Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lefties who like McDowell
Options
Comments
-
He is a coward and a wimp. Apologising? Oh Michael where art thou.
He also doesn't seem to have achieved much the good things he has done were all begun under O'Donoghue.
Also a senior counsel banging on about competition but fighting reform of the legal profession:rolleyes:
He is putting his own interests before the country's there.
[Comments removed - Gandalf]0 -
Oh yea, thats why certain senior barristers regard him as a trator.mountainyman wrote:Also a senior counsel banging on about competition but fighting reform of the legal profession:rolleyes:
He is putting his own interests before the country's there.
Thats why he brought in the legal redress board.0 -
Surely CEOs get salaries of millions because they set their own salaries. Dermot Desmond would be setting up businesses and wheeling and dealing even if he was less successful. Sidney Frank who founded Grey Goose vodka didn't strike it rich till his seventies. I work for myself and wouldn't have it any other way.Sand wrote:...
Either way, a CEO might get a similar non-monetary reward from his job ( success, satisfaction from a good results etc etc) but he still needs a salary of millions to justify the stress. Mothers afaik are satisfied with the non-monetary reward they get from children to justify having those children, so logically a CEOs stress must be greater?
...
I don't understand your position.Sand wrote:... Stop lying about my position. If you need to lie then its a good sign youre wrong...Sand wrote:...
Would this be my premise or the strawman youre building for me because you cant counter my actual views?
...
Maybe your position is impossible to understand?
Akrasia these people don't look at the world morally. They lack a moral sense.
MM0 -
Name six (PM me)Firespinner wrote:...certain senior barristers regard him as a trator...Firespinner wrote:... Thats why he brought in the legal redress board...
What board is that now. The Imade itup board.
What are you talking about man? PIAB the RIRB what?
MM0 -
No, I am saying that it is ridiculous to base the quality of someone's life purely on the level of responsibility they have and the pressures on their time. You're the one who said CEOs need all their money to compensate for the high stress and long hours of their jobs, and now you're saying that raising a young family isn't stressful. It doesn't even have to be a mother of 5 children, it could be the parent of just one new born baby, or the parent of a child with mental and physical handicaps. I am not saying CEO's don't work hard, i am saying they don't work 400 times harder than ordinary people and if you think they do, then you are out of touch with reality.Sand wrote:Are you saying Glasgo that a mother who loves children so much that she has 5 of them is worse off than a terminally ill patient? Has any study been carried out or is it just bar stool talk? And theres no correlation between CEOs and mothers that has been identified afaik.
That is absolute nonsense. You're saying that because CEOs get paid so much, logically they must need it more than other people. You probably studied economics so you are aware of the concepts of transfer earnings and economic rent. Are you saying that CEO's in America would leave their jobs and become road sweepers if their pay was cut from 400 times the average wage to the U.K. level of 40 times the average wage? Or that CEO's in the U.K. would refuse to work if all they could get paid was 10 times the average industrial wage?Either way, a CEO might get a similar non-monetary reward from his job ( success, satisfaction from a good results etc etc) but he still needs a salary of millions to justify the stress. Mothers afaik are satisfied with the non-monetary reward they get from children to justify having those children, so logically a CEOs stress must be greater?
Transfer earnings are the minimum reward required to keep a factor of production in it's current use. Anything above it is economic rent and is basically wasted resources. The current corporate willingness to pay top executives millions of dollers a year is wasting the resources that are generated by the ordinary workers.
I must have missed that distinction you made, It was not deliberate but it was flattering to you because without the long term committment and risk of personal loss that a CEO might have, there is even less justification for his massive earnings. You claim that the owners are tied to their investments, but the owners are almost all shareholders now who, as you say in the very same post, are free to sell their investment at any time. And because Shareholders have extremely limited liability, they only stand to lose the money they have chose to invest, their risk is lower than that of the ordinary worker who stands to lose his entire livelyhood if the business shuts down or if he/she is laid off by the overpaid management.Thats the second time youve tried to misrepresent my position. I already corrected you in my last post so I can only assume youre deliberately lying at this point. Owners are tied to their investments, and I *specifically* noted in my last post that CEOs were like any other employees in that they could leave easily from their companies.
Heres the quote from my last post:
Stop lying about my position. If you need to lie then its a good sign youre wrong.
don't worry, I have absolutely no difficulty countering your stated views, and i am not alone, 'A Dub In Glasgo' did a good job of blowing holes in your argument before I had a chance.Would this be my premise or the strawman youre building for me because you cant counter my actual views?
