HYPOCRISY
Rant
17.1.97 16:31 Democracy of dollars.
17.1.97 16:57 Give someone a job.
17.1.97 17:04 Non-economic barriers.
17.1.97 17:20 A piece of the action.
17.1.97 17:31 Managing dim bulbs.
17.1.97 18:11 Soviet corruption.
19.1.97 00:26 The next generation proves itself.
19.1.97 17:07 Salary and quality.
19.1.97 17:14 Success and probability.
19.1.97 17:41 Price controls.
19.1.97 17:51 Consumer control.
20.1.97 08:43 Doing the *real* work.
20.1.97 15:00 Wealth and natural resources.
21.1.97 Doctors vs. HMOs.
22.1.97 16:52 Find the next stock market trend.
22.1.97 17:07 Speculation and parachuting.
22.1.97 17:41 A better mousetrap.
23.1.97 12:23 The rich are better.
23.1.97 22:51 Skill and gumption.
23.1.97 22:54 Who makes decisions?
24.1.97 Boys with excessive egos.
25.1.97 11:24 Choosing products and politicians.
25.1.97 13:24 Equality among the powerless.
25.1.97 13:31 Capitalist education.
27.1.97 14:15 A real choice.
27.1.97 14:21 Push around land deeds.
27.1.97 14:33 Food and mink.
27.1.97 14:47 Who does the real work.
27.1.97 15:13 Freedom of choice.
27.1.97 15:21 Picasso or production?
27.1.97 15:34 Power vs. wealth.
27.1.97 15:39 Size and corruption.
27.1.97 15:49 Cower in rightful poverty.
27.1.97 15:54 Lotto and stock.
27.1.97 16:03 Mercedes, Yugos, and education.
28.1.97 21:58 Golf and welfare checks.
28.1.97 22:04 Take another look.
28.1.97 22:15 Dripping with technology.
28.1.97 22:21 Eating at Chez Panise.
28.1.97 22:29 Consumers and taxpayers.
28.1.97 22:38 Myriad of choices.
28.1.97 22:46 Production through check writing.
30.1.97 16:11 Speculation and production.
30.1.97 16:24 Prices across the board.
30.1.97 16:30 Jobs vs. balloons.
30.1.97 16:44 Along for the ride.
30.1.97 17:06 Force, taxes, and more force.
3.2.97 20:10 Your own damn fault.
3.2.97 20:22 Anything he damn well pleases.
3.2.97 20:28 A lot more heads.
3.2.97 20:40 Collusion and contributions.
3.2.97 20:49 Taxes vs. charity.
3.2.97 21:41 Hookers in a bath.
3.2.97 21:58 Ownership and laziness.
3.2.97 22:03 Telling wafer-makers to make wafers.
3.2.97 22:07 Acquiring stolen TVs.
3.2.97 22:16 Lives in his hand.
3.2.97 22:21 Real representatives.
3.2.97 22:27 Or the rich will be powerful.
4.2.97 The capitalist motto.
6.2.97 16:36 Random perversions.
6.2.97 16:43 No new taxes.
6.2.97 16:52 Why advanced technology?
6.2.97 17:03 Snipers and Kungfu.
6.2.97 17:23 Digging up dirt.
6.2.97 17:36 Citizens vs. employees.
6.2.97 17:46 Entrenching the rich.
6.2.97 17:54 Rule by starvation.
6.2.97 18:03 Selling your soul.
6.2.97 18:12 Who makes the decisions.
6.2.97 18:17 Republic vs. democracy.
6.2.97 18:24 Lobbying teachers.
10.2.97 20:14 Legions of lawyers.
10.2.97 20:28 One dollar one vote.
10.2.97 20:40 You have neither.
10.2.97 20:58 Instead of lowering prices.
12.2.97 Too damn expensive.
13.2.97 17:03 Third world essentials.
13.2.97 17:10 Life is unfair.
19.2.97 Golden parachutes.
20.2.97 17:10 Go to the third world.
20.2.97 17:15 Claim it as their own.
20.2.97 17:37 Spaceships and totalitarianism.
20.2.97 17:43 The richer person is richer.
24.2.97 20:33 Organized corruption.
24.2.97 22:52 Marketing to students.
24.2.97 22:57 An economy or an abortion?
27.2.97 14:49 It's too damn expensive.
27.2.97 15:03 Make that deed official.
27.2.97 15:31 A billion monkeys.
4.3.97 If the answer is muskets.
6.3.97 15:27 Proof of bullets.
6.3.97 15:38 Because of simple inefficiency.
6.3.97 15:55 Other people's brows.
6.3.97 16:09 Knowledge is property.
13.3.97 14:08 Coffee breaks and office supplies.
13.3.97 14:37 Symptom relievers.
13.3.97 17:08 Really their money.
20.3.97 Who's blood?
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,misc.health.aids,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:59:40 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > It depends on your definition of communist and capitalist.
> I use the dictionary definition. Which ones do you use?
Do you use the dictionary produced by capitalism or the one
produced by communism? If you compare them, you will get
quite a different view of each one.
> > The only reason anybody at all can "claim"
> > to own it is because of coercion. You own your effort and
> > thought, but nothing that went into it.
> Well, you are beginning to understand the nature of the world
> and the nature of humanity. Now the question becomes "what
> do you suggest we do about it?"
When the Founding Fathers (TM) set about this experiment
in democracy, they knew they had to set it loose at one
point, losing all control of this democratic monster.
Worried? You bet they were. THAT is why they established
the Bill of Rights. They were confident that IF freedom of
expression could be guaranteed, there would be absolutely
nothing to worry about. REAL freedom of expression isn't
just being able to open your mouth. It's being able to
tell others of your opinions. REAL freedom of expression
not only precludes violence and coercion, it also precludes
the death penalty AND silent imprisonment.
What has happened since that time is that REAL freedom of
expression has been lost. Those in power always want to
stay in power, whether they're rich, poor, the majority,
whatever. So they regulate it away with whatever means
available to them. THAT is why new ideas can no longer
spread, because they are drowned out by old ideas. THAT is
what is holding us ALL back.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:43:41 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Roy Lemons wrote:
> Who's blood? What are you talking about? Who is stealing land and
> killing people in the process?
It has already happened. If I just stole your TV, do I
have to return it? What if I stole your TV 5 years ago?
500 years ago? The point isn't even that land was ever
stolen from one person in the first place. Land simply
exists. You can only prevent someone from having access
to land by using violence. You own your ideas and effort,
none of the resources that went into it.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:08:21 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Tim Reed wrote:
> OF course consumers do all the paying, thats the definition of a
> consumer. And naturally workers do all the working, thats the defintion
> of a worker. And why shouldn't shareholders get money back from their
> investment? It is their money that is being risked in the venture.
Is it REALLY their money? If I arbitrarily fenced off a piece
of land and used muskets to guard it, is it REALLY my land?
If I give that land to my son, is it REALLY his land? If I
only let you farm "my" land if you pay me $50/day, is that
REALLY my money? If I use that money taken from the farmer
to buy new equipment, is it REALLY my equipment?
It's time to re-evaluate property itself. Anything that
can be used for production is a good thing and must not be
destroyed - from land, to machines, to human lives. The
use of such resources benefit all of society, and it is
society that owes the debt in return. It is time to put
an end to all secrets and lies. It is time to use all
information to benefit the world, and it is time for the
world as a whole to reward the producers of that
information.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,misc.health.aids,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:37:30 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > The effort of machines is free.
> 1. Who builds machines?
> 2. Where does the energy come from to make them
> work?
> 3. Who repairs them when they fail?
> 4. Who supplies the capital (there's that word again!)
> to facilitate their initial creation?
1. People who build machines.
2. People who drill for oil or run power plants.
3. Repairmen.
4. And here is the main sticking point: Land ownership comes
about by violent conquest. This conquest is what enables
capitalists to take advantage of people who want to eat
and make MORE capital. So much of capital is stolen that
it is impossible to figure just where it all belongs.
Here's a something new to consider: when you've come up
with a new idea or created a new tool, what happens? If
it can be used to help all of society, then all of society
benefits. The debt is owed by society. But under
capitalism, there is no mechanism for such "shared"
resources. So if I invent a drug that cures AIDS, it
would be much better to keep that secret, while continuing
to sell "sympton relievers". This is why there is still
malaria in Africa. Malaria drugs keep people employed.
Capitalist inefficiency - will we ever be rid of it?
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:08:13 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Charles D. Standley wrote:
> > Welfare is not desirable for the creation of an educated
> > public. (Public education is). Welfare is vital because
> > someone will always be denied his right to resources
> > either because of coercion or because of simple
> > inefficiency.
> True, but we must be careful of who we give welfare (an addictive drug) to!
> Far to many people manipulate the system, and abuse it. We are no better off
> today with the creation of welfare, than before it's conception in worse
> economic times! When people are forced to provide for themself, most can and
> do!
People take advantage of a system when they feel they don't
own it. The reason employees take long coffee breaks or
steal office supplies is because they feel the company does
not belong to them. Corporate democracy isn't the only
solution. Those on welfare will also have to be EDUCATED
until they can find a job, no matter how long that takes.
If they can't find a job, then obviously, they are not
needed yet, so KEEP teaching them. If the economic system
were truly open to ANYBODY with a good idea, then scholars
would actually be trying to learn, instead of feeling like
knowledge will get them nowhere except under the thumb of
a venture capitalist.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 16:09:08 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > And fiscal conservatives recognize that it is not enough, or
> > they wouldn't be demanding better education for rich kids.
> > But it is only because of competition that knowledge is
> > hoarded jealously, instead of universally shared so that
> > it can be used to produce more new knowledge...
> Anyway, new knowledge has not always been regarded as property.
> Certainly it was not in the Enlightenment era. Can anyone give me an
> analysis about how and why this has changed and whether the change is a
> good thing or not?
Whether knowledge is property or not, is the difference
between competition and cooperation. In a competitive
society, no one has any incentive to produce knowledge,
except for personal profit, and thus copyright and patent
laws have been passed. In a cooperative society,
everyone has incentive to produce knowledge because it
is used to improve society as a whole, to help end
disease, to make all products better, to help everyone
survive the next natural disaster. It is cooperation
that puts elephants in herds, birds in flocks, and
bees in hives, wolves in packs, and humans in
civilization.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:55:58 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > > > The Present is a race between competition and cooperation.
> > > Is it impossible for you to acknowledge that there is
> > > middle ground between these positions, and that in general,
> > > we currently occupy that middle ground?
> > We occupy the middle ground far too close to the capitalist
> > competition side, mainly because wealthy capitalists
> > manipulate the government.
> There could be another explanation. To wit, the system that
> has developed here works. Perfectly? No. Perfection and
> humanity are non-intersecting sets. But so far, no other
> system has shown the resiliance that capitalism has.
It's not capitalism that works. It's democracy. Democracy
is what forces capitalists to give up a portion of what
they took from their workers and consumers in the first
place, and give it back to society. Democracy is what
forced corporations to give up on child labor so that
mandatory child education could work. But this country
is held back, because democracy is held back, because
capitalists have perverted it with campaign contributions
and legions of lobbyists.
> > Our current welfare is not enough.
> Sigh. Just what we need, more money to allow people to
> live of the sweat of other people's brows!
And that includes venture capitalists. The poor
wouldn't have to "live off the sweat of other people's
brows" if there weren't anyone to prevent them from using
existing resources to make a living. Welfare is only
the tip of the iceberg. Education is what's really
needed. Because THAT is what's going to bring efficiency
and access to new resources. (Of course, to a capitalist,
more education just means more competition for themselves.
Which is why fiscal conservatives fight education for
the poor.)
