have never smoked pot, not even once" subset of the population is getting mighty small these days, so the assumption, especially as you get towards the younger sets, is going to be that you're either lying or weird.

*Raises hand* I'm in the weird category: I suspect I'm one of the people that would become *amazingly paranoid* when high.

My reasoning for this is largely that I 'watch' the inside of my head, and my thoughts, a lot. (I think the word is metacognition? Thinking about thinking?). The few times I've gotten towards drunk, I've... well, started to feel my thoughts slow down, and that makes me intensely uncomfortable. So no pot for me.

/Should be legal, though.


Thinking about thinking, good stuff! But it's no reason to be afraid of yourself under the influence.

If you ever do decide to try anything then I have some advice I hope will help. It's possible to experience a drug in many different ways, including dosage. Try experimenting with tiny amounts first, to get accustomed to the feel of it. Amounts so little you only really notice it in your body. After that becomes comfortable THEN you can attempt to do more, to alter your mind. That's when you tackle the uncomfortableness of internal time distortion. Good times will be had.
 
2012-07-18 09:35:49 PM

jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: More_Like_A_Stain: Debeo Summa Credo: If you're so concerned about obfuscating history, were you similarly concerned about Obama's reluctance to release the long form gift certificate?

So it wasn't enough to hound the guy over his birth certificate, which no other President has ever had to provide. Now you want to see his gift certificates too? What's next?

Oh jebus cripes that's funny. D'oh!

FWIW I don't think he should have been hounded to provide his birth certificates or gift certificates. I recognize that he is constitutionally eligible to be president and I don't care either way whether Michelle and the girls are uncreative and lazy with the birthday and fathers day gifts they give him.

And they, in turn, probably don't hold it aginst you that you are fat, ugly, and unhygenic.


See, now that's unsporting. I am not fat.
 
2012-07-18 09:37:50 PM

heap: James F. Campbell:

How about "e) you didn't need drugs because you had sufficient intelligence and curiosity to keep you otherwise occupied"?

or F) you don't consider the intoxicants you have ingested to be drugs because of an arbitrary and goofy distinction

unless you've made it to this point in your life w/out having a beer, of course. in which case, it's your consciousness, you've got the right to do with it as you want - thing is, so does everybody else.


Or caffeine, even. It's hard to meet anyone who hasn't tried a soda or tea or coffee. Mind. Altering. Substance.
 
2012-07-18 09:48:13 PM

James F. Campbell: Actually, I was raised in a religious cult. My family converted to Jehovah's Witnesses when I was 5, but they left later. Though I long since became an atheist, it's been very hard to shake the strict religious attitudes they tried to brainwash me with. One of those attitudes was contempt for other people who aren't us -- and we're not the only social group who teaches that. (I also learned in Alice Miller's psychology books that contempt for others is usually the product of an abusive childhood, which I also had.) I bet I'm not the only one here who has ever looked down on others with contempt.

I've never "ratted someone out" because they used drugs. I'm liberal, and very broadly speaking, I believe that each person has a right to live as they wish, as long as they don't cause harm to others. I'm sorry for what I said earlier in the thread; it was wrong for me to assert that I'm better than you because I haven't used drugs.


Truly awesome. Props to you, JFC, for learning, and for being open and honest.
 
2012-07-18 09:50:19 PM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, of course CEO salaries are set by their market value. It's what they receive in the market!

So you don't understand what market forces are and how they operate. Got it. I'd accept this level of ignorance out of you if I and a dozen other people hadn't explained how CEO salaries are set a dozen times in a dozen threads and watched you conveniently skip the posts or leave.

Debeo Summa Credo: I've voted for Clinton, gore, Kerry and Obama

Sure you have. You spend 99% of your time in this forum talking one way and the remaining 1% tacking the economic equivalent of "I'm not a racist but" onto your posts.

Explain to me how the "market value of CEO salaries" is determined in your mind. What is the "market value", of say, Jamie Dimon?