One minute you accuse me of building straw men, then you call me a stalinist. How consistant. I assure you i couldn't be further from a stalinist perspective. Service industry jobs can often contribute to the value of a product and improve a persons quality of life, but stock market and commodities speculators add nothing real, just an illusion of value. If trader buys sugar at $50 a tonne on the world market, and sells it for $60 a tonne, he has not added any value to the sugar, he just takes advantage of hiis ability to control that part of the sugar supply.What a quaint stalinist view of economic activity comrade. IT specialists arent toiling in the fields or working on assembly lines building Ladas so I guess theyre not economically useful in your view either? Why dont we go back to living in caves and smacking one rock off another to make fire, hunting animals with sharpened sticks...
the top 1% of Americans control 50% of the shares in America, and the top 20% control 96% of all the shares. the other 80% have just 4%. I use american figures because they are easier to get a hold of but i'm sure there is a similar situation here. And as for pension funds giving control to ordinary workers, How often do people who own stock in pension funds get to vote at shareholders meetings and how often does the vote of the entire pension fund ever powerful enough to make any decisions about how the company is run? The answer is probably never. Shares giving ordinary people ownership of companies is about as meaningful as buying a plot of land on the moon. You might own it, but you can't do **** all with it. The people who get the power from the Workers pension money, are the banks who run the funds and the fund managers.Mutual funds take peoples savings and invest them in companies, generating a return for their members. The economic benefit is that they offer a funds to a company to invest in new products, facilities or entire new ventures far more easily than can be done with a normal bank (you can sell a share or a bond far more easily than you can sell a bank loan so its a safer way to get a return). I wouldnt expect Stalinist era economists to see why its useful to provide enterprise with capital to invest but you did ask.
The interesting thing to note is that mutual funds are the biggest investors around - the days of "old money" dominating markets is gone. The biggest members of mutual funds are workers saving for their pension. In a roundabout fashion, mutual funds are the way in which the workers control the means of production...
Personal loan rates in Ireland are about 12% to 8% depending on how much you are borrowing. A corporate loan is typically 2% above the ECB base rate which is about 5% right now, probably lower for a powerful customer. Credit card interest in ireland is huge, up to 21% in some cases, but as usual, the higher the credit limit, the lower the interest rate.And BTW - Very high rates of interest on personal loans?!?!? Are you for real? Interest rates has been at historic lows for years (fueling the property market) and are only now beginning to slightly rise.
oh come on. you're saying that ordinary people are ok with child sweatshop labour? That's illegal by the way, under world trade regulations and treaties signed by almost every country on earth. There is absolutely no need for Nike to pay a child 10 cents for a pair of runners that cost over $100 when sold to the public meanwhile the company makes 9 billion euros a year in profitsLets face it - your alternative would be government regulation over and above the law again. Seeing as Nike can operate child slavery in the third world without it impacting their sales its clear no one in Ireland or elsewhere views Nikes practises as a significant problem. Hence a representitive government wont view it as a problem either surely?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
daveirl wrote:This post has been deleted.
Look, there really is no argument. CEO's are hugely overpaid. It's not just their salaries, it's their 'bonus and reward schemes', their huge pension schemes and their stock options, and if they lose their job for one reason or another, they recieve massive compensation packages, all of which make knowing exactly how much the CEO is earning really difficult even for the people who are hiring him, but especially for the minority shareholdersCompensation specialists say pay packages for top executives and the rules for disclosing them are so complex that even they have a hard time figuring them out. Coming up with a total price tag means assigning a number to every benefit and sorting out what portion of a stock option grant belongs in this year's paycheck, vs. last year's or next year's......
.....Because U.S. tax law doesn't allow companies to deduct more than $1 million of an executive's salary, most firms keep it below that threshold, says Dennis Beresford, an accounting professor at the University of Georgia. Fishman's salary — $930,935 a year — is no exception.
In contrast, when it comes to bonuses and other forms of performance-related pay, there's no limit on what companies can deduct. As a result, CEOs often pocket the big money on these awards. Larry Mizel, CEO of home builder M.D.C. Holdings, earned a 2005 bonus of $20.5 million. That far outstrips the $1 million average for 2004, the most recent figure available from the Corporate Library. Fishman's take: $414,445.
In the next column of the compensation table, you'll see that Fishman received $1,003,632 in "Other Annual Compensation" in 2005. According to the footnotes, this was an interest payment. Why did Analog pay its CEO interest? Because like many top executives, Fishman participates in a plan that allows him to defer his pay to postpone taxes. In a separate table, Analog voluntarily discloses that at the start of its fiscal 2005, Fishman's deferred compensation account had reached $134.5 million. Because Analog had use of that money, it paid Fishman interest. The CEO recently withdrew the entire account balance.
