Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors

[nickn]

Also, in response to $80k not being a lot of money in Atlanta..which you commented on but really didn't approach that fact.

I was raised in Atlanta (actually northwest of it, but more or less atlanta) I had (have) a 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment in Paulding County, which is a ways outside of atlanta..We pay $1200 a month for it, nothing nice, just a basic 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment.

Now I am living in south georgia, 3 hours south of atlanta, nice town...Valdosta...I pay $500 a month for a 4 bedroom house, nice house, great part of town, high demand for the house...

So to say that $80k is not a lot in atlanta is quite true. You can't base how "rich" someone is by how much they make without having consideration of where they live...

People who make $80k here in valdosta are very rare...and i'd say most families in atlanta make $80k+

[serpicolugnut]

nickn seems to be making all of my points for me... thanks nickn!

There is no slippery slope to communism, but there is one to hyper inflation. It is fine to pay what people are worth, but that worth should be kept in perspective. When studying the economy and watching how different areas spin out of control with regard to the rest of the economy, yes, regulation should be brought in to check those areas.

So, where would YOU start? How about the cast of NBC TV show Friends? Surely they can't be worth $1million each per episode? That's ridiculous! Or how about Mets pitcher Tom Glavine. Surely his $35million for 3 years of work is outrageous! Or what about Steve Jobs. A $140 million Jet, plus over $100milliion in stock options is over the top, right?

Please. As much as my head spins by all of the above examples, they were able to obtain it under fair market value. If NBC wasn't making a gaggle of cash from Friends, they wouldn't have even considered the $6million+ cost of each episode. If Tom Glavine wasn't worth nearly $12million/year to the Mets in ticket sales, TV revenues, etc., they wouldn't have paid for it. And if Steve Jobs service to Apple didn't warrrant his compensation, he wouldn't get it.

So, who are you going to appoint to this government position that will determine what each and every person is worth and what they are entitled to? Congress? The President? What will you do, if this person(s) determines that your job doesn't warrant what you make? Hows he going to enforce it? Hows it going to be regulated? There is your slipper slope.

Letting the free market decide what a person is worth is at the very heart of a capitalist society.

Letting the government decide (through regulation) what a person is worth is at the very heart of communism.

Communism assumes no one is worth any more than any one else, and it's the governments job to make sure everyone is equal.

Now, don't get all worked up. As much as the Libertarian in me would like it, I'm not saying the government should be completely free of regulation in all areas. Obviously, regulation in some areas can be good (monopolies should be regulated, health and safety industries, environmental hazards, etc).

But lets take this a step further. Hussein builds a ton of palaces that he most likely is never going to use. The building of those palaces generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the palace was built, the place would be destroyed by bombing, again giving a job to someone to rebuild it. Aren't we doing capitalism in Iraq a major disservice by bringing democracy there

Your argument doesn't hold water because Iraq is a dictatorship. The workers creating his palaces most likely were forced to work for next to nothing, and were threatened with death if they didn't.

RacerX, you really could benefit from reading Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged. Or even her first book We The Living. I'd be willing to send you my copy if you like.

[RacerX]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
So, where would YOU start?

I, personally, wouldn't need to start anywhere. We do have a system that does have checks and balances. But as long as you brought these examples up, lets take a closer look at them.

...how about Mets pitcher Tom Glavine. Surely his $35million for 3 years of work is outrageous!

...If Tom Glavine wasn't worth nearly $12million/year to the Mets in ticket sales, TV revenues, etc., they wouldn't have paid for it.

My question is this, Is he a New Yorker? Is that his chosen home? Or is that just where he works?

I'm from San Diego, so I have a somewhat distorted view of baseball. You see we had this player named Tony Gwynn (maybe you've heard of him, he was the best player the game has ever seen), and he is a San Diegian. How do I quantify that? He started playing baseball while at SDSU (even though he was there to play basketball), was drafted into the Padre organization (and the San Diego Clippers) right out of college. He played for 20 seasons with the Padres. In those 20 seasons he earned under $50 million with the Padres.

Surely he could have asked for more. Surely any team in baseball would have paid more for him than the Padres could afford. Why stay? He is a San Diegian.

