Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You know who else wore trousers?
Hitler.

Phanatik wrote:
You seem not to have any problem with heading down the slippery slope.

The slippery slope is a fallacious argument.

Phanatik wrote:
Please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to decide executive compensation?

I was unaware that one must use the Constitution as the basis for policy advocacy.

Phanatik wrote:
Freedom isn't free, and Liberty is hard to get back once it's gone. Sometimes a Republic can be messy, there are no (and should not be) guarantees of success, nor should there be punative measures against an entity for making the most of it's opportunities. Sour grapes are more of a vice than avarice.

So, I shouldn't be punished for making the most of my opportunity to kill another person, or take another person's car?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Taxing the rich, eating the rich, driving the zionist bankers out of the USA, and killing the fed are not solutions to anyone except maybe Chavez. How's that cancer Chavez?

First, why make light of Chavez's cancer? Don't you consistently talk about having experience with the suffering it causes?

Second, taxing the rich (excessively) and ending the Fed are thing that many consider to be solutions, and specifically would solve the problems they likely believe exist; ie. the insufficient taxation of the wealthy and the existence of the Fed.

Also, taxing the rich (appropriately) is like to be a component of any sound tax policy.

Albatross wrote:Though, I will say this - Phanatik, you're crazy. Just because something bears a structural similarity to something the NSDAP did, that doesn't mean that said thing will necessarily lead to extermination of the Jews. The Nazis wore trousers. My trousers will not lead to gas-chambers, per se.

I don't know what windmill you are tilting against.

My comments were not directed at anything you said; and if you re-read my post, you will see I said "early" nazi goals. I'm talking about before the Nazi's started courting Big Business.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
I don't know what windmill you are tilting against.

My comments were not directed at anything you said; and if you re-read my post, you will see I said "early" nazi goals. I'm talking about before the Nazi's started courting Big Business.

And then you made an argument from a slippery slope, which indicates that your comparison extended to Nazism in general.

For a guy with an IQ of 151, you aren't doing very well.

Melissia wrote:It's harder to start an argument with people who ignore all attempts at intelligently written discussion to instead attack slogans and catch phrases...

Normally these kinds of people would be called trolls, I think.

Pot me kettle. Saying you should frak corporations etc. is not helpful, in the least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Here's an interesting idea, from a person who has a CPA in fact:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-2

Compensation should be limited by law in all publicly held companies... The highest annual compensation, including wages, fees, benefits and stock options, for employees, directors, consultants and consulting firms should be limited to the higher of 100 times the annual compensation of that company's lowest paid full time employee (after one year of employment) or 50 times the median (not average) annual compensation of all its employees... If current overpaid CEOs refuse these limitations, they can form their own private companies and pay themselves without restrictions.

Notably, she had kept her name off the idea because she is "isn't very brave", in her words. But it's an interesting idea for executive compensation reform. According to the article she also mentioned "several additional tax brackets at income levels starting above $750,000" and "allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies."

I'm so not against this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:You know who else wore trousers?
Hitler.

Bob Hitler was especially partial to tweed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Though, I will say this - Phanatik, you're crazy. Just because something bears a structural similarity to something the NSDAP did, that doesn't mean that said thing will necessarily lead to extermination of the Jews. The Nazis wore trousers. My trousers will not lead to gas-chambers, per se.

Oh no, its already begun!

For some reason i so want to see how many stars are on that flag.

Ah, it only took three pages this time for Godwin's Law to prove correct.

Phanatik, do you plan on posting ANYTHING worth reading?

Frazzled wrote:Pot me kettle. Saying you should frak corporations etc. is not helpful, in the least.

I clarified what I meant; "frak them" in that context equated to "they're useless for our purposes, so let's go with someone else". Your choice to not read this clarification or simply to ignore it lowers my value of your response from "worth reading" closer towards "is he just trolling?".

I'm sure you feel the same way if I (accidently or intentioanly, which happens sometimes when I'm stressed out) take a post of yours out of context.

First, why make light of Chavez's cancer? Don't you consistently talk about having experience with the suffering it causes?
***He’s a dictator. I get off when dictators suffer like normal people.

Second, taxing the rich (excessively) and ending the Fed are thing that many consider to be solutions, and specifically would solve the problems they likely believe exist; ie. the insufficient taxation of the wealthy and the existence of the Fed.
***Taxation of wealthy is discussion point for budget – indeed you are correct. Its not especially helpful when trying create more jobs though. More importantly its seen as the panacaea for all the US’s ills. Fine. Do it. Then what?