Still, the $1,003,632 that's listed here is only a small portion of the $8.74 million in interest the footnote says Fishman actually received in 2005. Why the gap? Currently, companies only have to count as compensation the interest they pay that's above a "market rate" — calculated by taking 120% of the AFR, or applicable federal rate the Internal Revenue Service publishes monthly. Because Analog paid its CEO an average of 6.48% while the market rate was 5.57%, the interest payment that resulted from the 0.91% difference is all that's in the Summary Compensation Table. The rest, or the $7.74 million in interest paid at the market rate, remains out of the tally -- although this will change, too, if the SEC's proposals prevail. "Under current disclosure rules, interest on deferred compensation for most plans is not disclosed," says Diane Doubleday, global leader of Mercer's executive remuneration service segment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11859579/
As for shareholders voting down their wage packages? Why would they do that? Most corporations are owned by other corporations who's CEO controls how they vote with their Shares, CEOs are not going to insist on reducing the terms for one CEO because that would put pressure on their own package. It's a non zero sum game, for the CEOs, but for everybody else, there are clear winners and losers (the CEO's win, everyone else loses)
The only article I could find that defends CEO wages is from some guy from the Ayn Rand institute, and they're certified nutcases over there.
It's quite simple, because Nike spend billions of dollers creating a fuzzy warm happy brand that people can identify with. People like Nike, there are positive emotions associated with it. those ads are very carefully designed to appeal to people's sense of self worth.So how come people still buy Nike by the shipload even though everyone knows sweatshops are involved?
On the other hand, people know that there are sweatshops out there, but because they're hidden away, people don't realise how awful the conditions are for people who work in them. And even if they did, Nike have a very effective strategy to help people feel at ease with themselves. They claim they are trying to make these people's lives better, they claim they have all these codes and practises that they claim are strictly enforced, and then whenever anyone does an expose on one of the many sweatshops that Nike uses, they claim "Oh, that's not our factory, they're independent subcontractors, we had no idea they were so evil, we'll get right on improving the situation" but they do nothing. The stories from those factories are absolutely appalling, the workers are little more than slaves. but Nike are legally protected because they employ all the devices that are carefully designed to limit corporate responsibility. And then when activists attempt to organise boycott campaigns, there are no shortage of right wing free market types to campaign, for free, on their behalf, on behalf of 'freedom of choice'.
I have been involved in these campaigns in the past. I know how hard it is to make a difference. These corporations hold all of the advantages.0 -
The directors have their compensation set by the CEO, it is a golden circle.daveirl wrote:This post has been deleted.
Also what about O'Reilly when chairman of Hynes.
But look at it like this:
I am a CEO the business makes a profit of 2 billion a year.
I increase that profit by 50% 1 billion.
So what should my compensation be?
Of course then the CEO down the road asks for an increase as well. But he isn't as good.
Then the fellow that is good (or is so perceived) says 'That incompetent got a raise. I want one (I will give all you fellows one) '
etc.0 -
You said that better than I could have.mountainyman wrote:The directors have their compensation set by the CEO, it is a golden circle.
Also what about O'Reilly when chairman of Hynes.
But look at it like this:
I am a CEO the business makes a profit of 2 billion a year.
I increase that profit by 50% 1 billion.
So what should my compensation be?
Of course then the CEO down the road asks for an increase as well. But he isn't as good.
Then the fellow that is good (or is so perceived) says 'That incompetent got a raise. I want one (I will give all you fellows one) '
etc.0 -
CEO's get massive wages because they can make or break a company.0
-
Advertisement
-
so can the workers. The CEOs get massive wages even if they break the company.Firespinner wrote:CEO's get massive wages because they can make or break a company.0 -
To a marked extent it is simply the ability to set compensation. It also goes back to the LBO and greenmail phenomenon of the 1980s. That is where the huge inflation came from.Akrasia wrote:so can the workers. The CEOs get massive wages even if they break the company.
But at any rate to some extent and in its most marked form this is a US phenomenon. For example Chris Gent of Vodafone is on STG 10 million a year.
I think it is possible (but very unlikely) that his surplus value exceeds that.
There is no example (I think) as marked as O'Reilly at Heinz in Ireland or England and certainly there wouldn't be elsewhere.
MM0 -
Certainly not. You are suggesting that a top manager is worse off than a terminally ill patient.
I suggest nothing, other than a study on the topic found high level managers had a lower quality of life than terminally ill patients. You dragged in a red herring about mothers, and now youre running away from it. Thats fine. We both agree that theres no reason to think mothers are worse off than the terminally ill. Are we done here?Maybe your position is impossible to understand?
Akrasia these people don't look at the world morally. They lack a moral sense.
Thats weird, Im advocating morality in one thread to people who dont accept its existence and in another Im being told I lack a sense of morality? Is it moral to ensure people are dependant upon you, to kill their iniative and self respect? Either way my position is perfectly understandable despite efforts on the parts of some posters to muddy the waters.No, I am saying that it is ridiculous to base the quality of someone's life purely on the level of responsibility they have and the pressures on their time.