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:38:52 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> Ah, once again the offer of free stuff rears its ugly
> head. So are you still interested in building Bob's
> new house for free? Will you provide for me free of
> charge that new cancer drug that cost a billion dollars
> to develop? Where is the line drawn, "cyu?"
The effort of machines is free. That is, it would be, if
capitalists didn't hire goons to stand around and prevent
anyone else from taking what those machines produced. All
raw materials are free. That is, they would be, if
capitalists didn't hire goons to stand around and prevent
anyone else from harvesting those raw materials without
their permission. The product of your own labor and your
own thought is yours. That is, it would be, if capitalists
didn't hire goons to stand around and force you to hand
over a portion of everything you produced.
Welfare is not desirable for the creation of an educated
public. (Public education is). Welfare is vital because
someone will always be denied his right to resources
either because of coercion or because of simple
inefficiency.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:27:59 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Joel wrote:
> Food costs money because it takes land, labour and
> equipment to grow food. Even in your socialist utopia,
> food would cost money. Do you really think an agricultural
> cooperative will give away its product?
Consumers do all the paying. Workers do all the working.
And who is in between? Shareholders. Why? Because
they use force to prevent ANYONE from even getting close
to "their" land and equipment, without forking over a
portion of everything they produce. They do so because
they have the guns. They do so because their grandfather
had the guns. They do so because they conquer, they kill.
And then they go out and buy equipment with the sweat of
their employees. A deed is nothing more than proof that
the writer of that deed had more bullets than everyone
else.
-------
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are
punished. ....unless they kill in large numbers and
to the sound of trumpets. --Voltaire
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:56:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> This is what the system of property brings to us: limits as
> to what is and what is NOT our business. With these limits
> my neighbor need not seek my approval for his choice of
> rose
Surely someone else's choice of a rose is not my business.
But what IS my business is MY property. MY property
includes what I can produce with my own labor. But how
much of that belongs to my employer? If my employer made
available to me resources I could not have obtained
otherwise, then I owe my employer that much. But if an
employer DENIES me resources, then the question must be
asked WHO owns those resources. If the answer is whoever
had the most muskets, then the answer is wrong.
And because someone is always being DENIED resources, even
if it's a matter of efficiency and not coercion, then
welfare MUST be provided for everyone who is prevented
from making a living, and education SHOULD be provided
if we are to ever find new resources or better ways to
use our current ones.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:31:04 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > The Present is a race between competition and cooperation.
> > Either you take your neighbor's job, drive him into the dirt,
> > and get rich yourself, or you spend some of your earnings so
> > that he might learn how to build a spaceship, or cure AIDS.
> > Why should you? Because by taking away his job, you have
> > deprived him of the right to produce wealth from the same
> > resources.
> Is it impossible for you to acknowledge that there is
> middle ground between these positions, and that in general,
> we currently occupy that middle ground?
We occupy the middle ground far too close to the capitalist
competition side, mainly because wealthy capitalists
manipulate the government. Our current welfare is not enough.
And fiscal conservatives recognize that it is not enough, or
they wouldn't be demanding better education for rich kids.
But it is only because of competition that knowledge is
hoarded jealously, instead of universally shared so that
it can be used to produce more new knowledge... even if it's
just a billion monkeys typing on a billion typewriters...
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:03:02 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > There's simply no incentive to ever make it
> > free, because that would just mean 0 profit. And besides,
> > if our food producers actually fed the rest of the
> > population for free, they might actually go off and
> > produce the Industrial Revolution or something. God forbid
> > that they might actually go to school and come up
> > with new technology that would make food even easier to
> > produce.
> You're raving. So who's going to pay the farmers for growing
> all this free food? So are you arguing that in the communist
> states that food was free? What is it that you are espousing?
Only a capitalist sees profit around every corner.
Technology has enabled one person to feed many for
centuries. Why do farmers keep doing that? Aren't
they wasting their effort if all they need to feed
are their own families? The answer is that in any
society, workers are willing to exchange the products
of their labor for the products of other people's labor.
The more technology there is, the more "free" labor is
produced. However, technology, like land, is just
another resource. Technology deserves to be rewarded,
land does not. Capitalists steal a share of both the
reward of farmers and of scientists by pointing to a
land deed... written in the blood of everyone they had to
kill to make that deed official.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:49:41 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > The irony is that you still don't see why, even with all
> > our touted technology, food costs more here than there.
> Food costs more here than there? Piffle. As a percentage
> of income, food in the US is CHEAP!
And why should it cost anything at all? Capitalism is why.
Think about it, is a country as advanced as we are more
able to feed all its citizens, or a country in with almost
no technology. The answer is obvious. And yet, we don't
because "it's too damn expensive". Only capitalists deny
that the industrial revolution ever happened.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:57:27 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Quite like how we vote for representatives in a republic,
> > no? If representatives can fail to plan an economy,
> > they can also fail to plan a justice system. If they
> > fail to give us decent justice, we impeach them. If they
> > fail to give us decent raw materials, we impeach them.
> But politicians weren't meant to plan economies here.
> If so, the Constitution would have a requirement that only
> economists would qualify for public office.
Citizens have a right to have a say in anything that
affects their lives. That's why democracies are formed.
If an economy doesn't affect your life, then what does?
An abortion? (Only if you're pregnant, honey.)
If you're going to argue that our Constitution is
complete, why not also argue our Constitution was
complete before the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:52:07 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Exactly. They were hardly socialists, or they would've
> > actually been as rich (or poor) as their citizens. They
> > *claimed* to be socialists for the same reason George Bush
> > promised "no new taxes" -- to get in power.
> But the dicatators listed above believed in a centrally
> planned economy with almost zero flexibility for individual
> planning. They just tried to force people to work within
> this system rather than hope that everybody would do'it
> voluntarily. That ain't gonna happen.
Exactly. Force by neither hunger nor guns is going to
get you very productive workers. But if you gave them
100% of what they produced, with no "taxes" from either
their government nor their employer, then they will be
far more productive. But since you can't guarantee
that everyone will have equal rights to the same resources,
then you do need a tax to support those who lost their
rights to equal resources.
> > Socialism is not possible without democracy, and democracy is not
> > possible without socialism.
> What kind of democracy are you talking about? If you're talking
> about one such as what ours once was (a republic with limited
> government and rights of people protected from majority rule),
> then you're wrong, for it worked well without socialism.
It may or may not work "well", but it still won't be a
democracy if the rich have more say in government than
the poor simply because of the cost of marketing. And it is
with this marketing that capitalists have managed to convince
so many generations of students that land can be owned,
that land can be conquered, that land can be inherited.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:33:30 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Tell me this, does your manager or your politician have power
> > over your life?
> Yes, thanks to democracy gone wild.
Hardly. They have power over your life simply because they
have more money. They manipulate how much you earn. They
manipulate elections. They have power over your life
because they have power over the press.
> Example: drug laws. More than
> 50% of the people favor the war on drugs, therefore there are
> paramilitary raids, often leading to deaths of innocent people,
> carried out on behalf of those who support this insanity. Ah, now
> you see the point of a democracy don't you?
Simple ignorance. It's not even the deaths of innocents that's
important here. It's the fact that when both client and "victim"
are willing participants, it leads to corruption and organized
corruption at that - which is far more dangerous than a single
lone criminal. In a way, the providers of drugs, prostitution,
and gambling are the ultimate example of capitalist competition.
Capitalist governments are so intent on competing with any
threats to their power that they lose sight of what can be
gained by "collusion" - peace and regulated quality / safety.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:43:21 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > > But they will always be poorER than a rich man of the
> > > same ability.
> Why should this relative comparison matter? The richer person is
> richer because someone else provided the leg up for them--their
> parents or similar source.
The richer person is richer because someone along the line
killed another person for land and resources. The richer
person is richer because someone along the line took advantage
of another person who was hungry, and took away half of what
that employee produced. (He was able to do so because that
employee couldn't get around the barbed wire placed around
fertile soil.)
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:37:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Joseph Ryan Schembrie wrote:
> Everyone starves. Except in America, where people become wealthier than
> they ever have in the history of the human race. And attribute it to
> progressive labor union legislation.
> Now suppose it's the twenty-first century. A prosperous man builds a
> business in America. The government taxes him to distribute his
> 'undeserved' wealth to the 'needy' (ie bums with lots of votes).
> The prosperous man moves to the Moon . . . when we have the technology.
> The Present is a race between spaceships and totalitarianism. Right now
> totalitarianism has the inside track.
The Present is a race between competition and cooperation.
Either you take your neighbor's job, drive him into the dirt,
and get rich yourself, or you spend some of your earnings so
that he might learn how to build a spaceship, or cure AIDS.
Why should you? Because by taking away his job, you have
deprived him of the right to produce wealth from the same
resources.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:15:33 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > It is because ADM wants a cut. Trucking companies want a
> > cut. Highway systems want a cut. Fuel and maintenance
> > providers want a cut. Warehouses want a cut. Retailers
> > want a cut. By the time it finally reaches your dinner
> > table, every capitalist along the way has raised the
> > price.
> But Mr. Beetlebrow, you left out ALL of the TAXES that
> government has added to the price. The government wants
> *its* cut most of all, and has the power to jail or kill
> you if you don't go along.
Yes indeed the government too wants a cut. It taxes us as
much as the "owner" of that land taxes us for growing food
on it, for driving our trucks over it, for building a
warehouse or agricultural lab on it. Natural resources
are created by nature, but capitalists claim it as their
own.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:10:37 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Chapman wrote:
> >It is because ADM wants a cut. Trucking companies want a
> >cut. Highway systems want a cut. Fuel and maintenance
> >providers want a cut. Warehouses want a cut. Retailers
> >want a cut. By the time it finally reaches your dinner
> >table, every capitalist along the way has raised the
> >price. But this isn't why food is in short supply, it's
> >why even the most basic essentials in our country are
> >so much more expensive than they are in third world
> >countries.
> Great. Go to the third world. Mexico isn't too far away... I hope
> you enjoy the fine standard of living the 3rd world has to offer.
The irony is that you still don't see why, even with all
our touted technology, food costs more here than there.
Why it should cost anything at all. In a nation where
"hungry children" could be fed & educated on $.50 a day,
they don't even have paved roads. The reason that we
can't achieve that price for food in this country despite
science is simple: rampant capitalism.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:09:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Who better to know what the customer wants than the customers
> > themselves?
> Exactly, Mr. Hob-Nob. And producers do just that.
Producers do not do just that. Producers do what upper management
says to do -- which can mean anything from higher prices, to lower
employee pay, to more useless features. If consumers had control,
you can bet they won't have the same priorities. And no ex-exec
is going to be flying away with a golden parachute.
> > > Thanks for admitting that the welfare state is
> > > a control mechanism and has nothing to do with altruism.
> > Here are your alternatives:
> > 1. Spend lots more on sticks to create a police state, with
> > the country's poor living in resentment and fear.
> > 2. Spend lots more on carrots to teach and to enable the poor
> > to produce as many products as the rich.
> But you're all prepared to use sticks and police to enforce your
> own so-called "good ideas".
It's called a democracy. Maybe you've heard of it? It means
at least 50% agree to do something before it gets done, not
the richest 20%. Sure 49% may be hurt in the process, but
at least that's less than 80%.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:10:55 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > The point is that a poor man, no matter how smart he is, must
> > always rely on someone else to make any money. And that someone
> > else usually won't do it for free. But if you're rich, you've
> > already got half the battle won.
> So the poor man must form a relation with someone
> having skills and resources he lacks, so what? That
> isn't keep the man poor.