Wacking the Fed is just stupid. Its nattering nabobedness. One the lists of “points” of the Occupy Bob’s House was eliminate the Fed and then start a national bank. Er.. the Fed is the national bank. Derp derp.

Also, taxing the rich (appropriately) is like to be a component of any sound tax policy.
***Again I’ll concede you are 100% correct.

Melissia wrote:Phanatik, do you plan on posting ANYTHING worth reading.

Since when do I require you to sign off on anything I post?

And to use your style of debate:
Melissia, do you plan on being consistent or making any sense when posting? ( I mean, REALLY, you go from supposedly voting for a non-Bush McCain to voting for Obama? That's like you-know-who and Netanyahu golfing together.)

Otherwise, have a nice day!

Phanatik wrote:Melissia, do you plan on being consistent or making any sense when posting?

I have been consistent. Saying that "I might vote for McCain" and "I might vote for Obama" isn't inconsistent; it's merely keeping my options open because for one, McCain isn't running anyway and I don't like the other Republican nominees thus far (which means I'd vote for Obama), and yet I also don't know what Obama offers as his solutions to the problems, as well as other things such as what he plans to do (or doesn't plan to do) about DADT/DoMA/gay marriage in general, abortion in general, education reform (every politician claims this, but few of them actually do it), etc. And so Romney is still an option if he wins-- if Romney offers a better platform, I'd vote for him.

The other republican candidates will not offer a better platform. They're too extremist right wing conservative, and therefor I strongly oppose their desire to control the social lives of Americans even if I might (except for Cain) agree with their economic views. I am not registerred in either party-- I'm an independent who doesn't vote on party lines, I vote on a person's platform and how it meshes with what I want. Both parties suck.

Melissia wrote:... and yet I also don't know what Obama offers as his solutions to the problems, ...

Surely, you must know that Obama is a large part of the problem?

What do you plan on doing with your chemistry degree, when you graduate?

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Surely, you must know that Obama is a large part of the problem?

Yes, that is the standard Republican rhetoric whenever a Democrat is in office; "it's [president's name]'s fault". Also the standard Democrat rhetoric whenever a Republican is in office.

Thus I ignore statements like this because they are at best oversimplified inanities.

Phanatik wrote:What do you plan on doing with your chemistry degree, when you graduate?

Chemical engineer probably.

Melissia wrote:Chemical engineer probably.

Interesting. Will you be going towards its application or do you think you would like to teach?

Best,

Ugh, hell no, not teaching. I'm not enough of a people person to be a competent teacher. I understand well, but explaining my understanding isn't easy.

Melissia wrote:Ugh, hell no, not teaching. I'm not enough of a people person to be a competent teacher. ....

I hear that. I have as much use for people as Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.

Chemical Engineering sounds like an investment in time and/or money. I was curious about your plans because I wondered if when you get your first position, you will request that they limit your salary so that you don't make disproportionately more money than anyone else at the company?

Regards,

I figured you'd ask a dumb, loaded question like that.

The answer is: No. Because I would not be paid disproportionately more than anyone in the company. As a skilled employee-- IE, one with an education and a degree that's worth something (IE not liberal arts)-- I would be paid more than unskilled labor. This is because, proportionately, I have more value because of my skills on paper. However, because of my inexperience, I would be paid less than others of the same level of skill-on-paper.

The same cannot necessarily be said of CEOs. Not only do CEOs often have executive severance packages that do not change in value regardless of their success or failures as CEOs, but frequently, the non-severance pay of an executive officer is not actually linked to the company's success.

Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, for example, deserved their compensation immensely. The CEOs of failing companies who had to rely on government bailouts because of their own incompetence? Not so much. These CEOS failed. They did not deserve their severance packages or their continued raises in levels of compensation if they were not severed (a frequent occasion).

Melissia wrote:Ugh, hell no, not teaching. I'm not enough of a people person to be a competent teacher. I understand well, but explaining my understanding isn't easy.

Organic chemicals right? Please tell me you're not one of those down with nature inorganic chemical guys.


Hydrocarbons, its the gas.

Melissia wrote:I figured you'd ask a dumb, loaded question like that.

The answer is: No. Because I would not be paid disproportionately more than anyone in the company. As a skilled employee-- IE, one with an education and a degree that's worth something (IE not liberal arts)-- I would be paid more than unskilled labor. This is because, proportionately, I have more value because of my skills on paper. However, because of my inexperience, I would be paid less than others of the same level of skill-on-paper.