Well youd best inform the Prof. that you dont like the results of his study so he should change his methodology until he gets results you like.You're saying that because CEOs get paid so much, logically they must need it more than other people. You probably studied economics so you are aware of the concepts of transfer earnings and economic rent. Are you saying that CEO's in America would leave their jobs and become road sweepers if their pay was cut from 400 times the average wage to the U.K. level of 40 times the average wage? Or that CEO's in the U.K. would refuse to work if all they could get paid was 10 times the average industrial wage?
What theyd probably do is drop themselves to a level of responsibility/pressure which *currently* earns 10 times the average industrial wage. Why take on extra stress of being CEO when youre not compensated for it?without the long term committment and risk of personal loss that a CEO might have, there is even less justification for his massive earnings
More actually, it keeps him sweet. Massive wage inflation in the Premiership came with the end of players being treated like chattel. Clubs suddenly had to compete to stop a player walking at the end of his contract, and even to keep them settled during their contract.You claim that the owners are tied to their investments, but the owners are almost all shareholders now who, as you say in the very same post, are free to sell their investment at any time.
Youre aware of supply and demand and how it helps to determine price? What do you think happens if a large shareholder tries to sell his/her holdings fast? Sudden increase in supply->collapse in price. Thats even before other shareholders get scared wondering why a large shareholder is dumping his holdings and thinks they should dump too. Most stock market crashes occur because the market gets spooked thinking sellers know more than they do, rush to sell, cant find enough buyers, price collapses, more shareholders rush to sell before the price is completely wiped out....fuel on fire.
Long story short, the large scale owners cant dump their shares quickly and easily. Theyre locked in for the ride.And because Shareholders have extremely limited liability, they only stand to lose the money they have chose to invest, their risk is lower than that of the ordinary worker who stands to lose his entire livelyhood if the business shuts down or if he/she is laid off by the overpaid management
So its easier to lose your entire investment, that you cannot get back, than it is to find a new job inside a month with barely a hitch in income (let alone redundancy payments)? Yeah, right.'A Dub In Glasgo' did a good job of blowing holes in your argument before I had a chance.
Go team!One minute you accuse me of building straw men, then you call me a stalinist. How consistant. I assure you i couldn't be further from a stalinist perspective.
I didnt call you a stalinist? Out of curiosity would you consider the furthest point from stalinism to be trotskyism? Because you dont seem to hold much to anarcho capitalism...Service industry jobs can often contribute to the value of a product and improve a persons quality of life, but stock market and commodities speculators add nothing real, just an illusion of value. If trader buys sugar at $50 a tonne on the world market, and sells it for $60 a tonne, he has not added any value to the sugar, he just takes advantage of hiis ability to control that part of the sugar supply.
You wouldnt consider a trader to be providing a service by bringing demand and supply together, acting as a broker? You must be mystified by shops then, buying clothes cheap (for example) and selling them for more. How can that make sense? Surely it would make more sense for us each to travel to China, find a factory worker, a translator, a bureau de change and buy the clothes ourselves?
If traders didnt provide a service then theyd simply be sidestepped by evil capitalist fat cats hungry to wring out the last penny of profit from every transaction, condeming the poor traders and their families to abject poverty. Damn those evil capitalists....Shares giving ordinary people ownership of companies is about as meaningful as buying a plot of land on the moon. You might own it, but you can't do **** all with it.
Yeah, its the same complaint with democracy. Why bother? Its only one vote out of millions, in a system where the same money backs both parties.
The general rule of corporations is that they are run to extract the maximum possible benefit for their shareholders. Generally, this is why socialist thought views them as evil and immoral. Hence if you own shares in a company, its single purpose is to provide you with the max return on those shares, to the point where its considered by some to be evil. Seeing as the only reason youd invest in a company is to get a return, what exactly else were you planning to do with it?
And what downward pressure exists on CEOs wages and investigation of contracts comes from shareholders concerned their interests arent being considered fully. Pure profit driven motivation.The people who get the power from the Workers pension money, are the banks who run the funds and the fund managers.
Who are charged with providing the best return on that money possible, safeguarded by watchdog institutions...Personal loan rates in Ireland are about 12% to 8% depending on how much you are borrowing. A corporate loan is typically 2% above the ECB base rate which is about 5% right now, probably lower for a powerful customer. Credit card interest in ireland is huge, up to 21% in some cases, but as usual, the higher the credit limit, the lower the interest rate.
The ECB rate is much less actually.
And for personal loans the reason why the rates on them are higher than corporate loans is because corporations borrow to invest, to generate a return which reassures the bank that they will repay. Personal loans get blown on trips to the world cup - no return. Higher risk of inability to repay, hence higher return demanded to take on the risk of a bad debt.
