• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Savagelight

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Yeah right


  • Gender
  1. It's a very dangerous situation. I think we are seeing the beginning of Cold War 2.0 unfortunately.
  2. Why would I listen to what a billionaire has to say about the economy? If it collapses they'll still be rich if not even moreso.
  3. That is why there is so much funding for police and counter terrorism. They are going to be prepared to bring order to the streets. Don't believe it? Look at Ferguson. ---------- Post added 10-22-2014 at 05:29 PM ---------- I actually agree with this but it's not politically possible because liberal politicians prefer it this way. Ask yourself why the progressives aren't the ones promoting citizens income? ---------- Post added 10-22-2014 at 05:32 PM ---------- Why assume it was a policy of good intentions? Since when did government give free gifts to anyone? When the government does it to people in foreign countries it's called a bribe but when it's done to US citizens then it's called a hand out? So when the CIA does it in Iraq or Iran it's a bribe but if politicians in the USA do it then it's a handout? What is the difference? ---------- Post added 10-22-2014 at 05:34 PM ---------- Actually a country is made up of the people in it. All value comes from the people in it. If you speak english for example then you're growing the language. This in itself creates value but it goes uncompensated. There are arguments you could make which could show that every citizen contributes cultural value to the USA. Even forum posts like these have some value.
  4. They join ISIS because no one else recruited them first. Also because like it or not most people are vulnerable psychologically to recruitment into cults. It's just in this case they got recruited into ISIS instead of some other death cult.
  5. Voters vote to receive welfare from the government. Does this equate to voters selling their vote? The government in exchange for providing welfare doesn't have to worry about revolution or political insurrection. Does this mean welfare could be justified as beneficial to national security? I'm not debating whether or not welfare is good or bad. I'm just wondering if it fits the definition of a bribe because we all know bribery is how governments control people and any gift from a government usually has strings attached. In my opinion unconditional basic income would be a better idea than welfare but it still has the problem that politicians can use these strings to control the recipients behaviors.
  6. I could support the ratio but that isn't what is offered. They only offer a minimum wage and a minimum wage is bullshit. A ratio would have a chance for a serious economic impact because shareholders don't want to over pay for the CEO when that money could go to pay dividends to themselves. Expensive CEOs also keep the company from being able to buy back stocks. If I'm the CEO I would make all employees shareholders. I would of course own the most shares in the company but this would mean I would think more as a shareholder than as an employee. If it were best for the shareholders that I take a paycut or resign then I would do it and then use the increased profit to do a share buy back. The share buy back allows CEOs to resign or take a salary pay cut. CEOs who make millions of dollars a year in salary are just greedy. CEOs who own millions of dollars in stock but who make reasonable salaries in the hundreds of thousands a year are sane. If you're a CEO and you believe in your ability to make the company successful then you wouldn't have to rely on millions of dollars in salary so that your personal success is separate from your professional success. If a CEO wants to retire then she should sell her shares and start a new company. No need for a golden parachute if you built the company to success. If you're trying to bring in a new CEO then they might need a higher salary because they wont have the shares but even in that case if they want to make the most money possible they should start their own company. ---------- Post added 10-17-2014 at 08:47 AM ---------- I never said minimum wage. I said maximum wage. If you're doing cost vs benefit there is no benefit to giving someone millions of dollars a year. No skillset or competency is so rare that you have to pay millions of dollars unless it's something like family relationships and social network. If you're looking to go for government contracts then I can understand because that is all about relationships but if you're talking about a company which doesn't get profits from government contracts it wouldn't matter. In an actual free market there wouldn't be government contracts to allow some corporations to win with the help of government. I don't see your point. Why should any employee get paid more than $500,000 a year? Make a case. Are they Obama's cousin? Is there not a maximum cost a corporation should be willing to pay for any employee? What value can an employee bring which is priceless or which lets the employee essentially write their own paycheck? Only social connections fit into that category because it's not any kind of labor. It's not hard to find competent people but it is hard to find connected people. People who have the right relationships are scarce but people who are competent are plentiful. If a company is paying a CEO millions in salary it in my opinion is most likely because of relationships not competence. That CEO is related to someone very important. Maybe that CEO is a celebrity or has a cousin who is who can endorse the product. Let them do that. Competent CEO's are not scarce. Competent CEO's with the right personal and professional connections are scarce. Anyone can go to school to learn to be a competent CEO so most of us could become one if we tried. You can't go to school to be related to a powerful politician. It's not "hard", it's a gift of birth. If you're born into the right family then you already know all the people to give you the social relationships to be a great CEO if you work hard. If you don't know anyone for example in Hollywood and you're not related to anyone then don't expect that you'll have success running a business if you don't know Kevin Bacon. All of the skills can be learned in school. What cannot be learned in school are the relationships. CEO's who have the relationships get the high salaries and that is logical. It's not logical to give a CEO who doesn't have the relationships a high salary. So if you're related to Obama then of course you'll get a high salary. If you're not related to Obama you probably wont. This is because the company benefits by having friends in the Democratic party not because it values your performance as CEO. Your performance would be based on your ability to get government contracts and influence for the company. That is because they have influence in the Tea Party, Republican party, so they can oppose Obama. If they didn't have the relationships they have then they'd not be very successful. No. I'm arguing that it is logical to give higher salaries to CEO's who can bring government contracts to the business. I'm arguing that this is really the only reason to pay so much to a CEO. I should deem them celebrity CEO's because they get high salaries through industry connections not competence. ---------- Post added 10-17-2014 at 09:02 AM ---------- It has no CEO...