But they will always be poorER than a rich man of the
same ability. Say winter is coming. Two builders of
equal skill start to build homes. One builder starts
with a house already half done, and the other starts
with nothing. Sure they will both eventually finish --
that is if the cold doesn't first kill off the guy
who actually has to build an entire house...
I bet your next argument is going to be: "That's
because life is unfair. Live with it."
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:03:32 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > Maybe it's because food comes right after oxygen and water
> > when it comes to survival. Maybe it's because more people
> > need food than bridges. Maybe it's because more people need
> > a warm place to sleep than a space shuttle (unless they get
> > to sleep in the space shuttle of course...)
> From what I understand of the problem with poor nutrition
> in the world, it's not a problem of total food supply but
> of transportation. Maybe those "bridges" are important after
> all.
It is because ADM wants a cut. Trucking companies want a
cut. Highway systems want a cut. Fuel and maintenance
providers want a cut. Warehouses want a cut. Retailers
want a cut. By the time it finally reaches your dinner
table, every capitalist along the way has raised the
price. But this isn't why food is in short supply, it's
why even the most basic essentials in our country are
so much more expensive than they are in third world
countries.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:19:21 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> purchasing goods and services. Example: consumers can choose their
> own form of transportation (jitney, unregulated cab, town car, mini-bus,
> etc) without politicians choosing the expensive monopoly *for* them.
The difference is, instead of consumers voting for a cheaper
Model T Ford, consumers have to keep waiting around until
someone actually puts out a cheaper Model T Ford.
> > They deserve their
> > right to buy politicians. They deserve their right to say whatever
> > they want in any media. And, of course, they deserve to rule the
> > economy, despite the fact that their employees do all the work and
> > their customers do all the paying.
> So, are you admitting that *the rich* maintain the welfare state?
> Thanks for admitting this. We always knew that it was actually a
> *control* mechanism, not an altruistic program.
Of course it's a control mechanism. How else are we going
to stop the rabble from revolting? Actually give them a
good enough education that they could provide for themselves?
I think not. That would be too damn expensive.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:58:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Duh... could it be money? Nah. Why, just yesterday, I wanted
> > to build me a skyscraper. Trouble is, for some reason, I
> > didn't have any concrete, steel beams, or whatever other
> > raw materials go into them darn things. I don't know why
> > not. It just can't be the fact that I only had $20 in my
> > pocket.
> I really doubt that we are one skyscraper short because you lacked the
> funds to build it.
We're also not one Space Shuttle short because I lacked the funds
to build it. We are instead short on food and short on housing.
Why? Because there's no reason for producers to glut the market
if all it will do is lower prices. And there's no reason for
investors to start new ventures in an industry, if all it will do
is lower prices. So instead of lowering prices, they invest in
young markets, like DVD and male-pattern baldness, hoping the
prices are as high as possible.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:40:21 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > Exactly. They were hardly socialists, or they would've
> > actually been as rich (or poor) as their citizens. They
> > *claimed* to be socialists for the same reason George Bush
> > promised "no new taxes" -- to get in power.
> Ah, so socialism will work as soon as you find a country in which
> nobody wants more than they have and nobody wants power over anyone
> else's life. When you find a country like that, please let
> us know.
Socialism will work as soon as you find a country in which
everyone gets the same shot at having more than they have and
the same shot at having power over anyone else's life. It's
called a democracy - both politically and economically -
because if you try to achieve political democracy by
sacrificing economic democracy, you will have neither.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:28:37 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
mikar@iu.net wrote:
> > > So the people voting = "centrally planned"?
> But we already vote for how the economy should be run. The voting form is known
> as a "dollar". Every person gets as many votes as they have dollars.
Exactly. So the rich deserve to be more powerful. They deserve their
right to buy politicians. They deserve their right to say whatever
they want in any media. And, of course, they deserve to rule the
economy, despite the fact that their employees do all the work and
their customers do all the paying.
--------
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:14:40 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
mikar@iu.net wrote:
> > > Capitalism hurts innovation because the poor
> > > are not ready to risk their savings on new ideas.
> But all it takes is a patent, and the poor can produce as many ideas as they
> like, and have them protected by the government for a limited time (one of the
> few services that government actually provides that it is constitutionally
> allowed to).
That is, assuming you can afford a patent lawyer. Or afford
to support yourself while spending more time on patent research
than coming up with the idea in the first place. Or afford
to fight a court battle when other companies send their own
patent lawyers after you.
> If its a good idea, some person or company will probably be willing to use your
> idea for a modest fee. Wouldn't you like to get a dime for every car made in
> this country? You'd be sitting pretty if you did.
The point is that a poor man, no matter how smart he is, must
always rely on someone else to make any money. And that someone
else usually won't do it for free. But if you're rich, you've
already got half the battle won.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:24:28 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Jake Boone wrote:
> >Do we outlaw people who bribe public officials to pass their
> >own laws? Why is it perfectly OK to bribe schools to teach
> >your own kids and not someone elses?
> By this logic, if I go to Burger King for my daily Flame-Broiled Whopper
> (tm) and fork over my ninety-nine cents, I am actually 'bribing'
> the Burger King employee to 'give' me food and deny it to everyone else.
> Now, 'bribery' may be what *you* call it, but over here in Union County,
> most of us just call it 'buying'.
Exactly. Buying. If a lobbiest pays a legislator to vote
to use a particular contracting company to build roads,
then he has bought that legislator's vote fair and square.
Of course, we're forgeting the taxpayer, who is hurt
because he was left out of this transaction. We're also
forgetting the working class student, who can't get a
good teacher because he too was left out of the transaction.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:17:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Clint Johnson wrote:
> > So the people voting = "centrally planned"?
> All they vote for is who does the central planning.
> Unless your calling for every aspect of the economy to be decided by a full
> vote of all of the people? Of course this is logically and logistically
> impossible so we are back to voting on the particular central planners.
Quite like how we vote for representatives in a republic,
no? If representatives can fail to plan an economy,
they can also fail to plan a justice system. If they
fail to give us decent justice, we impeach them. If they
fail to give us decent raw materials, we impeach them.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:12:07 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > In capitalism, sometimes you starve, and sometimes you don't.
> As opposed to socialist economies, where you are pretty much guaranteed
> to starve. Well, at least there's not all that uncertainty to worry
> about.
That, of course, would depend on the production capabilities
of the country. If a socialist country could produce a lot,
then everyone would be full. If not, then everyone will starve.
If a capitalist country, it doesn't matter how much you produce,
the rich will be full and the poor will starve.
How much a nation can produce depends on many things: luck,
raw material, the education level of its citizens, and who
makes the decisions. A minority will make decisions that
benefit the minority. A majority will make decisions that
benefit the majority.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:03:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
> : > That's where you're wrong. The most intelligent minds are
> : > stuck in universities and buried in books and test tubes.
> : Actually, the intelligent people I knew in college were able to pass
> : their classes and graduate. The dumb ones got stuck there...
> : I would take one person with real world experience over a dozen professors
> : and grad students. School is nice groundwork, but until you get out
> : there, none of it means anything. Most of the people I know concur:
> : you learn more in your first year out of school than the previous
> : 10 years of school.
Ah but even in industry, the ones who do the real work
are stuck in lab, clicking away at a keyboard, or pouring over
a breadboard. If they haven't sold their soul for venture
capital, then they're busy enriching stock-holders with their
long hours... all in hopes of a good review.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:54:46 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Companies like ADM don't have to. They have a death
> > penalty. It's called starvation.
> When have they ever put this into practise?
Maybe they left out biology in your school. It's called
the laws of nature. If you don't eat (in a capitalist
state: buy food), you starve.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:46:59 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> : > The only way to change this situation would be for some strong central
> : > authority to forbid that the rich to not spend their money on educating
> : > their children. This is obviously an inappropriate restriction on the
> : > way parents use their money and unacceptable in a society that is
> : > vaguely free.
> : Do we outlaw people who bribe public officials to pass their
> : own laws? Why is it perfectly OK to bribe schools to teach
> : your own kids and not someone elses?
> county has a somewhat higher income than most of us, and decides to spend
> a portion of it sending his progeny to an expensive private school.
> And if I read you aright, you're suggesting that he's not only guilty of
> bribery for having his own kids taught, but he's bribing the private
> school administration to _not_ teach someone elses' kids??
Quite right. If a good teacher is busy teaching someone else's
kid, s/he isn't teaching yours. If a government is busy repairing
someone else's bridge, it isn't repairing yours. Companies
lobby the legislature to fund better roads to the company.
Parents "lobby" the school to accept their children. As a
result, companies with more lobbying power have better roads,
and parents with more money will have better kids. Surely a
government can't give everyone great roads, nor a teacher give
everyone a great education. But if money is the deciding factor,
it only entrenches the rich.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:36:17 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > > > So the people voting = "centrally planned"?
> > > No, it most certainly isn't. OTOH, in an economy as large as
> > > ours, or for that matter even the smallest of countries, it is
> > > virtually impossible for the people to vote on every matter.
> > It is also virtually impossible for a single legislator to
> > fully understand every issue, or even to fairly represent
> > his constituents on both gun and abortion issues.
> OK. (But how it relates to the issue at hand is beyond me!)
It appears the argument is between a centralized full-time
representative that handles every issue from gun issues to abortion
issues, and decentralized representatives, where one would elect
a different (possibly part-time) representative for every major
issue one cares about.
> The singular difference between the economy run by government
> that is answerable once every two years, and the economy run
> by the currents that naturally occur is that there is one, just
> one omnipotent planning agency in the centrally planned
> system. If the fail, all is amiss. In the capitalist form,
> if one company fails to deliver, another is usually quite
> ready to step in. It's a large and important difference.
What happens when a government fails to deliver? All the
citizens are screwed. Thus citizens demand a say in the
government. What happens when a company fails to deliver?
All the employees (and possibly consumers) are screwed.
Why don't employees deserve as much say in the company as
citizens do in their government?
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:23:59 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > If it were a true democracy, it'll at least be 50.001% of
> > the people forcing me, instead of the richest 20% forcing me.
> > It'll probably bring "much joy" to at least 50.001% instead
> > of bringing "much joy" to the richest 20%.
> Why is it that a system that apparently is "secretly" favorable to
> 20% (the rich) is backed, through voting, by an overwhelming number
> of the people who are getting screwed? I agree that's probably the
> case, so the question is how do we get the rest of us to stop
> supporting the current system. Stop voting Democrat and Republican
> is a start.
The same reason McDonald's is getting more business than
Wendy's - marketing. I smack down $20 million for ads on
TV, explaining my side of the issues, while the other guy
spends $0, no one is even going to know who the hell he is
come election day. The fact that the Democratic and
Republican parties can hire as many people as they need
to get petitions signed, or to dig up dirt on the other
guy also helps.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:03:00 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > simply because I don't have the money. A rich man has
> > the right to do anything he damn well pleases, because
> > he does have the money. If I come up with a great idea
> > and I'm rich, then I get all the profit. If I come up
> > with a great idea and I'm poor, somehow I doubt I'd
> > get all the profit, or any profit at all if a rich man
> > hires enough patent attorneys to out-argue my patent
> > attorney.
> Once again, we must harken back to our canonical rich
> person, Bill Gates. He was quite poor, but not destitute
> when he went to New Mexico to start writing software for
> the Altair. He worked hard, got a little lucky, and has
> made a tidy little pile of money. Are you saying that
> he is somehow different than you?
He went to Harvard and a private school before that.
That hardly counts as poor in my book. In any case,
he's still anecdotal evidence (and what about those
who ARE destitute?). I might be able to kill
you with open-handed Kungfu, but that alone isn't going
to make a fight between any unarmed man and a sniper an
even fight.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:52:53 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > If the government can take care of their housing, food, and
> > health care, they could go merrily on chasing balloons,
> > training eels, and hitting a ball with a stick.