Look at the difference in rates on say motor loans, which is spent on an asset (even if rapidly depreciating) - rates as low as 6.9% from TSB (only one I checked), which is even lower than the 7% corporate loan rates youre talking about...That's illegal by the way, under world trade regulations and treaties signed by almost every country on earth. There is absolutely no need for Nike to pay a child 10 cents for a pair of runners that cost over $100 when sold to the public
And yet people still buy Nike despite having the relatively painless option of simply buying another brand of footwear to speak to corporations where they listen - their profit. The only conclusion is that people dont care hence why should their government care? No votes in it...I know how hard it is to make a difference. These corporations hold all of the advantages.
Because people dont care?0 -
Sand wrote:I suggest nothing, other than a study on the topic found high level managers had a lower quality of life than terminally ill patients.
Why introduce something if you are not suggesting it? A study which is way off the mark (IMO, of couse). Do you agree that top managers are worse off than terminally ill patients?You dragged in a red herring about mothers,
That is the first I have heard of that, I suggest you do a little bit of re-reading. I do believe you brought in the red herring of top managers being worse off than terminally ill patients (in a bizarre justification for paying 7 figure salaries to top managers)and now youre running away from it.
away from what?Thats fine. We both agree that theres no reason to think mothers are worse off than the terminally ill. Are we done here?
I have proposed that neither mothers nor top managers are worse off than the terminally ill. You suggest otherwise (for the managers).0 -
I am certainly not an anarcho capitalist, which is just a misleading way of describing a free market capitalist or an american 'libertarian'. I am a classical anarchist, or libertarian socialist. I believe in direct control of the workplace by the workers themselves, Not through the proxy of a state, but directly in a Workers Co-operative. This means the workers produce all the wealth and take all the risk themselves, and so reap all the benefits themselves. I believe that the entire economy, and society should be organised in this way through co-operatives and direct democratic decision making.I didnt call you a stalinist? Out of curiosity would you consider the furthest point from stalinism to be trotskyism? Because you dont seem to hold much to anarcho capitalism...
If when you say trader, you mean speculator, then no. A speculator adds nothing to the value chain other than by controlling assets to exploit demand. They are not producers, or distributors. A shop buys things and sells them for a profit, but they also provide a physical distribution service that is necessary to get the products to the end user. that is different from someone buying shares from speculators and selling them to other speculators for a profit. They don't produce anything. They only benefit from the work of others without contributing to the work themselves.You wouldnt consider a trader to be providing a service by bringing demand and supply together, acting as a broker? You must be mystified by shops then, buying clothes cheap (for example) and selling them for more. How can that make sense? Surely it would make more sense for us each to travel to China, find a factory worker, a translator, a bureau de change and buy the clothes ourselves?
No, it's the same argument against plutocracy Real democracy is more than just electing representatives from corporate parties to make decisions supposedly on their behalf, but in reality in the interest of others. And to say that shareholders take part in a democratic decision making mechanism within the corporation is completely misleading. It's not democracy, which is by definition, rule by the people, it's dollerocracy, which is rule by the doller. In a Shareholder vote, every doller gets a vote.Yeah, its the same complaint with democracy. Why bother? Its only one vote out of millions, in a system where the same money backs both parties.
Those who believe 'the only responsibility CEOs have, is to maximise the financial return to the shareholder' are assuming that the only interests the shareholders have are financial. That is totally untrue. For example, There are probably people who have shares in Shell or BP, who live in areas that will be devastated by Global warming. It is in their better interests if Shell and BP try to prevent the effects of Global warming, than if they try to increase the short term gain to those shareholders. The singular aim of corporations to maximise short term profits ignores the effects of the many externalities that exist as a result of their activities, many of which are against the interests of Individual shareholders, and society in general.The general rule of corporations is that they are run to extract the maximum possible benefit for their shareholders. Generally, this is why socialist thought views them as evil and immoral. Hence if you own shares in a company, its single purpose is to provide you with the max return on those shares, to the point where its considered by some to be evil. Seeing as the only reason youd invest in a company is to get a return, what exactly else were you planning to do with it?