And I talk 99% of the way one way in here because fark has transformed into a left wing circle jerk. When a right winger says something stupid, there are 20 of you clowns jumping in. But when left wingers make dumb misinformed comments there's few of us around to correct you and help you understand.

Well lets think about it here:

If the market is deciding the value of the labor, the business looks at the pool of employees and tries to find the point where they get the best quality employee for the least amount of money. If we compare the relative pay of CEOs vs. lower level workers today to that of 50 years ago, we see that the CEO salary has gone up dramatically. If market forces were determining the CEO pay, then that increase could only be explained by one thing: the supply of good CEOs is lower relative to the demand by corporations.

Meanwhile, if we compare the pay of a CEO in this country to a CEO in other countries (Germany and Japan come to mind), then we find that our CEOs are being paid quite a bit more relative to the average worker than the German and Japanese CEOs. Once again, if market forces determining the value of labor are at work, that would mean that the Japanese and Germans have significantly more potential CEOs in their labor pool than we do, or that our best CEOs are worth multiple times that of theirs for some other reason.

Do you believe that these things are likely? That both over the past 50 years, and relative to other countries in the present, that the American CEO has just become such a rare and wondrous breed as to justify the relative pay?

Or is it more likely that a CEO's pay is determined by what he can milk out of a board of directors, and that the big fish sit on multiple boards and multiple companies and scratch each other's backs.

This is now the 7th time I've typed a version of this in response to you. You failed to respond the last six times I typed it out. As you claim you are here to correct us ignorant masses and educate us, would you mind responding this time?


Do you honestly think that all board members are current CEOs of companies of which the CEO of the original company sits on the board?

I can't look into it now but let's consider JPM and Jamie Dimon, arch nemesis of the fark economic dipshiat crew. Does JpMs board consist primarily of other CEOs of companies on whose board Jamie Dimon sits?

Your conspiracy theory explanation is tiresome.
 
2012-07-18 09:55:42 PM

randomjsa: vernonFL: I heard Obama also knew Rev. Wright

I know my doctor. In as much as I go see him occasionally and chat it up while he figures out what's wrong with me and if I meet him in public we talk.

I don't hang out with him for 20 years, let him perform my wedding, and baptize my children, and then pretend like I had no idea what kind of person he was.

I know my friends that I've had for years. I know precisely what kind of people they are. Apparently Obama can't say the same thing.


I don't pass laws trying to define marriage based on my religion and an old meme accusing the wrong group of people of being child molesters. Neither does Obama. Can Rmoney say the same thing?
 
2012-07-18 10:00:11 PM

PsiChick: randomjsa: vernonFL: I heard Obama also knew Rev. Wright

I know my doctor. In as much as I go see him occasionally and chat it up while he figures out what's wrong with me and if I meet him in public we talk.

I don't hang out with him for 20 years, let him perform my wedding, and baptize my children, and then pretend like I had no idea what kind of person he was.

I know my friends that I've had for years. I know precisely what kind of people they are. Apparently Obama can't say the same thing.

I don't pass laws trying to define marriage based on my religion and an old meme accusing the wrong group of people of being child molesters. Neither does Obama. Can Rmoney say the same thing?


You should just be happy to have witnessed a rare sighting of the NA Dumbass.
 
2012-07-18 10:01:00 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Do you honestly think that all board members are current CEOs of companies of which the CEO of the original company sits on the board?


Where did I say that?
In fact, you'll note I did not say all boards are made up of CEOs only. I guess in theory you could take the term "big fish" and choose to interpret it as "CEOs and only CEOs" but that seems rather silly.

Debeo Summa Credo: Your conspiracy theory explanation is tiresome.


How could it tire you out? You ignored 80% of my post and turned the other 20% into a strawman. If that effort tires you out I suggest you check into getting disability of some kind.

Do you really honestly believe the marginal benefit of paying that extra million to a CEO (ie, that there isn't an equivalent brain available and willing to work for 80%, 70%, hell, 20%, of what a Dimon works for)? Do you truly believe they are the equivalent of the greatest of sports athletes in terms of rarity?