Now that he is out of major league baseball, where has he gone? He is the head coach at SDSU. And that was after a season of being a volunteer assistant coach under his original coach at SDSU before he retired.

I don't know what the Mets are hoping to get for their $35 million over 3 years, but they aren't going to get someone who is really part of the team. Yes it is a waste of money. No, Glavine isn't worth it. Yes, the game is hurt by this type of price gouging.

Second example? The Minnesota Twins. Last season the Twins showed that a team with heart at the bottom of the salary scale could hold their own with the best that money could buy.

I've been in sports most of my life as both athlete (high school, college and open) and coach (college and open), and now doing work for a sports magazine, and the one thing I can tell you is that greed can never replace sportsmanship or team work.

How about the cast of NBC TV show Friends? Surely they can't be worth $1million each per episode? That's ridiculous!

Please. As much as my head spins by all of the above examples, they were able to obtain it under fair market value. If NBC wasn't making a gaggle of cash from Friends, they wouldn't have even considered the $6million+ cost of each episode.

But at this point are their hearts really in the show? I haven't watched any of the episodes after the early seasons, so I really don't know. But assuming it is the biggest thing on TV these days is it worth it?

Was Cheers worth that much in the 80's? If so, why were they not paid like that? If not what makes Friends so much better today than Cheers some 15 years ago?

Actually that could be applied to all actors, directors, music artists and the like. Why should they be making so much more than those that came before them relative to the state of the economy at those times?

More important, where is the money really coming from? In the case of NBC, are they paying this to keep the advertisers? I wouldn't think so. Are they doing it for the audience? Most likely. Thursday nights have been the night for NBC going back to the Cosby Show. It is more likely that this extension of the series is actually to buy (literally) time until a suitable show can take it's place. Is that amount of money worth keeping viewers to the Thursday night habit? Actually I would have to say both Yes and No for that one. They have now opened themselves and others (like HBO) to being asked incredible salaries from lead actors who thing they can blackmail studios and networks for more money.

...what about Steve Jobs. A $140 million Jet, plus over $100milliion in stock options is over the top, right?

...And if Steve Jobs service to Apple didn't warrrant his compensation, he wouldn't get it.

That is easy. No. This actually is very much along the lines of what is happening with actors. Corporate officers all know what everyone else is getting. Most boards want their officers to stay and most officers want to be in at least the upper half of the salary range. Lets look at a hypothetical example for a moment:

• Company A wants to keep their executives in the top 50% of salaries. So they look and see what those salaries are and adjust their salaries to keep their people in that range.
  
  Now, all companies like Company A are part of a group called Company A', the salary range is determined by the salaries of this group. When ever a member of this group realizes that they are part of the bottom 50% they increase their salaries to be part of the top 50%.
  
  The actions of the group generate a raisein overall salaries that has nothing to do with the actual performance of the executives. They worth is not the point of the increase, not being perceived as being part of the bottom 50% of salaries for executives is the driving force, and no matter what any of them do, 50% are always going to be at the bottom.

This has nothing to do with the worth of company officers. This needs regulation. Why? Because unlike in other areas were consumers can create a backlash to stop that type of inflation, they are removed from this situation.

When other measures have been tried, we have ended up with situations like ENRON where the officers created profits for themselves where there wasn't any. Or worse, manipulated markets to provide optimum profits at the expense of everyone else (ENRON again and how it controlled energy prices and flow to California).

Sadly, regulation already existed to stop those types of abuses. But when companies have the ear of the President and Vice President and can even set things like the nations energy policy, regulation becomes ineffective.

If there is something that is more horrifying than the fact that we have been brought to war, it is the fact that the government has stopped regulating friends of the White House.

My prediction (which is more likely to happen then serpicolugnut's was): Our economy is going to continue to sink until Bush is out of power and a pre-Bush economic style plane is put forward (think Bush I/Clinton).

[RacerX]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Your argument doesn't hold water because Iraq is a dictatorship. The workers creating his palaces most likely were forced to work for next to nothing, and were threatened with death if they didn't.