Which brand of footware should consumers buy that doesn't support sweatshops and child labour? Most people never consider the impact of their purchasing decisions on the lives of others. It is rarely a factor in the decision making process, but if you show a documentary of what happens in these factories rte television at a reasonable time, you can be certain that the next day there will be public outcry and in the short term sales of that particular brand will decline. The problem is, there are hardly ever any documentaries like that on mainstream television during prime time slots, and even if there were, the corporation affected will immediately launch an expensive public relations campaign to counter the bad publicity.And yet people still buy Nike despite having the relatively painless option of simply buying another brand of footwear to speak to corporations where they listen - their profit. The only conclusion is that people dont care hence why should their government care? No votes in it...0 -
What happens to the inventor or entrepreneur? Why would people try to improve?Akrasia wrote:Not through the proxy of a state, but directly in a Workers Co-operative. This means the workers produce all the wealth and take all the risk themselves, and so reap all the benefits themselves. I believe that the entire economy, and society should be organised in this way through co-operatives and direct democratic decision making.0 -
the inventor would invent, the entrapreneur would argue on behalf of his ideas. People would strive for improvement because it's part of what drives us as humans.Firespinner wrote:What happens to the inventor or entrepreneur? Why would people try to improve?0 -
Would they be rewarded? Would they have reason to percevere? Or would society stagnate once such people realised that their efforts would be taken from them?Akrasia wrote:the inventor would invent, the entrapreneur would argue on behalf of his ideas. People would strive for improvement because it's part of what drives us as humans.0 -
the beauty of anarchism, is that it's really a set of principles around which a working society can be built around. if there is a serious problem with one way, then it can be revised to fix that problem.Firespinner wrote:Would they be rewarded? Would they have reason to percevere? Or would society stagnate once such people realised that their efforts would be taken from them?
What you are doing is proposing a lot of hypothetical questions that can not be answered to anyone's satisfaction because there are assumptions about the current system, and any alternative system, that can not be proven.
Assumption 1. People only invent things because they want to become super rich
assumption 2. People who inventive are the ones that benefit from their inventiveness
Assumption 3. People are jealous and dont want other people to succeed, so they will try to block people from pursuing inventive activities
Assumption 4. Entrapreneurs can achieve their goals on their own, with no help from wider society, so they deserve all the profits themselves and screw everyone else.
In reality, most inventiveness in our society is as a result of Intrapreneurship, not entrapreneurship, it is as a result of people doing a job, and trying to make that job more interesting, or more efficient, or because they have ideas about products that they present to management for approval. What is the difference between intrapreneurship within a corporation, and within a Co-operative workplace?0 -
Why does Michael McDowell get so much stick all the time. It seems people think its more important for politicians to be nice (eg bertie) than effective(mcdowell).
I would rather have a government made of politicians that sometimes do the wrong thing over a government that does nothing.
If our country is going to the dogs then it is because there are too many Dick Roches and Mary O'Rourkes (i know not a td at mo' but i'm refering to last govt) who do ****ing nothing. Dick Roche is shelving any report which urges him to make a tough dicision while Ireland is suffering major envirornmental problems. Dick Roche was afraid to take on Wrigleys (the chewing gum company) yet McDowell tried to take on the publicans! Which do you think is more risky for an irish politician.Now that is a contrast.
People think Mary Harney should resign because in 2 years she hasnt magically fixed a health system which consumes 1/3 of current budget. It is because she is attempting to make so many reforms of the system that she is always in the news - and so she becomes an easy target for the media. Why does nobody ever blame the ministers for health who were in office for the past 10 years and attempted no reforms.
Its about time people acted a bit more like McDowell and look at the bigger picture - we need to stop arguing over what our politicians say and start looking at what they DO.
Forget whether you are a pd are labour supporter, it doesnt matter what each of us wants if still nothing gets done. I think more respect needs to be paid for the few ministers are visibly working to achieve things and McDowell certainly deserves respect for that.0 -
Advertisement
-
But what has McDowell actually done?dRNk SAnTA wrote:Why does Michael McDowell get so much stick all the time. It seems people think its more important for politicians to be nice (eg bertie) than effective(mcdowell).
I would rather have a government made of politicians that sometimes do the wrong thing over a government that does nothing.
If our country is going to the dogs then it is because there are too many Dick Roches and Mary O'Rourkes (i know not a td at mo' but i'm refering to last govt) who do ****ing nothing. Dick Roche is shelving any report which urges him to make a tough dicision while Ireland is suffering major envirornmental problems. Dick Roche was afraid to take on Wrigleys (the chewing gum company) yet McDowell tried to take on the publicans! Which do you think is more risky for an irish politician.Now that is a contrast.
People think Mary Harney should resign because in 2 years she hasnt magically fixed a health system which consumes 1/3 of current budget. It is because she is attempting to make so many reforms of the system that she is always in the news - and so she becomes an easy target for the media. Why does nobody ever blame the ministers for health who were in office for the past 10 years and attempted no reforms.
Its about time people acted a bit more like McDowell and look at the bigger picture - we need to stop arguing over what our politicians say and start looking at what they DO.