> In case you haven't
> noticed, the government doesn't produce anything, unless you want to
> count the mountains of unread paperwork, so therefore, the government
> can't provide food, housing, and healthcare. They don't have any to
> provide. Only us workers out here in industry do that. And a lot of
> us are tired of dumping money into a system that claims to stand for
> compassion, but actually just diverts resources from where they actually
> may do some good.
If you want to take power out of the hands of "government"
and put it in the hands of the consumers and employees, then
that would be fine with me. Frankly, as a consumer, I'm
sick of dumping money into an economy that claims to stand
for cheaper products through advanced technology, but
actually would rather see greater profits through advanced
technology. But I dump my money anyway, because either they
shoot me for tax evasion or freeze me for rent evasion.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:43:00 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > Maybe it's because they were being planned by rich
> > politicians worried more about staying in power than
> > giving people food. Kind of like how some of our own
> > rich politicians are more worried about getting
> > themselves richer than giving people food.
> World famous socialist paupers:
> Brezshnev (?)
> Yeltsin
> Castro
> Gorbachev
> They all live in small, drafty houses, hoping for food, just like the
> people whose lives they controlled, right?
Exactly. They were hardly socialists, or they would've
actually been as rich (or poor) as their citizens. They
*claimed* to be socialists for the same reason George Bush
promised "no new taxes" -- to get in power.
> What do you mean government run economies aren't fair?
Only if run by the few. When a minority rules politics,
it will also rule the economy. When a minority rules the
economy, it will also rule politics. Socialism is not
possible without democracy, and democracy is not possible
without socialism.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:36:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > In a government run system, you could elect your CEOs like
> > you elect your Governors. And you could elect a CEO that isn't
> > going to lay everyone off and move manufacturing over to Mexico,
> > or hire 50 hookers for a weekend champagne bath.
> Oh, like in the former Soviet Union, or current Cuba, where the few
> in charge have whatever they want, while everyone else is shivering
> in crowded huts hoping that tomorrow, the government run store will
> have some food for them. Such a lovely picture. You know, I'd rather
> have heat, food, and those nasty rich people hiring hookers than
> the grim scenario you hope for.
The Soviet Union and Cuba are (were) about as socialist as
the United States is democratic. There, the powerful
monopolized all the wealth. Here, the wealthy monopolize
all the power. In a true political and economic democracy,
you would have both heat and food, without money being
wasted on random perversions (unless, of course, the employees
and consumers are actually voting for random perversions.)
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 19:17:42 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > The better technology is, the less human labor is needed
> > to produce the same result. In a capitalist society, that
> > savings in labor isn't passed on to the consumer, it's
> > passed on to the capitalist.
> Sometimes. Sometimes not. I've been involved in more tha a few
> engineering dep'ts, and I always here engineers/sales engineers
> talking about how cost-savings on product manufacturing is to be
> reflected in a lower price for the product.
Yes, sometimes and sometimes not. In capitalism, sometimes
you starve, and sometimes you don't. The fact that sometimes
you don't starve is no excuse for the fact that others do.
> > Remember that annoying "Save the Children" commercial on
> > TV? If $.20 a day can feed some kid in a third-world
> > country, why can't it even feed one in a country that's
> > just dripping with technology?
> Hmmmmm, let's see, they're skipping the Dep't of Aghriculture middlemen,
> the State Ag Dep't inspector goons, the business taxes, the property
> taxes, the built-into-the-price cost of providing bennies for the
> people working in the food store, etc etc.
If the cost of food were truly all tied up in regulation,
then the heads of ADM wouldn't be so rich, and they wouldn't
be so unwilling to become nationalized. Why do capitalists
do what they do anyway? "To milk the consumer for all he's
worth", that's the capitalist motto.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 22:27:04 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Those nations did not fail because of altruism. Their
> > leaders were neither altuistic nor put there by the
> > majority. And they only achieved economic equality
> > among the powerless. Quite like how we've achieved
> > political equality only among the wealth-less.
> a socialist dictatorship is the best way your favorite system
> could work. Just think, everybody being *forced* to operate
> in this system. No debate, nuthin'. Still wouldn't work, though.
Socialism is as impossible without democracy as democracy
is without socialism. Either you have rule by the powerful
or rule by the rich. In the end, the powerful will be rich
or the rich will be powerful.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 22:21:09 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > I vote for the ones who support campaign finance reform.
> > the only problem is, once they become the incumbent, they
> > seem to forget all about it.
> Our problems are a lot more serious than anything that campaign finance
> reform will address.
It just might put real representatives of the American
people in power instead of representatives of the upper
lass, worried more about animal rights than worker rights.
> > And of course, the choice between politicians here is
> > like the choice between products in the Soviet Union.
> > I only vote for one because I happen to disagree with
> > him less than I disagree with the other.
> How many choices do you think we have? Two? If so, then you're
> not helping.
We both know there's no real choice. It's like Soviet
elections with one candidate. You can say "yes" or "no".
And if "no", hey, how about this other hand-picked
candidate?
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 22:16:43 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > So the people voting = "centrally planned"?
> No, it most certainly isn't. OTOH, in an economy as large as
> ours, or for that matter even the smallest of countries, it is
> virtually impossible for the people to vote on every matter.
It is also virtually impossible for a single legislator to
fully understand every issue, or even to fairly represent
his constituents on both gun and abortion issues.
> Thus they must entrust the task to a small set of representatives.
> If entrusted with the planning for an entire economy, even if they
> were subject to election on a regular basis, e.g. every year or
> two, the economy could be ruined.
Kind of like how the House of Reps is ruined every year or two?
If not elect the CEO, why not reserve the right to impeach him?
The head of a company holds far more lives in his hand than
a person judging the merits of school prayer.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 22:07:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >It also has to do with using violence to enfore a rich
> >man's property rights. If those low-income scum could
> >get their hands on some land and seed with which to plant,
> >or gold mines in which to dig, they could produce just
> >as much as if they were actually HIRED to do the same
> >thing. But of course, the cops aren't just going to let
> >you walk away with food you grew or gold you mined, since
> >they have an "obligation" to make sure that stuff goes
> >to the guy who owns the land.
> this clear, now, "if I would just give you all the things that I
> bought and paid for with money that I earned, you'd be happy?" I'll
> just bet you would!
> Of course, you could acquire the property the same way that I did
Yeah, I could acquire your TV by paying the burglar who
broke into your house and stole it. Quite like how one
pays the government for a piece of land it killed some
Brits, Mexicans, and Native Americans for.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 22:03:58 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > man's property rights. If those low-income scum could
> > get their hands on some land and seed with which to plant,
> > or gold mines in which to dig, they could produce just
> > as much as if they were actually HIRED to do the same
> > thing.
> Of course, in today's society, the gold mines are in our heads.
> Knowledge is worth more, on a ROI basis, than property. Look at the
> richest people in the country. They make their money off rearranging
> electrons or forming silicon into thin wafers.
That's where you're wrong. The most intelligent minds are
stuck in universities and buried in books and test tubes.
Looking at the richest people in the country, they are
the ones who organize meetings with electron-rearrangers
and tell wafer-makers to make wafers. Actually, it's not
even those... it's the ones who sit on a board of directors
and randomly fire and hire CEOs based on short-term profit
charts.
--------
The worst actress in the company is always the manager's wife.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 21:58:25 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Milton Tinkoff wrote:
> HM> If those low-income scum could get their hands on some land and seed
> HM> with which to plant, or gold mines in which to dig, they could
> HM> produce just as much as if they were actually HIRED to do the same
> HM> thing.
> Oh, give me a break! If those "low-income scum" could get their hands
> on some land and seed with which to plant, or gold mines in which to
> dig they'd hire someone else to do the grunt work rather than do it
> themselves.
Exactly. Which shows that the concept of "owning a piece
of land" only produces laziness in the owner unless everyone
owned the same land, and was entitled only to what he himself
produced from it.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 21:41:51 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >> The point isn't even to GIVE secretaries small fortunes to
> >> speculate. The point is that speculation is a useless
> >> activity... that the act of speculation produces about
> >> as many products as collecting a welfare check.
> So why should we pay someone for speculating good?
> It's the speculator that determines
> what kind of widget to produce, how, when, where and who will produce
> it. If you produce a couple million of the wrong widget, that nobody
> wants, you haven't been very productive even though you worked very
> hard and spent a lot of money.
Most speculators probably couldn't care less what widgets a
company makes as long as the company "makes money". All they
do is get in the way of the people who actually do want to
do a hostile takeover.
> In a government run system, you will still have speculators making the
> very same decisions, but they will not be as good as those in private
> industry because the system that rewards and punishes good decisions
> is not as responsive.
In a government run system, you could elect your CEOs like
you elect your Governors. And you could elect a CEO that isn't
going to lay everyone off and move manufacturing over to Mexico,
or hire 50 hookers for a weekend champagne bath.
--------
You see that building over there? I bought it three years ago.
My first real estate transaction. I sold it ten months later
and made $800,000 profit. It was better than sex. At the time it
was all the money in the world. Now it's a day's pay.
- Gordon Gekko
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:49:17 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > OK, we don't abolish taxes, and we don't use your "threat
> > of force" to make anybody pay taxes either. You're then
> > going to be super-altruistic man and pay taxes eh?
> Not taxes, but *charity*.
Ah, so you'll be *charitable* enough to support both our
military and penal system? Good luck.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:40:54 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Does it matter how many producers there are if they
> > all charge too much? If these producers were really
> > smart, they'd work together.
> Working together is collusion, and is illegal.
It is only illegal if the companies involved haven't
made their campaign contributions yet this year. And
we can be sure that Janet Reno won't be able to prove
a thing. We see Delta selling tickets for $200 a flight.
We'll sell ours for $199 a flight. Hey, no price fixing
right? One month later, when Delta sells tickets for
$190 a flight, we raise ours to $210, along with a
little friendly TV reminder that frequently flyer miles
are cool. Soon, Delta put its prices back at $200 and
everything's just dandy.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:28:48 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >Duh... could it be money? Nah. Why, just yesterday, I wanted
> >to build me a skyscraper. Trouble is, for some reason, I
> >didn't have any concrete, steel beams, or whatever other
> >raw materials go into them darn things. I don't know why
> >not. It just can't be the fact that I only had $20 in my
> >pocket.
> We can't have just anybody building skyscrapers any time they want,
> unless they want to assume the full risk.
> There is an inherent beauty in a system of having the people who put
> their own money at risk make the decisions as to how to put it at
> risk.
If I had $100 million, somehow blowing $50,000 on a project
seems like a helluva smaller risk than if I had $50,000 and
was thinking about blowing $50,000 on a project. THAT is
your reality. Capitalism hurts innovation because the poor
are not ready to risk their savings on new ideas. And there
are a helluva lot more poor people with heads than rich ones.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:22:45 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > > And what, pray tell, is stopping the workers or consumers from
> > > purchasing these raw materials? Explain in detail.
> > Duh... could it be money? Nah. Why, just yesterday, I wanted
> > to build me a skyscraper. Trouble is, for some reason, I
> > didn't have any concrete, steel beams, or whatever other
> > raw materials go into them darn things. I don't know why
> > not. It just can't be the fact that I only had $20 in my
> > pocket.
> Well, have you considered working and saving to pool
> the capital together. Maybe you could form a cooperative
> of like-minded people (shyeah, right!) Maybe you
> could put a business plan together and convince some
> venture capitalists that your plan is good.