You accuse me of a conspiracy theory, though I don't see why. People help one another out on their level all the time. Mutual backscratching is hardly limited to the ultra wealthy, and I don't see why such behavior, present at all other economic levels for far smaller amounts of skimming money out of a system, is so unbelievable among the ultra wealthy.

Are you making the case that such behavior doesn't take place anywhere, that systems are in place at the ultra-wealthy level that prevent such behaviors, or that the ultra wealthy are so superior a class of people that they are beyond such ethical gray areas? Or some other option that you'd like to clarify - its hard to discuss something with you when you say so very little.
 
2012-07-18 10:19:14 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: I read somewhere that Romney did coffee when he was in France during the Vietnam War.


It was Folgers so it doesn't count
 
2012-07-18 10:20:46 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Wait, Obama sniffed cocaine? And he smoked a reefer??

And he drove drunk too.

WTF is with people getting upset about these petty things?

It's not like he's the guy running the war on drugs or anything.


I'n guessing you aren't aware of Bush's nose candy days
 
2012-07-18 10:26:54 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: More_Like_A_Stain: Debeo Summa Credo: If you're so concerned about obfuscating history, were you similarly concerned about Obama's reluctance to release the long form gift certificate?

So it wasn't enough to hound the guy over his birth certificate, which no other President has ever had to provide. Now you want to see his gift certificates too? What's next?

Oh jebus cripes that's funny. D'oh!

FWIW I don't think he should have been hounded to provide his birth certificates or gift certificates. I recognize that he is constitutionally eligible to be president and I don't care either way whether Michelle and the girls are uncreative and lazy with the birthday and fathers day gifts they give him.

And they, in turn, probably don't hold it aginst you that you are fat, ugly, and unhygenic.

See, now that's unsporting. I am not fat.


And you aren't really insufferably ugly either. But you've got to do something about that compost smell.
 
2012-07-18 10:31:46 PM

ManRay: Which prison sentence is longer...possession of cocaine or SEC fraud?


Well, Obama's black, you see?
 
2012-07-18 11:38:41 PM

jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: More_Like_A_Stain: Debeo Summa Credo: If you're so concerned about obfuscating history, were you similarly concerned about Obama's reluctance to release the long form gift certificate?

So it wasn't enough to hound the guy over his birth certificate, which no other President has ever had to provide. Now you want to see his gift certificates too? What's next?

Oh jebus cripes that's funny. D'oh!

FWIW I don't think he should have been hounded to provide his birth certificates or gift certificates. I recognize that he is constitutionally eligible to be president and I don't care either way whether Michelle and the girls are uncreative and lazy with the birthday and fathers day gifts they give him.

And they, in turn, probably don't hold it aginst you that you are fat, ugly, and unhygenic.

See, now that's unsporting. I am not fat.

And you aren't really insufferably ugly either. But you've got to do something about that compost smell.


Oh, hell no. I'm ugly as sin. If I could look only as bad as I smell I'd be much better off.
 
2012-07-18 11:45:42 PM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Do you honestly think that all board members are current CEOs of companies of which the CEO of the original company sits on the board?

Where did I say that?
In fact, you'll note I did not say all boards are made up of CEOs only. I guess in theory you could take the term "big fish" and choose to interpret it as "CEOs and only CEOs" but that seems rather silly.

Debeo Summa Credo: Your conspiracy theory explanation is tiresome.

How could it tire you out? You ignored 80% of my post and turned the other 20% into a strawman. If that effort tires you out I suggest you check into getting disability of some kind.

Do you really honestly believe the marginal benefit of paying that extra million to a CEO (ie, that there isn't an equivalent brain available and willing to work for 80%, 70%, hell, 20%, of what a Dimon works for)? Do you truly believe they are the equivalent of the greatest of sports athletes in terms of rarity?