Actually it does... more water than you would ever want to see in real life I imagine. Capitalism works better in dictatorships than democracies. With democracies even people with little or no money can have an effect. In dictatorships bribery is common place (again capitalism at it's finest). Cheney had no problem as CEO of Haliburton working with Iraq when it came to capitalist ideals (making money at all cost, morality be dammed), just before taking office.

Pure capitalism is harsh. The haves don't care about the have nots. Cheep labor is the best labor... unless you have slavery which is even better than cheep labor. Capitalism doesn't care about anything beyond the acquisition of wealth. Money for money's sake. Power for power's sake. Control for control's sake. Microsoft is a true capitalist company. They thumb their collective noses at regulation and put tons of money into campaigns for officials who can bypass those regulations (Bush/Ashcroft). They know better than to compete, things are so much easier without competitors. Specially when it comes to pricing.

As I said in the beginning, you really aren't part of the group that is being helped by this. You are one of the ones being hurt, but you think that being a card carrying member of the Party is going to get you some where. How wrong you are. They don't care unless you make enough to give to them to help push their causes. True capitalism at it's best.

[Cat]

Just making a few observations out of context:

1) This is funny: 'liberal' is a designation used in Europe mostly for Right Wing Politicians, while in America it seems to be an insult for Left Wing Politicians. This leads me to assume that the whole political spectrum in Europe is more 'left' than in the US. A right wing party here would be considered left wing in the US, and a right wing party in the US would be considered extremely right wing here ...

2) War supporters tend to accuse war opposers of "wanting to do nothing". IMHO this is not true. War opposers simply wanted to approach the situation in another way, not sitting idly about. Dr. Blix made it quite clear that, while Iraq in the begining was uncooperative, thanks to international pressure (not only of the military kind) it was slowly beginning to cooperate more and more. War opposers were willing to go on with this road and see where it leads.

[serpicolugnut]

Cheney had no problem as CEO of Haliburton working with Iraq when it came to capitalist ideals (making money at all cost, morality be dammed), just before taking office.

I'm supposing you have proof of this allegation? Other than posts from Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists? If not, then please stop dispensing your drive by attacks.

As I said in the beginning, you really aren't part of the group that is being helped by this. You are one of the ones being hurt, but you think that being a card carrying member of the Party is going to get you some where. How wrong you are. They don't care unless you make enough to give to them to help push their causes. True capitalism at it's best.

Card carrying member of what party my dear friend? Republican? Nope. Democrat? Not since 1993. Green? Not in this lifetime pal.

The last time I heard that drivel spewed it was while talking to an actual card carrying member of the Communist party at a "peace" rally (funded by, you guessed it - the American Communist party).

[chevy]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
No one said it was a "happy kick-assing session". Please do not inflame the discussion by throwing out mis-quotes.

Yes, war is not a video game. It is not a reality tv show. People die, innocent and not so innocent. We know this. Nobody has stated otherwise, so to post as if someone did is complete disengenous. If you can't argue with facts, please don't bother arguing at all.

If this was not the meaning of your sentence, "if you (we ?) set out to provoke us, you're going to get your ass kicked", what was its meaning ? Or didn't you write it ? Or didn't you mean it ?

I'm not arguing here for or against the war (this is by the way not the subject of the thread). I was reading your arguments, trying to understand each one (yours and the ones of the others). But I did not understand why you spoke about the war the way you did.

[RacerX]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
RacerX...tell me sir, how have I demonized you? You made some statements that reflected your collectivist views, and I simply made a reference to it, while also apologizing if you were not in fact a collectivst. That's hardly demonizing.

and then later when he is unable to argue a point...

The last time I heard that drivel spewed it was while talking to an actual card carrying member of the Communist party at a "peace" rally (funded by, you guessed it - the American Communist party).

Didn't someone already talk to you about throwing the term Communist around? Funny how through out all this I have yet to try and paint you in such a way. Maybe you just aren't up to the debate.

I can only guess that slipping to attacks of this nature means that you are running out of ideas. Specially when you keep falling back to the Red Scare tactic from the 50's.

And here I thought McCarthyism was out of style... you seem to ware it so well.