The point is, I don't have the right to do it alone,
simply because I don't have the money. A rich man has
the right to do anything he damn well pleases, because
he does have the money. If I come up with a great idea
and I'm rich, then I get all the profit. If I come up
with a great idea and I'm poor, somehow I doubt I'd
get all the profit, or any profit at all if a rich man
hires enough patent attorneys to out-argue my patent
attorney.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 20:10:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > Like a typical fiscal conservative, you focus on the company
> > instead of the consumer. WHO CARES if McDonald's makes more
> > money. The point is that only fiscal conservatives will be
> > eating at "Chez Panise", and only fiscal conservatives will
> > have kids who get the best education the country has to offer.
> > Why? Because they're rich and they deserve to be better.
> You know, it is a pretty clear fact that truly rich people in this
> country who also care very much about educating their children will
> always provide a better education for their children than is available
> to children whose parents have less means.
Another typical fiscal conservative mantra, "if you CARE more
about your kids' education, you'd pay more." So I assume that
as a society, we should punish kids for having parents who
hate education? Why don't we just get rid of child abuse laws?
It's the kids own damn fault he was born to abusive (or poor,
or uneducated) parents.
> The only way to change this situation would be for some strong central
> authority to forbid that the rich to not spend their money on educating
> their children. This is obviously an inappropriate restriction on the
> way parents use their money and unacceptable in a society that is
> vaguely free.
Do we outlaw people who bribe public officials to pass their
own laws? Why is it perfectly OK to bribe schools to teach
your own kids and not someone elses?
From: "H. Mencken"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:06:15 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> : > No, as you know full well, we did not and do not give the government
> : > money voluntarily; we do it under threat of force.
> : In any case, if you abolish government taxes, who are
> : you going to hire to defend us from the Mexicans?
> When did you ever see me suggest that we abolish taxes?
OK, we don't abolish taxes, and we don't use your "threat
of force" to make anybody pay taxes either. You're then
going to be super-altruistic man and pay taxes eh?
> : Are you going to do it alone? Or are you going to FORCE
> : all your neighbors to pay too?
> Hey - let 'em buy their own ammo :-)
Yep, everybody buys their own ammo, except me. I'll just
sit around and watch the rest of you defend the country
for me. After all, you can't *force* me to do anything.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:44:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Richard L. Hood wrote:
> If 'some' teachers were paid according to their production, they would
> get less pay. If the CEO of my company is making the right business
> decisions that keep forty thousand people working, and the company is
> still making a profit, I say pay him or her, whatever you can afford.
> Most of the whiners about CEO salaries don't even wince when billions of
> dollars are thrown at lazy welfare addicts, or government programs
> like midnight basketball, that reward someone for doing nothing. I say,
> pay em what their worth.
Maybe the reason those 40K people are working is because the
engineers have designed a decent product and the marketers
are putting out great propaganda, and the CEO is just along
for the ride. If fiscal conservatives really wanted to pay
people what they were worth, they wouldn't be whining about
capital gains taxes.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:30:39 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > So it is your assertion that by writing out a check
> > for $1 million and handing it over to someone else,
> > I have all of a sudden created something new? What
> > is it that I have created? Nothing at all is created
> > unless the person I gave the check to spends some
> > LABOR inventing, manufacturing, or harvesting something.
> Absolutely. You've created _OPPORTUNITY_!
> Yes, now you're beginning to understand. BOTH are
> important.
That _OPPORTUNITY_ could just as easily be created
by the government. And you know what? We, the citizens,
can *vote* and tell the government *not* to spend all
the "return on its investment" on ballooning around the
world or a training facility for underwater eel wrestlers,
and, instead, create more jobs.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:24:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > > I have yet to see ADM jail anybody for not "contributing"
> > > to their corporate profit by purchasing their products.
> > > OTOH, the FedGov does so on a regular basis for failure
> > > to "voluntarily" "give" our money to them.
> > Companies like ADM don't have to. They have a death
> > penalty. It's called starvation.
> Is Hobbes/Luther/Iscariot/Calvin arguing that there are no other
> producers of food in this country, that there are not alternatives
> to ADM? Really? ROTFL!
Does it matter how many producers there are if they
all charge too much? If these producers were really
smart, they'd work together. They know man does not
live without food, so they cooperate with each other
and keep prices high. Of course, they throw in a few
minor deviations here and there to give the illusion
of competition (sort of like how a "SALE" in a
department store means you're "saving").
They only thing that prevents them from charging too
much is fear of customer backlash (violence through laws
& regulations) and your occasional stupid manager who
thinks he can get away with more customers with lower
prices -- forcing prices down across the board. Of
course, we convince him to see the light soon enough
and eventually profits are back up.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:11:34 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > The "job" speculators are doing could just as easily be
> > done by a secretary, and be done better by a secretary
> > who does research. And it could be done just as poorly
> > by the government, but at least the profits from these
> > ventures could then be funneled by law back into national
> > employment.
> I didn't know the ranks were closed. Are you saying that
> specualation is not open to secretaries? Is the
> Hobbes/Luther/Iscariot/Calvin construct unaware that anybody
> with a few dollars can speculate?
The point isn't even to GIVE secretaries small fortunes to
speculate. The point is that speculation is a useless
activity... that the act of speculation produces about
as many products as collecting a welfare check.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:46:23 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
fharris@uci.edu wrote:
> > > > Yes, I can agree that wealth can be produced in the
> > > > absense of currency. All of it by labor, whether it's
> > > > by mining, growing, designing, or assembling, as
> > > > opposed to stock market speculation or bank interest,
> > > > which produces a different kind of "fake" wealth.
> Second. The labor theory of value has been intellectually destroyed by
> people who wanted to support it more than anyone here. It is incorrect.
> Labor regularly contributes about 70% to the nation's output. The other
> 30% is attributed to the investment of capital resources.
So it is your assertion that by writing out a check
for $1 million and handing it over to someone else,
I have all of a sudden created something new? What
is it that I have created? Nothing at all is created
unless the person I gave the check to spends some
LABOR inventing, manufacturing, or harvesting something.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:38:56 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> : > : Say Congress and the President vote to give themselves
> : > : 200% pay raises. It *IS* their money, no?
> : We gave our money to them voluntarily did we not, quite
> : like how we "voluntarily" give our money to ADM, GM,
> : AT&T, and Century 21?
> AT&T completely ignores the presence of MCI, Sprint, and the host of
> other competitors in the long distance game.
But we still have to pay someone do we not? If the choice
is pay high prices, go without, or spend a few million to
make my own, I think most people will settle for high prices.
> No, as you know full well, we did not and do not give the government
> money voluntarily; we do it under threat of force.
Yes, we do one thing because we fear the bullet, and we
do the other because we fear starvation and hypothermia.
In any case, if you abolish government taxes, who are
you going to hire to defend us from the Mexicans? Are
you going to do it alone? Or are you going to FORCE
all your neighbors to pay too?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:29:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >That of course, would depend on who makes the decisions.
> >If the employees made the decisions, then I doubt too
> >much of the extra profit would go to the stockholders.
> >If the consumers made the decisions, then I doubt too
> >much of the extra profit would stay in the company at
> >all, and probably would be reflected in lower prices or
> >increased investment in production.
> What would be the reason that the owners wouldn't make the decision,
> since, after all the earnings are their money?
Where did the money come from? Consumers.
Where does our government's money come from? Taxpayers.
> >In reality however, the pay
> >at another company probably won't be much different
> >because the other company's CEO also knows all about
> >supply & demand when it comes to employee salaries.
> At least you've got that part right. Of course all of this is
> speculative, since the CEO is making the high salary instead of the
> employees, and since none of them are leaving to work somewhere else,
> everything appears to be fine and dandy.
> Why wouldn't salaries be determined the same way as any other company,
> supply and demand.
Because when there's too much human supply, wages fall,
people starve, work long hours, or in poor conditions.
Doing what? Making cardigan sweaters for JCPenny or
hairpieces for bald men.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:21:01 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Glen Raphael wrote:
> > If the school system were a true free market, that would
> > happen wouldn't it? Those who can teach better will charge
> > more. Supplyanddemand as they say.
> When we finally separate school and state, I'm sure that some schools will
> go after the ritzy, exclusive market like a _Chez Panise_, but I expect
> that most of the mainstream commercial success will come from being the
> McDonalds or Burger King of the education market, producing a product that
> appeals to the broad masses and satifies their hunger for learning.
Like a typical fiscal conservative, you focus on the company
instead of the consumer. WHO CARES if McDonald's makes more
money. The point is that only fiscal conservatives will be
eating at "Chez Panise", and only fiscal conservatives will
have kids who get the best education the country has to offer.
Why? Because they're rich and they deserve to be better.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:15:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
fharris@uci.edu wrote:
> > If a society has the ability to feed all its citizens
> > with no effort, then why force some citizens to starve
> > if they don't put forth any effort? Just don't give
> > them a mink coat (unless of course, mink coats can ever
> > be produced with no effort).
> The problem is of course that our nation does not have the ability to feed
> all its citizens unless most of these citizens work.
As long as companies like ADM keep prices where they are,
the rest of us consumers will forever believe that it is
impossible to feed every citizen with little labor. The
better technology is, the less human labor is needed to
produce the same result. In a capitalist society, that
savings in labor isn't passed on to the consumer, it's
passed on to the capitalist.
Remember that annoying "Save the Children" commercial on
TV? If $.20 a day can feed some kid in a third-world
country, why can't it even feed one in a country that's
just dripping with technology?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:04:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Their leaders were neither altuistic nor put there by the
> > majority. And they only achieved economic equality
> > among the powerless. Quite like how we've achieved
> > political equality only among the wealth-less.
> Hillarious! That would explain 40 years of democrat rule
> on Capital Hill, right?
That would explain why Libertarians are complaining
about the two party system. If you think every
Democratic politician in Congress is in the bottom
50%, then you need to take another look. If you
think those same Democrats made it there without a
single contribution from a wealthy individual or
organization, then you need to take another look.
You might also want to compare the percentage of
Democratic Congressmen who can afford to send their
kids to private school vs. the same percentage for
the rest of the country.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:58:09 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > If people didn't have to be useful to society, then fiscal
> > conservatives wouldn't be complaining about welfare.
> > If we truly only wanted to reward usefulness to society, then
> > fiscal conservatives wouldn't be complaining about Capital
> > Gains taxes.
> Are you saying that capital isn't useful? Really?
Sure, both capital and land are useful. But they would
be equally useful if owned by the government, the workers,
or the consumers. It would be MORE useful if it were ALL
put to use and used as raw material for labor.
> > > And your point is, what? That researchers and toolmakers should be fed
> > > by farmers for the rest of their lives? What about the miners who came
> > > up with the metal for the toolmaker? And before that, the people who
> > > made the mining equipment and mining researchers to make the miner's job
> > > easier.
> > The point is that you have just given examples of people
> > who did *real* work, as opposed to the "work" done by
> > those who just push around land deeds and shares of stock.
> And is not the work of administration still work? Is not the
> coordination of resources of use? Or does it all happen by
> magic?
Then pay the accountant. Pay the secretary. The guy who
plays golf all day and calls his accountant after the 19th
hole to ask about stock prices in a drunken slur is of
no more use to society as the guy who's standing in line
waiting for a welfare check.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:03:57 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> : If the school system were a true free market, that would
> : happen wouldn't it? Those who can teach better will charge
> : more. Supplyanddemand as they say.
> Actually in some form and to some extent that probably would happen if
> K-12 were a more competitive environment. As with most comparatively free
> markets, we'd probably see a balance shake out where those that
> demonstrably could teach better, while at the same time not charging the
> very top rate, would thrive and capture the major share. All the while
> of course acknowledging that the various other parts of the spectrum
> would still be getting a piece of the action - there would always be a
> proportion of parents who'd choose the lowest-cost provider for whatever
> variety of reasons, and likewise those who'd opt for the high-priced
> spread for _their_ own multifarious reasons.