You accuse me of a conspiracy theory, though I don't see why. People help one another out on their level all the time. Mutual backscratching is hardly limited to the ultra wealthy, and I don't see why such behavior, present at all other economic levels for far smaller amounts of skimming money out of a system, is so unbelievable among the ultra wealthy.

Are you making the case that such behavior doesn't take place anywhere, that systems are in place at the ultra-wealthy level that prevent such behaviors, or that the ultra wealthy are so superior a class of people that they are beyond such ethical gray areas? Or some other option that you'd like to clarify - its hard to discuss something with you when you say so very little.


I've said plenty. I've said that boards of directors pay market clearing rates for CEOs, getting the best value that they perceive for the companies they represent. I.e. market value. This is admittedly a simple, yet factual and self-evidential explanation, and one that doesn't require excessive elaboration. Alas I must apologize for my brevity.
 
2012-07-18 11:49:25 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I've said plenty. I've said that boards of directors pay market clearing rates for CEOs, getting the best value that they perceive for the companies they represent. I.e. market value. This is admittedly a simple, yet factual and self-evidential explanation, and one that doesn't require excessive elaboration. Alas I must apologize for my brevity.


You've said nothing, and ignored all of my points, except the one you twisted until it was a strawman.

Apology not excepted, but thank you for proving my point: you don't understand any of the things you discuss, and cover your ignorance by playing holier than thou and using recursive arguments.
 
2012-07-19 12:02:10 AM
Cocaine didn't keep George W. Bush out of the White House. Republicans have amazingly short memories when it comes to the idea that allowing something to happen sets a precedent.
 
2012-07-19 12:25:42 AM
coca ina
 
2012-07-19 12:59:23 AM

ImpendingCynic: Cocaine didn't keep George W. Bush out of the White House. Republicans have amazingly short memories when it comes to the idea that allowing something to happen sets a precedent.


My mom was just watching her favorite MSNBC show and mentioned the whole drug-use thing. My remark was that not only do they forget the last THREE PRESIDENTS admitted to college drug use (or later)...but that except for these oldsters NOBODY CARES. Even younger Republicans, if you got them alone, would probably a) admit they had done the same and b) that it really doesn't matter.

This is not 1950, and nobody believes that one puff of "the reefer" will turn you into a raving maniac and melt your brain. Except, apparently, the Rmoney campaign.
 
2012-07-19 02:45:26 AM
 
2012-07-19 02:46:26 AM

BunkoSquad: cameroncrazy1984: Reportedly, Mitt is REALLY into lecturing about substances, going so far as to report people for smoking pot on a beach.

Reporting? Or dressing like a cop and going down there with a nightstick? Just asking questions.


Questions that have actual answers

Mitt Romney used to dress up like a police officer and pull people over for fun
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/185728/nobody-seems-to-find-it-weird- m itt-romney-used-to-dress-up-like-a-police-officer-and-pull-people-over -for-fun
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/classmates-mitt-romney-im_n_ 1 575680.html

Mitt Romney is a narc
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/06/mitt-romney-once-harangued-a-neighb o r-fo
http://gawker.com/5916565
 
2012-07-19 03:03:27 AM

tooeasy: Fart_Machine: tooeasy: it'd be nice if Obama could run on his record, rather than slandering the other guy. having said that, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him

/needs to appoint brooksley bourne and elisabeth warren to the cabinet, and get rid of rubin and summers as advisors
//actually find the clinton dlc people to be worse than republicans

How does anything here count as slander?

Well, to treat Romney as the guy beholden to special interests and Wall Street money when your chief financial advisers are Geithner, Rubin, and Summers sounds as hypocritical as is possible, since all of those guys were instrumental in the repeal of Glass Steagall, and the lack of regulation of the derivatives market, and they all profited from their position, while the American public got fleeced. If Obama wanted to run a clean treasury det, he'dhaveappointed Voelker (but that would have endangered his re-election prospects


So you don't understand what the word slander means.
 