Forget whether you are a pd are labour supporter, it doesnt matter what each of us wants if still nothing gets done. I think more respect needs to be paid for the few ministers are visibly working to achieve things and McDowell certainly deserves respect for that.
very very little, except introduce laws to crack down on political dissent, Make sweeping and unsubstantiated statements in the Dail, Leak secret documents to the press, and get involved in a hugely controvertial land deal where he bought a prison site in a terribly insuitable location for several times more than the market value. He's in the news all of the time which gives the impression that he's doing things, but really, what has he done?0 -
I think that there's a Monthy Python sketch very similar to that post. What has he done except for this big long list of things?Akrasia wrote:But what has McDowell actually done?
very very little, except introduce laws to crack down on political dissent, Make sweeping and unsubstantiated statements in the Dail, Leak secret documents to the press, and get involved in a hugely controvertial land deal where he bought a prison site in a terribly insuitable location for several times more than the market value. He's in the news all of the time which gives the impression that he's doing things, but really, what has he done?0 -
What have the Romans done.John_C wrote:I think that there's a Monthy Python sketch very similar to that post. What has he done except for this big long list of things?0 -
well, that sketch was 'what have the romans ever done for us" from the Life of Brian, and it lists loads of things the romans had done for them, None of the things i mentioned in relation to McDowell were things he has done 'for us'John_C wrote:I think that there's a Monthy Python sketch very similar to that post. What has he done except for this big long list of things?0 -
We can agree or disagree on the particular issues but I don't think it's accurate to say he hasn't done anything.Akrasia wrote:well, that sketch was 'what have the romans ever done for us" from the Life of Brian, and it lists loads of things the romans had done for them, None of the things i mentioned in relation to McDowell were things he has done 'for us'0 -
There is an article by Vincent Browne in the current issue of The Village which analyses MM tenure as Minister.
MM claims he is second to none as Minister [at a recent PD event] and has initiated 30 pieces of legislation.
8 of those pieces of legislation just implemented EU, international or British-Irish Agreements
12 were minor pieces of legislation
1 enabled the holding of a referendum
Of the remaining 9 pieces of legislation, Browne considers only 5 to be of major significance.
Each piece of legislation is described with a commentary from Browne. MM is in the job as Minister nearly 4 years now.0 -
Why introduce something if you are not suggesting it? A study which is way off the mark (IMO, of couse). Do you agree that top managers are worse off than terminally ill patients?
Because Im not "suggesting", Im noting that a study has determined they are. As to whether I agree or not, I have not carried out my own study, nor have I encountered any material criticism of the study (other than your opinion of course) so Ill accept its findings until given reason otherwise.I am a classical anarchist, or libertarian socialist. I believe in direct control of the workplace by the workers themselves, Not through the proxy of a state, but directly in a Workers Co-operative. This means the workers produce all the wealth and take all the risk themselves, and so reap all the benefits themselves. I believe that the entire economy, and society should be organised in this way through co-operatives and direct democratic decision making.
Well fire away, whose stopping you from pooling your capital with others, forming a co-op or some other form of corporation and working for yourselves? How you handle your profit share internally is your concern. If you want to pay Bob who you hired Monday the same as Ted who mortgaged his house to buy the company factory then fair enough. Im sure Ted will take it philosophically.
But thats not what its really about - the various shades of communism are all simply about justifying claiming the result of others enterprise and risk taking - sure we deserve it! The various left wing idealogies place no value whatsoever on enterprise or risk taking or vision. Hence they are completely unable to see why Ted should receive any more than Bob. Sure he only mortgaged his house?If when you say trader, you mean speculator, then no. A speculator adds nothing to the value chain other than by controlling assets to exploit demand.
Point in case - someone takes a risk and buys shares in a company, hoping that demand for them will rise. It works out and he sell later at a profit. Communists are simply stumped at why the investor deserves the profit. All he did was provide the company with capital to invest, which the company turned into profit, leading to a higher price for the investor to sell at. The investor took a risk, but communists dont place any value on risk taking.
And I notice you dont explain why they arent bypassed if they add no value?And to say that shareholders take part in a democratic decision making mechanism within the corporation is completely misleading. It's not democracy, which is by definition, rule by the people, it's dollerocracy, which is rule by the doller. In a Shareholder vote, every doller gets a vote.
Every share gets a vote actually, reflecting that if you invest 20 million in a company you should have more of a say in what happens to that 20 million than the guy who invested 20 quid. Its not a democracy, and corporations arent a replacement for government. They are a tool to efficiently achieve profit for the owners. Each owner will be seeking the maximum return on their investment, and that return will be equal on every share. Please, confirm for me that you think its wrong that voting power should be proportional to investment.Those who believe 'the only responsibility CEOs have, is to maximise the financial return to the shareholder' are assuming that the only interests the shareholders have are financial. That is totally untrue.