And then education will just be like cars. The rich
buy Mercedes, and the poor buy Yugos. And the rich
will be even more entrenched in their upper class.
You can reward those who teach better with a salary
raise, but you don't have to let them charge more
for their services.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:54:40 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Yes, I can agree that wealth can be produced in the
> > absense of currency. All of it by labor, whether it's
> > by mining, growing, designing, or assembling, as
> > opposed to stock market speculation or bank interest,
> > which produces a different kind of "fake" wealth.
> There are numerous ways to make money honestly, including making a phone
> call instead of breaking a sweat. If Joe Sixpack invests $1 in a lottery
> ticket and wins a million bucks, would you consider that to be a "fake"
> million?
Does it count toward the GNP or the GWP (Gross
World Product)? All Mr. Sixpack did was take
money from all the other idiots who bought lottery
tickets. A lot like how stock holders take money
from all the other idiots who buy stocks. No real
wealth was created. Nothing new was produced at all.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:49:32 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > You mean like instigating Marx's cliched proletarian
> > revolution? It'll never work, since your "fellow
> > proles" are given just enough through state welfare
> > programs to survive just above the cusp of upheaval.
> > Quite like capitalism really: raise the price until
> > it's just below one at which customers stop buying
> > the product.
> Or government, which taxes us as much as they can get away with, not
> because they need the money but because we don't overthrow them but
> pay instead.
If it weren't for all the money wasted on bureaucratic
middle management, I'd say, let them. How else are
they going to fund welfare? And if they don't fund
welfare, I may just wake up one day with a revolution
on my hands and my BMW nowhere in sight...
Of course, we could instead shift all of our welfare
funding into the police. Make sure all those peasants
cower in fear and live in rightful poverty.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:39:48 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
rex beard wrote:
> My point is governments have always been corrupt. The bigger a government
> is the more chances for corruption it has and worse - the harder it is for
> individuals to know what the heck the government is doing to *see* the
> corruption.
The size of a government has little to do with corruption.
A large government might have more corruption simply because
there are more people to corrupt. While in a small government,
all you need to do is pay-off the warlord, and your company
is all set. Corruption exists because there are people rich
enough to make the pay-offs.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:34:45 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > ...which gives producers great incentive to milk the people
> > for all their worth, but no more. In other words, make
> > them suffer as much as possible without scaring them
> > away. This is the loftiest height that capitalism can
> > aspire to.
> Sounds like government, actually. Government taxes the
> shit out of people, and then some, knowing full well
> that 99% of us are too chicken shit to rebel. If that's
> not taking advantage of people......
It's both. Fiscal conservatives love to knock down
the government because it is trying to compete with
corporate power. The truth is, rule by the powerful
is little worse than rule by the wealthy (and they
are quite often from the same family).
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:21:53 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Waiting around, sitting on your ass, for your stock
> > price to go up has no inherent value to siciety.
> > It is production that creates "real" wealth
> But if somebody didn't supply the money to build the factory,
> pay the workers, buy the equipment, etc, the "workers"
> would not be doing any producing of this sort at all.
Exactly. The money could either come from capitalists
who then take the profit and blow a few million on a Picasso.
Or the money can come from taxes and a nationalized
economy, in which profits would be funneled right back
into production or lower prices.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:13:19 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Karl Dussik wrote:
> Liberal hypocrites like Clinton and Gore who use their wealth to send their
> precious children to the most exclusive private schools but prevent poor
> parents from having any meaningful say in where their children go - that's
> who. BTW, where do YOU stand on this - with the hypocrites and the NEA or
> with those who favor freedom of choice? Hmm?
You'd have to admire Republicans for at least being honest
that they are representing the rich. Freedom of choice is
definitely better than a monopoly, but only if every child
can afford to attend any school s/he chooses.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:47:13 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Other suppliers come in only if the cost of entry into
> > that market is low enough that their inheritance or
> > some random venture capitalist can cover it.
> If there's a good business case to be made, you can bet that
> those venture capitalists will be there.
And of course, those venture capitalists will get at least
as much money as the guy who does all the real work like
coming up with the invention and manufacturing the product.
> > A CEO can "demonstrate" leadership just by being
> > lucky enough to be riding the wave generated by his
> > engineers.
> You're missing the point completely. The CEO wasn't born
> CEO.
Not every one of them is. And some don't become CEO
until his dad makes him so. And when he fails, he
drags all the employees down with him.
> > Then he gets hired on as the head of some
> > other company, and all of a sudden he isn't as much of
> > a "leader" as he used to be - ie. his luck has changed.
> > If he doesn't completely screw things up, then he'll
> > stay on the job for years and years at that stagnant
> > company, but if he does screw up (or falls to BAD
> > luck)... well, there's Apple Computer.
> Oohh. One example of a company that hasn't been managed
> well.
Not! The fact is that Apple was probably no more mismanaged
than your average company. It's just that this
"averagely" managed company had the _bad_luck_ to go
against Microsoft, and lacked the engineering and
marketing ability to overcome it. To blame all of Apple's
woes on its CEO is almost as stupid as crediting all of a
company's success on its CEO.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:33:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> For example, if everyone was given basic housing,
>> clothing, and food, but luxury items would have
>> to be worked for.
> OK, so I can sit on my butt and watch other people build a house
> for me, buy my clothes, my food etc? I like it. I like it a lot.
> But I fear that within hours these people will realize what suckers
> they are and they'll sit on *their* butts to wait for someone else
> to build houses for themselves. Next thing you know everybody is
> sitting on their butts
And let them! If an assembly plant can be entirely run
by robotic arms, who cares if people are sitting on their
butts and getting free cars? "But you need some engineer
who pushes his one button a day and the few techs who
have to make random repairs once a week," you say. And
indeed you do. So reward them with BETTER cars, ISDN,
128 megs of RAM, a helicopter, whatever.
If a society has the ability to feed all its citizens
with no effort, then why force some citizens to starve
if they don't put forth any effort? Just don't give
them a mink coat (unless of course, mink coats can ever
be produced with no effort).
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:21:40 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > There's a difference between respecting someone's
> > foolhardiness and respecting someone's productivity.
> > I respect people who jump out of airplanes and people
> > who climb Mt. Everest. But it doesn't mean I think
> > they're of any use to society.
> Who said that anybody *has* to be useful to society? Isn't
> living and enjoying things like mountain climbing enough, if
> that's what some people want to do?
If people didn't have to be useful to society, then fiscal
conservatives wouldn't be complaining about welfare. If
we truly only wanted to reward usefulness to society, then
fiscal conservatives wouldn't be complaining about Capital
Gains taxes.
> > The wealth was created by the farmer's labor. By the
> > labor of those who made his tools. By the labor of
> > the researchers who gave him a better seed.
> And your point is, what? That researchers and toolmakers should be fed
> by farmers for the rest of their lives? What about the miners who came
> up with the metal for the toolmaker? And before that, the people who
> made the mining equipment and mining researchers to make the miner's job
> easier.
The point is that you have just given examples of people
who did *real* work, as opposed to the "work" done by
those who just push around land deeds and shares of stock.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:15:03 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > If the "people who benefit in a capitalistic system" you
> > are talking about are the average employees, then it is
> > precisely they who are not benefiting _enough_. The ones
> > who benefit too much are the ones who don't do any real
> > work, who sit around yapping on the phone
> Hey! Leave government bureaucrats outta this!
Agreed. Government bureaucrats are no less guiltless
than corporate bureaucrats. Quite an adaptive breed
they are eh? Able to flourish in both environments.
> > Say you've just been to a wonderful concert and fell in
> > love with the music, do you buy the conductor a gold-
> > plated, diamond-studded baton, or do you buy the
> > orchestra new instruments?
> Typical of your kind. Give us two options, both bad,
> and tell us that we have a *choice*!
The "real choice" of course is to instead use that
money to lower concert ticket prices. In other words,
price controls. ...or maybe to fund other orchestras
instead of lining corporate profits.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:31:46 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> : So I propose we privatize the entire education system
> : of this country, so that it more closely resembles a FREE market.
> I never suggested that - but if the system had some elements of
> competition, maybe it would be more possible for parents to shun the
> crummier schools in favor of ones that were doing a better job. Most
> thoughtful observers are reaching a consensus that part of the problem
> with K-12 education is the virtual monopoly character it exhibits, with
> all that that implies about standards and accountability.
No disagreement there. As long as the competition is among
the schools to teach students better, and not among students
to see who can afford the tuition into the better schools.
> : If you want a BETTER education, you pay MORE for it.
> Demonstrably _untrue_ on the evidence - a huge amount of evidence over a
> lot of years. More money has raised average teacher earnings, and built
> lots of stadiums and media labs, but virtually nowhere in the USA has it
> shown any evidence of improving the end result.
If the school system were a true free market, that would
happen wouldn't it? Those who can teach better will charge
more. Supplyanddemand as they say.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:24:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Ah, you see the light. Yes, something like that.
> > And if not that, then at least a smaller "differential
> > in pay". For example, if everyone was given basic
> > housing, clothing, and food, but luxury items would
> > have to be worked for.
> Hasn't the fall of the socialist coutries taught you
> anything. A system that bases its success on the altruism
> of the majority is, sadly, doomed to fail.
An intelligent man once wrote:
he says something like: "What about El Salvador?" (Or Chile, or South
Africa, or the "Third World", or any place where "capitalism" is
generally held to be doing less than brilliantly.) The wrong reply
to that is the all too familiar "right wing" counter-blast: "What
about Russia?"
Those nations did not fail because of altruism. Their
leaders were neither altuistic nor put there by the
majority. And they only achieved economic equality
among the powerless. Quite like how we've achieved
political equality only among the wealth-less.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:24:25 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > No disagreement there. Our government resorts to such
> > "unsocialist" practices because it is dominated by money-
> > driven politics. Campaign contributions go a long way
> > to getting your own laws passed. Some might say we live
> > not in a democracy of citizens but a democracy of dollars.
> And what do *you* do about this? Vote for people who support
> the current $1,500,000,000,000 per year budget?
I vote for the ones who support campaign finance reform. The
only problem is, once they become the incumbent, they
seem to forget all about it.
And of course, the choice between politicians here is
like the choice between products in the Soviet Union.
I only vote for one because I happen to disagree with
him less than I disagree with the other.
From: rjriley@Alliance-DC.org.REMOVE (Ronald J. Riley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:41:33 GMT
Organization: Alliance for American Innovation
I am a scientist - engineer turned independent inventor that maintains
the Alliance for American Innovation web site. I routinely do web
searches for new material to post and discovered this thread.
I have worked at all levels of corporate America, mostly in small
companies but including six years in upper management of a
multinational. I have launched a number of my own companies, some of
which were successes and some failures. I believe such experience
gives me a different perspective about these issues.
I believe that compensating upper management based on short term
performance is one of the leading causes of the management style we
see in this age of corporate down sizing. Anyone can improve the
short term profitability of a business by slashing it's
infrastructure, but at what cost?
Rewarding such activities is not conducive to the long term health of
any business. I believe that upper management should be compensated
with a reasonable cash incentive immediately and that the bulk of
their compensation should be deferred over a five to ten year time
frame. This would create a strong incentive for them to make their
decisions based on long term issues.
Inventors have a unique perspective about the management of many large
corporations. Only one percent of independent inventors achieve
commercial success. Contrary to popular beliefs, modern day inventors
who are commercially successful spend five percent of their time
inventing and the other 95 percent enforcing their patent rights.