2012-07-19 06:07:41 AM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: I've said plenty. I've said that boards of directors pay market clearing rates for CEOs, getting the best value that they perceive for the companies they represent. I.e. market value. This is admittedly a simple, yet factual and self-evidential explanation, and one that doesn't require excessive elaboration. Alas I must apologize for my brevity.

You've said nothing, and ignored all of my points, except the one you twisted until it was a strawman.

Apology not excepted, but thank you for proving my point: you don't understand any of the things you discuss, and cover your ignorance by playing holier than thou and using recursive arguments.


Dude, there's no point in addressing all of your points because they are so farking retarded.

Could someone else take Dimon's job for 80%, 70%, or 20% of what Dimon makes?
Sure, but the board has to make the decision, under their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, as
to whether the savings from a cheaper CEO would benefit shareholders. Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in
quality of the CEO. You don't think that having the best guy (in the estimation of the board) possible in charge of this huge bank is worth $18m more per year to shareholders than some random executive thats in, say, the top 30? The board does.

Conversely, if the board thought
Lloyd Blankfein or Hank Paulson would be better CEOs, they could jack the comp to say $75m to try to lure those guys from goldman/retirement.

That's how it works. That is the very definition of market value of CEO pay.

I'm sorry that envy and jealously blinds you to this objective reality, and that you think some sort of "scratch my back" mentality is the determinant of CEO pay.
 
2012-07-19 07:36:41 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: . Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in quality of the CEO.


Oh how ADORABLE. A true believer!

/this is what conservatives actually believe!
 
2012-07-19 08:43:20 AM

TalenLee: ManRay: Which prison sentence is longer...possession of cocaine or SEC fraud?

Well, Obama's black, you see?



He's also rich.

It could break either way.
 
2012-07-19 09:06:39 AM

bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: . Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in quality of the CEO.

Oh how ADORABLE. A true believer!

/this is what conservatives actually believe!


Conservatives and independents and intellegent moderate liberals, like myself. Clueless dopes think boards and shareholders hand out multimillion dollar compensation packages to CEOs just for lulz, after all Bob from accounting could easily do just as good a job.
 
2012-07-19 09:06:46 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Could someone else take Dimon's job for 80%, 70%, or 20% of what Dimon makes?
Sure, but the board has to make the decision, under their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, as
to whether the savings from a cheaper CEO would benefit shareholders. Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in
quality of the CEO. You don't think that having the best guy (in the estimation of the board) possible in charge of this huge bank is worth $18m more per year to shareholders than some random executive thats in, say, the top 30? The board does.


Of course the fact that Dimon outright LIED to the investors about the massive trading losses that occurred under his watch in order to maintain his pay and position is immaterial. He clearly deserves every penny he gate and probably even more.
 
2012-07-19 10:26:24 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: . Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in quality of the CEO.

Oh how ADORABLE. A true believer!

/this is what conservatives actually believe!

Conservatives and independents and intellegent moderate liberals, like myself. Clueless dopes think boards and shareholders hand out multimillion dollar compensation packages to CEOs just for lulz, after all Bob from accounting could easily do just as good a job.


Because there is no potential for market distortion in a situation where the corporatist class sets each others' salaries, amirite?

/end tone of irony.
 
2012-07-19 10:40:27 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, there's no point in addressing all of your points because they are so farking retarded.


So to put it simply, you got nothin'.
 
2012-07-19 10:42:07 AM

bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: . Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in quality of the CEO.

Oh how ADORABLE. A true believer!

/this is what conservatives actually believe!

Conservatives and independents and intellegent moderate liberals, like myself. Clueless dopes think boards and shareholders hand out multimillion dollar compensation packages to CEOs just for lulz, after all Bob from accounting could easily do just as good a job.

Because there is no potential for market distortion in a situation where the corporatist class sets each others' salaries, amirite?

/end tone of irony.


Every board member will put the company ahead of themselves and their own interests. Only liberals and union members would ever put their own salary and benefit interests ahead of the corporations, because they don't understand that corporations are people.
 