Of course, but corporations are formed only for the purpose of earning profit and its employees are charged (primarily - there is hands across the world crap too, but thats PR with a profit motivation again) with earning that profit for its owners. Its up to owners to take care of their other interests themselves - again corporations are not a replacement for government. Corporations != Political Parties. If they were political parties, corporations wouldnt need to bribe politicians.Which brand of footware should consumers buy that doesn't support sweatshops and child labour? Most people never consider the impact of their purchasing decisions on the lives of others. It is rarely a factor in the decision making process
Until voting time comes around, and then everyone is basing their decisions on how it impacts people living in 3rd world countries? Give me a break. Do you think farmers will ever vote for an end to CAP despite it strangling competition from 3rd world farmers? Or will trade unionists ever vote for an end to trade barriers that keep the competition abroad stifled? Do you think their concern over underpaid foreign workers in Ireland has more to do with their concern over someone elses paypacket or their concern over their own paypacket being undercut by new competition?
But all they have to do to send Nike a message is buy some other brand. Probably for much cheaper than theyd pay for Nike. And they wont do it. This is the voting base for politically driven revolution? Maybe you werent so far wrong with your belief that peoples interests need to be placed before profit - only in Nikes case, peoples interest in having fashionable footwear goes before they save money buying another brand.The problem is, there are hardly ever any documentaries like that on mainstream television during prime time slots,
Nike are well associated with evil incarnate tbh.
If you really want to end 3rd world repression then you need to turn the forces that drive it to your advantage. Create the demand for approved goods. Bono and Geldof have demonstrated that people love shallow politics, but their problem is they cant know whats "bad" and whats "good" to buy. Create a brand that identifies "good" products, Bono and Co create the demand for that brand, the consumer demand creates the producers demand to earn the brand by demonstrating their conditions are good.
Unfortunately, that might require recognition of the market and the forces of demand/suppy/branding and so on. Evil capitalist stuff like that.the beauty of anarchism, is that it's really a set of principles around which a working society can be built around. if there is a serious problem with one way, then it can be revised to fix that problem.
Yeah, its like a la carte Catholicism. You can be a Catholic without actually having to believe any of that Catholic rubbish!What you are doing is proposing a lot of hypothetical questions that can not be answered to anyone's satisfaction because there are assumptions about the current system, and any alternative system, that can not be proven.
Assumption 1. People only invent things because they want to become super rich
assumption 2. People who inventive are the ones that benefit from their inventiveness
Assumption 3. People are jealous and dont want other people to succeed, so they will try to block people from pursuing inventive activities
Assumption 4. Entrapreneurs can achieve their goals on their own, with no help from wider society, so they deserve all the profits themselves and screw everyone else.
Yes, thats why the USSR had to beg the USA for technology to milk cows, or why any Soviet scientist, sportsman or artist had a KGB detachment ensuring they didnt flee to reap monetary reward for their gifts in the capitalist west.
Protection of intellectual property rights - to a reasonable degree - allowing profit to be earned on enterepreneurship is vital in encouraging people to spend time and money on R&D. I havent exactly noticed Somalia as leading the world scientifically, but then that would be the story of all nations who do not protect patents, and systems which do not value or reward entrepreneurship, risk taking or vision.0 -
dRNk SAnTA wrote:Why does Michael McDowell get so much stick all the time. It seems people think its more important for politicians to be nice (eg bertie) than effective(mcdowell).
Bertie is not nice and McDowell is not effective !0 -
The village is ****. Brown is well known for having personal beef with McDowell, so I wouldn't trust him.A Dub in Glasgo wrote:There is an article by Vincent Browne in the current issue of The Village which analyses MM tenure as Minister.
MM claims he is second to none as Minister [at a recent PD event] and has initiated 30 pieces of legislation.
.0 -
Advertisement
-
An eloquent and thought provoking rebuttal. We thank you for adding to the debate and the general sum of all human knowledge.Firespinner wrote:The village is ****.Brown is well known for having personal beef with McDowell, so I wouldn't trust him.
Where as Mc Dowell is never one to make sweeping allegations which using parliamentary privileges he doesn't have to support or show evidence.
Browne is making a case in the mainstream media, if they're unfounded Mc Dowell can sue, unlike those attacked by Mc Dowell in the Dail.
Many people have "beef's" with Mc Dowell, he's offended so many aspects and parts of Irish society, announcing that someone who doesn't like Mc Dowell "can't be trusted" would exclude off the top of my head, the Rossport five, the entire Green Party supporter base, Anyone with republican sympathises, most newspaper editors, the RTE news room, human rights activists.
Essentially the only people who don't have a "beef" with Mc Dowell could be summerised as Kevin Myers, some PDs (cause hey I'm sure he and Liz O'Donnell are busom buddies) and the editorial staff of the Sindo and Indo.
Are these the only people you trust?
Instead of dismissing Browne's criticism with an ad homien attack why don't you actually address the points he makes instead of saying
"the village is ****".
Firespinner your point is so bad, you're making me agree with Adubinglasgo and I hate doing that.0
Advertisement