A CEO of a multinational corporation told me that a settlement would
lower his bonus and that litigation was funded from a separate pot.
He suggested that I go ahead and sue them, that it would take at least
three to four years for the case to be decided and that he could
change jobs if I prevailed. This CEO was more honest than most about
his motives but I am sure that many others use the same reasoning
process.
Short term gain management is a cancer that is destroying the
infrastructure of America's industry. It improves profits in the
short run but at the expense of the companies long term viability.
All Americans are harmed by this trend, especially the employees of
the company.
Many corporate managers are basically like teenage boys. They have a
strong urge to mark every tree in sight, they are excessively
aggressive and they often let their egos interfere with good judgment.
They are gulled by the notion that an inventor would have the nerve to
demand compensation for their creativity. They immediately set out to
teach the upstarts a lesson and almost always underestimate our
abilities. Their attitude causes them to make major errors of
judgment that ultimately cost their companies dearly.
The fact of the matter is that there are many similarities between
teenagers and today's upper management. They both have a poorly
developed sense of right and wrong. They both allow excessive egos
to get in the way of rational decisions. Both are impulsive. Both
are motivated by short term gain. Both are often dishonest. Both
don't feel they should be held accountable for their actions. Both
mask feelings of inadequacy with bluster. Both are prone to ignore
problems hoping they will just go away.
Is it surprising that large corporations seem to be lumbering
dinosaurs that can't seem to do much right and since they can not
nurture creativity they act like school yard bullies that abuse their
workers and inventors alike?
Some conduct smear campaigns against America's most prolific
inventors while attempting to steal their work though litigation.
They simultaneously attempt to alter our patent laws to their short
term advantage. What these managers fail to realize is that they need
independent inventors who are the source of new ideas that sustain all
businesses.
I urge all Americans to contact their legislators supporting
independent inventors efforts to protect our patent system. Failure
to stop large corporate and foreign funded attempts to cripple our
patent system (HR.400, basically the same as HR.3460) will cost all
Americans good paying jobs that are produced by innovators.
I urge all persons who have an interest in these issues to contact the
Alliance for American Innovation in Washington, DC at (202) 293-5351or
(800) 308-6933. Please encourage family, friends, and business
associates to call and write their representatives. It is especially
important that you personally contact your representatives.
All concerned parties should write President Clinton and their
congressional representatives to support proposed Rohrabacher bill
(which has broad bipartisan support) to restore the full patent term
of 17 years from issue. The bill is designed to repair the damage
caused by the unnecessary provisions in GATT's enabling legislation
that harm our ability to create desperately needed new jobs. Tell
your house representatives and the president that you oppose H.R.400
because it will allow multinational corporations and the Japanese to
appropriate American inventions and the jobs those inventions produce.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed are my own. Detailed contact information available on web
pages shown below. NOTE: Remove the ".Remove" when replying.
Ronald J. Riley, E-mail rjriley@Alliance-DC.org
http://www.Alliance-DC.org/inventors/R.J._Riley/
Alliance for American Innovation, Web Pages: http://www.Alliance-DC.org
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:54:49 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Who cut education funding so they can't read?
> > Who cut education funding so they can't write?
> > Who is making it more difficult for the poor to attend
> > a decent high school, a decent college (if at all)?
> > If everyone had a pair of Reebok cross-trainers,
> > then I wouldn't have to shoot you for yours.
> Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that CEO's
> are making governmental decisions? Really?
I think those would be the ones who made the most campaign
contributions. As for who's cutting school funding, that
would probably be fiscal conservatives.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:51:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Now I don't know about your neighbors, but if my
> > neighbors wanted to get into the airline business,
> > they wouldn't even have a snowball's chance in hell
> > of approaching Southwest's "dominance". In fact, I
> > bet they'd be laughed out of the bank for having the
> > gall to ask for an "Airline Loan".
> You're avoiding the point. Just because your neighbors
> are incapable of the task doesn't mean the task is impossible,
> merely that your neighbors haven't the skill or gumption
> necessary to accomplish it.
So you really think their major obstacle to starting an airline
is "skill and gumption" eh? Definitely not the money
required to buy a few Boeings, pay a few pilots, hire
a few baggage clerks, and rent a few airport terminals?
All this world really needs is a good old homeless bum
with the "skill and gumption" to bring us all perfect
air travel. Forget it. The Messiah isn't coming unless
he's rich.
--------
"Banks are a place that will lend you money,
if you prove that you don't need it."
- Bob Hope -
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:23:09 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
wbg wrote:
> dovetails with your core assumptions. In fact the spending per pupil in
> most areas of the country has significantly outpaced inflation over the
> last thirty or more years. What's more, some of the districts with the
> very highest per-pupil spending have some of the crummiest product.
So I propose we privatize the entire education system
of this country, so that it more closely resembles a FREE
market. If you want education, you PAY for it. If you
want a BETTER education, you pay MORE for it. So we hard-
working rich people will always be BETTER than you lousy
poor lazy asses.
> : If everyone had a pair of Reebok cross-trainers,
> : then I wouldn't have to shoot you for yours.
> Lovely sentiment. Would you care to share with us how you would propose
> that we fund Reeboks for all? Wait, I know, cap a CEO's salary at $50K
> and hand over the excess to the shoe companies. Right.
Some would call it socialism.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:41:41 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
dR.DavE wrote:
> >It's how pyramid schemes work. If you got a million people shelling
> >out $5 each, you can afford to make one guy a millionaire. One CEO's
> >salary is probably a drop in the bucket (or at most a minor splash)
> >compared to what the company takes in. But it still doesn't
> >necessarily mean he's worth what he's paid. (In fact, shareholders
> >are worth even less, considering the amount of work *they* are
> >contributing to the company's output.)
> It's not your business whether he's worth what he's paid. That's the
> shareholders' concern and theirs alone. You talk like you want equality
> for all workers, but you want to be the person to make those value
> judgments. How arrogant!
Not just the workers, but the people who are the source of
the company's money in the first place - the consumers. It
is why governments were instituted.
> >They tout economic equality the same way we tout political
> >equality -- it exists to some extent, but hardly for all
> >members of society.
> And that is life. The system we have in America is not perfect, but look
> around you. It's a far sight better than the rest of the world. I
> challenge you to find me a country that is better off than the U.S. and
> give me good solid reasons why. Otherwise, I can just write you off as a
> socialist nut more concerned with slogans than results.
Just because this mouse trap is better than every
other mouse trap, isn't going to stop me from trying
to improve it. If the world's best web browser occasionally
crashes when I hit the back button, then I'm not going to
settle for the crashes just because it's the current best.
(Quite a capitalist thought, don't you think?)
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:07:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > It is only the "harvesting" of the natural resources from
> > the land that generates "real" wealth. Simply owning the land
> > and waiting for it's price to go up is not creating any
> > wealth.
> While I'm not overly fond of speculation myself, I don't
> begrudge those who take the risk. Lots have lost huge
> sums in speculative land purchases.
There's a difference between respecting someone's
foolhardiness and respecting someone's productivity.
I respect people who jump out of airplanes and people
who climb Mt. Everest. But it doesn't mean I think
they're of any use to society.
> > That "wealth" in natural resources has been there
> > all along and has nothing to do with the transfer of land
> > deeds or the conquest of nations.
> Really? You mean that corn crop that the farmer in Nebraska
> plants every year was there all along, and all that effort
> was for naught?
The wealth was created by the farmer's labor. By the
labor of those who made his tools. By the labor of
the researchers who gave him a better seed.
> > A nation doesn't
> > become a dominant manufacturing power by moving money from one
> > mutual fund to another. It does it by moving money into labor.
> Yep. Finally, we agree on something. But there still remains a
> place for those with funds to pool them, loan them to willing
> entrapeneurs, and expect a return for their risk. Don't you
> agree?
What if the funds were already there, by law, available
to labor? If my car always has gas in it, why go to
a gas station to beg for more? In reality, of course,
gas does need to be moved, just as money needs to be
moved. But why pay money-movers and more than gas-movers?
It's mere administrative secretarial work -- the "real"
wealth they create is miniscule compared to that
created by manufacturers.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:52:19 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > ...which gives producers great incentive to milk the people
> > for all their worth, but no more. In other words, make
> > them suffer as much as possible without scaring them
> > away. This is the loftiest height that capitalism can
> > aspire to.
> I think that you are the one doing the scaring here. Companies are made
> up of people, living out their creative existence and trying to raise
> their own families. It is those who sit around and complain about how
> everyone else is successful at his expense that I most despise. You are
> apparently trying to demonize all people who benefit in a capitalistic
> system. But for what purpose?
If the "people who benefit in a capitalistic system" you
are talking about are the average employees, then it is
precisely they who are not benefiting _enough_. The ones
who benefit too much are the ones who don't do any real
work, who sit around yapping on the phone or discussing
option prices, who spend more time trying to find the
next stock market trend than producing any real wealth.
> It was one of Mr. Gates goals at the inception of his country to so
> revolutionize the software industry that there would be a computer on
> every desk in every home. I owe him a small debt for making it possible
> for me to have access to the enormous potential for information which is
> the internet.
Say you've just been to a wonderful concert and fell in
love with the music, do you buy the conductor a gold-
plated, diamond-studded baton, or do you buy the
orchestra new instruments?
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:20:27 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
roger tinkoff wrote:
> > I guess any dim bulb with a third grade education can write
> > an operating system file system as well eh?
> No, but who will get his ass raked over the coals if that code
> ships with a serious bug or two in it? That CEO for starters.
Probably the test lead... unless he's really good at
scapegoating. It's a lot easier to scapegoat someone who
reports to you, than someone you report to. He's less
likely to talk back.
> > I guess any dim
> > bulb with a third grade education can perform a coronary bypass
> > eh? I'd be more inclined to say any dim bulb with a third
> > grade education can run an HMO but not be one of the doctors
> > who actually does the work.
> As far as I'm concerned, a doctor with his own practice is the
> CEO of his own company.
And private practices are being pushed out by HMOs who
have the organizational power to refer HMO customers
to only HMO-member specialists. If you're not one of
us, then you don't get no customers. And for this
reason, more and more doctors are submitting to HMOs.
They never really liked doing all that paperwork
themselves anyway. But then, do the administrative staff
of an HMO deserve management salaries or secretarial
salaries? (Perhaps all management salaries should be
secretarial salaries.)
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:00:28 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > Yes, I can agree that wealth can be produced in the
> > absense of currency. All of it by labor, whether it's
> > by mining, growing, designing, or assembling, as
> > opposed to stock market speculation or bank interest,
> > which produces a different kind of "fake" wealth.
> Yes, human labor and the natural resources at hand are the
> source of all wealth.
It is only the "harvesting" of the natural resources from
the land that generates "real" wealth. Simply owning the land
and waiting for it's price to go up is not creating any
wealth. That "wealth" in natural resources has been there
all along and has nothing to do with the transfer of land
deeds or the conquest of nations.
> As to your second point, it is not
> fake wealth that is produced with speculation, but merely
> transfers of current wealth from one to another. As for
> usury, the capital markets don't produce wealth, but the
> formation of capital that they create is the source for
> the financing of much new wealth production.
These transfers of current wealth are generally little more
than the loss of the stupid and the gain of the smart (or
at least the gain of the insider traders). A nation doesn't
become a dominant manufacturing power by moving money from one
mutual fund to another. It does it by moving money into
labor.
From: "J. Calvin"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:43:32 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > It takes wealth to create wealth.
> It takes labor to create wealth. The number of people who
> started with nothing but ideas and the willingness to work
> who have succeeded is immense.