2012-07-19 11:31:01 AM

bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: bugontherug: Debeo Summa Credo: . Sure, they could save $18m by firing dimon and
promoting some senior md to lead the firm but just pay $4m They could also promote the janitor and save even more, but they have to estimate whether the $18m or whatever they save in salary is worth the decline in quality of the CEO.

Oh how ADORABLE. A true believer!

/this is what conservatives actually believe!

Conservatives and independents and intellegent moderate liberals, like myself. Clueless dopes think boards and shareholders hand out multimillion dollar compensation packages to CEOs just for lulz, after all Bob from accounting could easily do just as good a job.

Because there is no potential for market distortion in a situation where the corporatist class sets each others' salaries, amirite?

/end tone of irony.


Whether the market value is distorted or not, it is the market value, and if the board of XYZ Corp decided to offer a CEO $1m per year instead of the $10m per year that is in line with the market, they'd be forced to take a second or third stringer.

The question is not whether the $10m guy is ten times smarter or works ten times harder than the $1m guy - that's irrelevant. It is whether he is worth an additional $9m per year to the company.
 
2012-07-19 11:40:26 AM
As someone who has done blow, I'm getting a key, I mean bump I mean kick.
 
2012-07-22 02:29:12 AM
"It is estimated that about two million people are cocaine addicts in the United States, and that between 22 and 25 million people have used cocaine at least once." - Source

Furthermore, it's estimated that 22% of Americans use illegal drugs on a regular basis.

Sorry, folks, but you're in the minority here. The vast majority of Americans have not tried cocaine. I hope Fark Historians look back at this thread and scratch their heads in wonder at the absurdity of someone being attacked because he had the temerity to assert that someone who doesn't use drugs is smarter than someone who does. It's puzzling that so few people spoke up in favor of not doing drugs -- but I suppose they were too afraid of being mobbed and shouted down by the Fark cokehead/genius squad.

Responses to stupid posts:

Well let's see. Bush Jr did coke, and Obama has as well. And i wouldn't doubt that Clinton too, although he would never admit it. I bet most of those in congress has as well. I would certainly say vast majority of those on Wall Street definitely has. I use to work with doctors, and the pharmaceutical reps took them to strip clubs and provided them with coke. So i would have to say that most upper class folks, white or black, probably have done coke.

I'd like to note that all these positions you named -- politicians, doctors, and executives -- have long been known to attract the worst sorts of society, people who are mentally disturbed and worse in control of the lives of others: pathological liars, control freaks, narcissists, and psychopaths. This is a terrible, terrible way to defend your drug use. Neurotypicals have every right to fear and hate these destructive, mentally disturbed people, unless you're claiming that they're superior to us because they're mentally disturbed (in addition to being superior, apparently, because of their class status and drug use, which you seem to think are necessarily related).

and finally - the problem remains not with you not taking drugs, it is with you claiming everyone that does or has lacks "intelligence and curiosity". Ironically you're not demonstrating a lot of that yourselv.

I think I am, sweetie pie. (I could barely make sense of your illiterate posts, by the way.) While everyone in this thread has died of a stroke, heart attack, or overdose from their extended concaine use -- or perhaps they'll simply suffer the rest of their shortened lives from the neurologically-damaging effects from their drug use; I'd be happy with that as well -- I'll be still alive, in good health, and living a very smug and happy life. I hardly think I am the one who is stupid for not using drugs.

No, you're just a goody-two shoes who believes that people of low intellect need drugs to stay occupied.

You know who else needs drugs to keep themselves occupied? Psychopaths. They lack affect, which means their inner life is so dead, they constantly suffer from excruciating boredom which they mitigate through drugs, alcohol, or other high-risk activities. Boy, you guys sure are in good company. There's a reason drugs are a "high-risk activity," after all, and that risk will bite you on the ass sooner or later.

Anyway, I hope all of you who use drugs do permanent damage to yourselves. The fewer of you there are, the less competition I will have in the future. So, please -- do all the drugs you want.

Do all the drugs you want.
 
Displayed 37 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report