The same cannot necessarily be said of CEOs. Not only do CEOs often have executive severance packages that do not change in value regardless of their success or failures as CEOs, but frequently, the non-severance pay of an executive officer is not actually linked to the company's success.

Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, for example, deserved their compensation immensely. The CEOs of failing companies who had to rely on government bailouts because of their own incompetence? Not so much.

Well, me being just a right-wing dummy, who could expect more?

CEOs don't have value? Would there not be a disparity in skill level between the CEO of your company and yourself? If your value entitles you to make more, than a CEO should make more, which could include executive packages. Should you prove to be unsuccessful for the company, should you give some of your compensation back? A company takes a risk when hiring any employee, that they will be of greater benefit than what they cost. If you felt your services were of such great value, you could try to negotiate some kind of package upon entering employment, which might not necessarily be linked to any "success" or "failure" on your part.

Surely a chemical engineer would make far more than someone from, say enviromental services? There would be quite a disparity between what you make, and what the person that empties your trashcan at night would make. You indicated "interest" in your link above, but don't seem to think it should apply to yourself? Wouldn't that be inconsistent?

Regards,

Fraz: Oh yeah. O.Chem. all the way. Especially with oil companies here in Texas.

Also, inorganic chemistry is just as unnatural as organic chemistry. Metallurgy for example is inorganic chemistry to an extent. Metallacrowns are another example.

Phanatik wrote:CEOs don't have value?

I never said that.

In fact, if you did bother to read what I had posted (which you did not), you'd notice I supported executive pay based off of performance-- which is a departure from the system we're currently using which essentially amounts to executive pay for the sake of executive pay.

Melissia wrote:Fraz: Oh yeah. O.Chem. all the way. Especially with oil companies here in Texas.

Phanatik wrote:CEOs don't have value?

I never said that.

In fact, if you did bother to read what I had posted (which you did not), you'd notice I supported executive pay based off of performance-- which is a departure from the system we're currently using.

Oh no, I read everything. Very illuminating.

Have a nice day.

Phanatik wrote:Oh no, I read everything. Very illuminating.

Next time read it BEFORE you post, then.

I will admit, I'm not an economist.

Business is all about incentives. The more jobs I outsource, the more money I take home. I think we can all agree what any "rational" actor in the market would do then right. Outsource those jobs.

Therefore, we have to simply change the incentives to keep jobs in the U.S., thereby making it more likely that such jobs will stay, and people here can work.

That's where taxing the rich comes in. Granted, its not a direct path like a tarriff, but it will essentially limit the incentive to try and make huge amounts of money just because you can. Now there is a consideration about how much is "enough" and where the "tipping point" is. Like I said, not the most efficient method, but it IS a method where none exists now.

Therefore, that's how taxing the rich "theoretically" creates jobs. It reduces the incentive to outsource as there is a point where making more money is no longer helpful. Then, instead the jobs here stay here as the Stockholders and CEOs are now making "enough". Not perfect.

However, it creates at least as many Jobs as supply-side economics makes going by the last 10 years. Using that benchmark anything over 0 seems to be a win!

People have to many rights these days...

Melissia wrote:Fraz: Oh yeah. O.Chem. all the way. Especially with oil companies here in Texas.

Also, inorganic chemistry is just as unnatural as organic chemistry. Metallurgy for example is inorganic chemistry to an extent. Metallacrowns are another example.

Phanatik wrote:CEOs don't have value?

I never said that.

In fact, if you did bother to read what I had posted (which you did not), you'd notice I supported executive pay based off of performance-- which is a departure from the system we're currently using which essentially amounts to executive pay for the sake of executive pay.

The only chem company I ever almost lost money on was an titanium dioxide manufacturer. White pigment manufactuer in everything blech!

Melissa: 2
Phanatic: 0

Don't encourage them.

Monster Rain wrote:Don't encourage them.

Seconded.

O.Chem is fun... less than half the periodic table is necessary in O.Chem.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Don't encourage them.

Seconded.

O.Chem is fun... less than half the periodic table is necessary in O.Chem.

Well, doesn't the other half of the periodic table kill the half necessary for O.Chem?

Eh, never really needed to know about them. If you know carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, magnesium, and some other elements you're golden. Palladium is necessary to know as well.

halonachos wrote:Palladium is necessary to know as well.

It that the one that allows you to detect evil?

WarOne wrote:

halonachos wrote:Palladium is necessary to know as well.

It that the one that allows you to detect evil?

Only when combined with Helium...