That's the way it *should* work. Labor *should* be the
leading determining factor in earning currency. However,
it's not. It's instead the leading determining factor
in creating *real* wealth (ie. GNP, whathaveyou). The
currency however is going to managers, venture capitalists,
and stock-holders -- men who are on their asses more
often than on their feet.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:51:36 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> You poor ignorant thing, Synclair. CEO salaries are paid out owner's
> profits. The owners are the stockholders and the CEO is an employee
> answering to and responsible to the owners.
And the owners get their money from the American people
who are willing to pay for the fruits of the employees'
labor.
> The irony of this whole
> thing is that if the CEO's salary was reduced, not a penny of it would
> go to the employees of the business, it would all go to the owners,
> the stockholders.
That of course, would depend on who makes the decisions.
If the employees made the decisions, then I doubt too
much of the extra profit would go to the stockholders.
If the consumers made the decisions, then I doubt too
much of the extra profit would stay in the company at
all, and probably would be reflected in lower prices or
increased investment in production.
> Of course, the CEO, if he was indeed worth the high
> salary would go to another company, and the owners would probably find
> lessor talent for the lower salary and the business would not do as
> well, which would lower your wages or perhaps even eliminate your job,
> but you class envy bozos would be happy because the CEO didn't make so
> much money, right?
Of course, if the employees were indeed worth the
higher pay, they would go to another company, and
the former owners would have to settle for employees
with lesser skills. In reality however, the pay
at another company probably won't be much different
because the other company's CEO also knows all about
supply & demand when it comes to employee salaries.
I must say I don't know how salaries are determined
in an employee-owned company like United Airlines...
nor how much influence a reservations desk worker
has compared to a co-pilot...
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:41:22 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Jeff Blunt wrote:
> > Minimum wage is only a bad idea if it doesn't simultaneously
> > reduce the salaries of company executives. Wealth
> > redistribution is much less likely to cause inflation than
> > simply doubling everyone's salary. More people will be
> > able to afford food, so yes, food prices will go up, but
> > the demand for luxury items will fall. But then again,
> > there's that other aspect of a nationalized economy called
> > price controls...
> Huh? So you think food prices will go up if people can "afford food"?
> What are those people doing now- eating dirt?
Relying on welfare and food stamps I suspect. If "free food"
wasn't given away, prices would go up. If the minimum level
of government support were raised, then I suspect there would
be more demand for sub-luxury items like chocolate or wine,
but not yet for yachts or helicopters... unless the support
level was raised a hell of a lot higher.
> Price controls? God, I hope you're kidding. Its been tried here (and in other
> countries). Guess what, it doesn't work.
Price controls do work. They create waste (because people
are willing to buy more) and shortages (because people are
willing to buy more)... and you get the stereotypically
long Soviet bread lines. In response, many governments have
instituted rationing. But in any case, the right to food
was achieved. The fact that shortages affected everyone
meant that everyone would go slightly hungry, instead of
having one tier of the population dying and another one
fat.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:14:34 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Keith Marchington wrote:
> > You mean like voting for a more progressive income tax?
> > It'll never work, since your Senators won't be idiots for
> > taxing their own peers. You mean like starting your own
> > company? It'll never work, since it's people like CEOs
> > in the first place who provide all the venture capital.
> So is Mencken arguing that it is impossible for people
> to start new businesses and succeed? Really? Better
> dash off a note to Bill Gates and tell him what he and
> Paul Allen did wasn't possible.
Sure it's possible. Just like it's possible for some
rightist student to assassinate the leader of a Middle
Eastern nation. But for each successful assassin, there
are a hundred wannabes who fail.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:07:36 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Charles D. Standley wrote:
> My guess is if my company paid them
> less, that the company would have to get a less productive CEO/COO to fill
> their shoes, damaging my companies profits, my profit sharing, my stock
> purchase plan, stock options, and pay raises.
My guess is if my company paid their engineers less, that
the company would have to get less intelligent engineers
to fill their shoes, damaging my company's product,
profits, profit sharing, stock purchase plan, stock options,
and pay raises.
My guess is if my country paid my police officers less,
that we will have to settle for untrained and disgruntled
law enforcement officials who would sooner shoot you to
death in the name of self-defense than get your cat out
of the tree for you. And we do.
From: Mike Lepore notmyaddress@zxzxz.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.repu
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:26:36 -0500
Organization: The characters in the From field are not my address
wbg wrote:
> H. Mencken (cyu@geocities.com) wrote:
> : It takes wealth to create wealth. They succeed only because
> : they are already rich. It's what the "capital" in "capitalism"
> : is all about.
> That is so much arrant nonsense. I recommend you go find a fairly current
> book by Thomas J. Stanley entitled _The Millionaire Next Door", based
> on 20 years of studying people who've accumulated wealth. You'll be
> surprised at what a huge proportion started with nothing like what you'd
> consider "wealth". Of course, chances are you'd rather not learn anything
> new on the subject, but would likely prefer to continue to wallow in your
> own prejudiced ignorance. The choice is yours.
People who deny that it takes money to make money never like to
put their money where their mouth is. In order to do that you'd
have to be willing to abolish inheritance and make the next
generation of Kennedys or DuPonts or Rockefellers prove
themselves all over again. But you can't bear the test. As
long as you have society's essential means of production, such
as mines, refineries, etc. being classified as "personal
belongings", being left to the next generation by the same process
in which I acquired my gransfather's pocket watch, then it
is hypocritical to deny that it takes money to make money.
The firm reliance on inheritance of class status shows that
the socialists have been right all along. The tendency is for
there to be two classes: those who produce but don't own, and
those who own but don't produce.
* * *
"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private
property. But in your existing society, private property is
already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its
existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in
the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore,
with intending to do away with a form of property, the
necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence
of any property for the immense majority of society."
* * *
The Communist Manifesto
--
Mike Lepore
To email me, please use this link
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:11:18 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
dR.DavE wrote:
> A lot of what you probably consider part of "capitalism"--the slave wages,
> the shooting of workers by the National Guard, the protection of robber
> barons by the government--are actually just called "corruption" in my book,
> and have little to do with capitalism and everything to do with human
> nature. That sort of crap goes on in socialist systems too, as the Soviet
> Union so vividly illustrated.
Again, the Soviet government was hardly an example of
economic equality. To me, the "corrupt" acts you mention
above are mere manifestations of the domination of the
ruling class by those who have the money. (Or in the
case of the Soviet system, the domination of the wealthy
class by those who have the power.)
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:31:49 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >"Why don't you work somewhere else?" you say. "Why don't you
> >buy another product?" you say. Because the other companies
> >also pay their CEOs for sitting around in a leather chair
> >all day blessing random bits of email. "So why don't you
> >vote to take the tax burden off the poor and put it on those
> >who can afford it?" you say. I do.
> It's fun to sit here and listen to these "we do all the work" union
> guys complain about other people's pay.
> the reason your CEO makes more than you is simple, any dim bulb with a
> third grade education can do what you do, while the people who are
> very good at running the overall financial and physical processes of a
> business are few and far between.
I guess any dim bulb with a third grade education can write
an operating system file system as well eh? I guess any dim
bulb with a third grade education can perform a coronary bypass
eh? I'd be more inclined to say any dim bulb with a third
grade education can run an HMO but not be one of the doctors
who actually does the work.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:20:16 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
dR.DavE wrote:
> > Some "fail" because they
> >see the impossibility of taking on GM or AT&T or USAir
> >long before they sink their life savings into their
> >new company. These are the smart ones. Others have
> >inherited enough money that sinking 10 or 20 million
> >here or there in a new venture isn't much different
> >than blowing a couple bucks on a lottery ticket.
> Still others put together good plans, go out, and GET THE MONEY. That's
> how venture capital works.
GET THE MONEY... Heh, it's also how armed revolution works.
Anyway, what you are saying is that the business world
is rightfully dominated by venture captialists. In other
words, rule by the rich. Sure, they might be willing to
let you in on a piece of the action for your "small
contribution" of coming up with the idea in the first
place, but the big payoff is going to go to those
who already have the money. Many people work their whole
lives just so their KIDS will finally be in the position
to be Mr. Respected Venture Capitalist.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:04:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Terry McIntyre wrote:
> : Say I quit GM. Where else can I work? Chrysler? Ford? And if
> : they all pay their CEOs salaries in the millions and me not
> : even 1/1000 of that? Unions aren't the only "unions".
> : Or do you expect me to buy my own factories, raw materials,
> : design my own car, create my own ad campaign, and organize
> : my own car dealer network so I can start my own car company?
> Why don't you take a close look at the barriers which prevent you
> from starting a better car company. You'll find that there are
> quite a number of non-economic barriers.
And I am inclined to agree with you. But I won't go
around pretending that the economic barriers don't exist.
And I would say both need fixing, not just fix one
area until only economic barriers are left, or the other
area until only political barriers are left. Often,
the two are different aspects of the same thing.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:57:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
dR.DavE wrote:
> >And I expect the CEOs to quit whining and pay the workers
> >who have done their work for them -- the very same workers
> >that allow CEOs to rake in millions of dollars a year by
> >exercising small batches of their stock options.
> You mean the workers aren't getting paid now? They're giving their labour
> for free? Hardly. They are being paid what they're worth. If they're not
> being paid what they're worth, they should organize and do something about
> it.
Yes, they are called labor unions. More power to them.
> >Who built the factories? Workers. Who mined and chopped
> >and drilled the raw materials? Workers. Who designed the
> >cars, thought up the ad campaigns, and built and runs the
> >car dealerships? Workers.
> Who paid the workers? The CEO. Who paid for the raw materials? The CEO.
> Who paid the designers? Who approved the ads, without which no product
> would have been sold, thereby negating the purpose of the workers?
> The CEO. So quit your socialist whining. I never saw a poor man give
> someone a job.
Ah, but many poor men combined give the CEO *his* job.
Who paid the workers? Consumers who have bought the
product. Who paid for the land / capital to start
the business? That's where you have me: the venture
capitalists... land and capital that too often finds
its source in inheritance, which brings us back to the
question of "Who originally owned the land and how did he
get it?" More likely than not, he killed someone for it.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:31:14 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Terry McIntyre wrote:
> : Coke can keep charging $.60 for a can of soda as long as
> : Pepsi does the same. In other words, if you don't have
> : a monopoly of one, why not a monopoly of two? And you
> : both have huge marketing campaigns to back you up, so
> : that generic Wegmans brand cola sold only by that one
> : Wegmans grocer will only be bought by "those who have
> : no shame".
> What is "shameful" about buying Wegman's, or RC, or Faygo,
> or umpteen other competitors? I've bought them for years,
> and never felt "ashamed" of getting a better deal for my
> money.
Exactly...well, at least it SHOULDN'T be "shameful". But
where are the big contracts to theaters, airlines,
big-time caterers, and corporate cafeterias going to go?
Wegmans pop?
> : It isn't so bad when it comes to non-essential products
> : like beverages, but then you also have companies like
> : ADM fixing the price of food.
> Have you ever took a look at how force ( ie, government )
> is used to fix food prices? Do you think that, for example,
> minimum prices for milk benefit the poor? Do you think that
> keeping out cheap competition benefits the poor?
> Not hardly. You need to learn who your real enemy is. ADM,
> insofar as it is your enemy, can hurt you by using political
> power to rig the game.
No disagreement there. Our government resorts to such
"unsocialist" practices because it is dominated by money-
driven politics. Campaign contributions go a long way
to getting your own laws passed. Some might say we live
not in a democracy of citizens but a democracy of dollars.
And to plug a related PBS website (gov't funded no less!)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu
[email/index]