  7. So why are they behind the minimum wage but not the maximum wage? Now do you see why I came out against the minimum wage? They get behind and pass the least effective economic policies to look like they care about the poor when in actuality the policies chosen are the least effective. A maximum wage would be more effective and you and I both would support that but they don't? ---------- Post added 10-17-2014 at 08:26 AM ---------- Most of us can learn to become a competent CEO. It's not hard to learn to become competent. It's hard to be given the chance to learn but that is another matter. Suppose I'm a CEO and instead of being a selfish prick I actually put the business first? Putting the business first means my success should at least be correlated with the success of the business. I shouldn't be giving myself a super high salary so that I'm rewarded regardless of if the business is successful because that would distort my priorities. What you call a "competent CEO" is actually just a politically or socially connected CEO. That CEO receives a high salary because he's Obama's cousin and knows people in government. That CEO receives a high salary because he can bring in government contracts which could provide a gravy train for the business so in that respect I would agree with you that that particular kind of CEO should be paid well beyond what the average CEO would make. But if you're not playing politics, if it's not about getting government contracts, if you don't have some reason to over-pay a CEO then the CEO is just another employee to the business. The value of the CEO should be based on what resources he can bring to the table for the business and just being competent isn't unique or rare.
  8. In a previous thread a lot of liberals and conservatives alike joined forces in support of the minimum wage. I ask those who responded to the previous thread to tell me what they think about a government mandated maximum wage? Logically if you support government authority to mandate a minimum wage it also authorizes under the same authority the maximum wage. I argue that while we should get rid of the minimum wage if we are going to have government interferring with wages at all then more people would benefit from there being a maximum wage than from there being a minimum wage. A cap on corporate salaries would have more of an impact than a minimum wage and if the government actually believed in it then why not start by an announcement that government employee wages are capped? Then from there each state can mandate that all businesses operating in that state must put a cap on corporate wages. I would honestly support this cap because if I start a business I honestly believe that as CEO my salary shouldn't be in the millions of dollars a year. I believe that as CEO I should have the majority of the stock and only if I'm successful at building the business would my stock become highly valued.
  9. America and China work together to achieve world domination.
  10. Are you better off than you were under Bush? If the answer is no then what did Obama do? Okay Obamacare is a success but the economy? The economy hasn't improved much if at all. ---------- Post added 10-14-2014 at 03:00 PM ---------- If Democrats want to win as bad as Republicans they would learn to do the same.
  11. I wasn't talking about the singularity. The singularity doesn't have to happen for machines to take all the service jobs and leave Americans 50% unemployed. ---------- Post added 10-14-2014 at 02:43 PM ---------- Who said all hydroponics work using plastic containers? That is just an assumption. I do agree we should let different solutions compete to find the most efficient solution. ---------- Post added 10-14-2014 at 02:46 PM ---------- There is no punishment. If you think the project can make you profit then take part, if not then don't and someone else will. ---------- Post added 10-14-2014 at 02:47 PM ---------- Unrealistic. Socialism requires violence to achieve it's ends which is the problem with it. You have to try blending radical capitalism, socialism and automation. Why don't you try automation socialism? Machines don't care if you tax them. Drones don't care if they are slaves.
  12. Do you know anything about Rajneesh?