Jump to content

#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


Recommended Posts

Those poor downtrodden CEOsEugene Isenberg Of Nabors Industries To Net $100 Million For Dropping CEO Duties

Eugene Isenberg will get $100 million in cash for dropping his title as CEO of Nabors Industries, the Wall Street Journal reports. Isenberg, who will retain his title as chairman of the oil-drilling company, will net the payment due to a clause in his contract that was triggered "as a result of this change in responsibility," according to a regulatory filing reported by the WSJ. ..CEO pay has gotten so huge that at most firms it's larger than what they pay in taxes, according to a study by the Institute of Policy Studies cited by the Washington Post. A quarter of the highest paid executives earned more than their company's tax expense in 2010, the study finds. ..And CEO pay isn't expected to dry up any time soon, even as the economy continues its anemic recovery and most Americans watch their incomes fall. CEO pay went up 27 percent on average in 2010, according to Labor Department figures, cited by PBS. At the same time the U.S. median income dropped in 2010 for the second year in a row to $26,364.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not that these kinds of deals mentioned in that article are justifiable, but for the record, a number of economists predicted CEO salaries would go through the roof when Sarbannes-Oxley was passed. Why? Because the law makes CEOs personally responsible for the books of their corporation, no matter how large the corporation is. So if a company hires an accounting firm with hundreds of years experience, and the accounting firm makes a mistake, and the CEO is dumb enough to trust a company with that much expertise while he personally has little accounting expertise, the CEO can go to jail or be held liable for lawsuits.Unintended consequences, FTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that these kinds of deals mentioned in that article are justifiable, but for the record, a number of economists predicted CEO salaries would go through the roof when Sarbannes-Oxley was passed. Why? Because the law makes CEOs personally responsible for the books of their corporation, no matter how large the corporation is. So if a company hires an accounting firm with hundreds of years experience, and the accounting firm makes a mistake, and the CEO is dumb enough to trust a company with that much expertise while he personally has little accounting expertise, the CEO can go to jail or be held liable for lawsuits.Unintended consequences, FTW.
Except that academic studies are concluding the opposite and that SOX is actually having the opposite effect of what you're suggesting.http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uplo.../02/wp08-20.pdfThe above paper was written in June 2008 and studies the period since the act passed and concludes that CEO pay as a result of the act became more in line with shareholder's interests.
8 ConclusionThis paper examines the change in executive pay before and after the passage of theSarbanes-Oxley Act, NYSE and NASDAQ regulations of 2002. Introduced soon aftera series of corporate scandals, the reforms mandated independent audit, nomination,and compensation committee. Employing a di®erence-in-di®erences methodology, thispaper explores the e®ect of these reforms on CEO pay for performance and pay for luck.29The pre- and post-SOX di®erences are compared across two types of ¯rms: those withstronger board monitoring before the reform and those with weaker board monitoringwith respect to the percentage of independent directors. The pay-for-performance linkwas found to increase in ¯rms with weaker board oversight (¯rms more a®ected by SOXstipulations) after 2002. In contrast, the pay-for-performance relationship changed littlein ¯rms with independent boards.The results further show that pay for luck disappears in dependent board ¯rms afterSOX. Overall, the results are found to be robust to several alternative explanations:asymmetric benchmarking, CEO talent and the degree of industry concentration.Unlike Wang (2005), who focuses on SOX and pay for performance of speci¯c execu-tive groups (CFOs and COOs), this study examines CEO pay for performance and payfor luck, thereby contributing to the contemporary literature on CEO pay. The resultsalso con¯rm earlier ¯ndings of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2001) that stronger corpo-rate governance decreases pay for luck associated with the ine±cient transfer of wealthfrom executives to shareholders. Finally, this analysis contributes to the literature byemploying a superior approach for identifying the e®ect of the recent governance reformsof 2002 on CEO pay for luck.The policy implications of this paper suggest that stricter corporate governance rules,ensured by SOX, can be bene¯cial for shareholders. Reduced pay for luck can help toimprove agency problems between CEOs and shareholders. To evaluate the total e®ectof the corporate governance reforms of 2002, however, it is necessary to account for thecosts of SOX (e.g., increased audit fees), which is left for future research.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that other stuff is more important, but media bias is important, too. It is the primary filter through which most people get their news and heavily influences elections. The fact that conservatives have *ANY* success in elections is a bit surprising considering how biased most coverage is (or especially, was, before FOX staked out the other end).But I am willing to admit that a large part of it is personal, too, because when I tried to point out the people's opinion of the tea party was tainted by shoddy reporting, I was piled on here on this forum. Not just a little, a lot. I was actually quite shocked by the response I got here, because it seemed to come out of nowhere and was really overwhelming -- and it was clearly, way way wrong. I've pointed out the most extreme examples a couple of times lately. So anyway, I'm done, I've made my point. All of you who jumped on me back then but are strangely silent now, I see you there lurking in the shadows covering your faces. The charade is up.
Yeah, I piled on you for not thinking the birther movement was clearly racist and I'm not backing off that one an inch, sorry. I also believe you defended a sign depicting Obama as a voodoo witch doctor as not racist. I don't think you have lifted any curtains. Also, hooray capitalism: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/news/compa...x.htm?hpt=hp_t2Yeah, those OWS guys don't have a point at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that other stuff is more important, but media bias is important, too. It is the primary filter through which most people get their news and heavily influences elections. The fact that conservatives have *ANY* success in elections is a bit surprising considering how biased most coverage is (or especially, was, before FOX staked out the other end).But I am willing to admit that a large part of it is personal, too, because when I tried to point out the people's opinion of the tea party was tainted by shoddy reporting, I was piled on here on this forum. Not just a little, a lot. I was actually quite shocked by the response I got here, because it seemed to come out of nowhere and was really overwhelming -- and it was clearly, way way wrong. I've pointed out the most extreme examples a couple of times lately. So anyway, I'm done, I've made my point. All of you who jumped on me back then but are strangely silent now, I see you there lurking in the shadows covering your faces. The charade is up.
I have no idea if you do, but if you consider me one of those "lurking in the shadows covering my face," then don't. I'd respond to your point if you were saying anything that could be generalized outside of your personal filters.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I piled on you for not thinking the birther movement was clearly racist and I'm not backing off that one an inch, sorry.
So it is your contention that the framers of the constitution were racist for demanding the president be a natural born citizen?
Link to post
Share on other sites
CEO pay has gotten so huge that at most firms it's larger than what they pay in taxes, according to a study by the Institute of Policy Studies cited by the Washington Post. A quarter of the highest paid executives earned more than their company's tax expense in 2010, the study finds.
Corporate tax rate 35%Individual tax rate federal and state - ~50%Sounds like a win for the tax lovers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they are the job creators that certain people want to tax into oblivion if you listen to some people.
I'm not opposed to the wealthy having to pay more in taxes, but what I really hate is when it's framed as they have to pay "their fair share." One, that's too many rhyming words. And two, it's not really about being fair if they're already paying a higher percentage. Basically, I don't begrudge the rich their millions. But if the most sensible plan is for them to pay a little more because they can afford it while the "poor" 99% can't, I wouldn't fight it tooth and nail.This is probably why I'm so unmotivated to vote; I can get on board with anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not opposed to the wealthy having to pay more in taxes, but what I really hate is when it's framed as they have to pay "their fair share." One, that's too many rhyming words. And two, it's not really about being fair if they're already paying a higher percentage. Basically, I don't begrudge the rich their millions. But if the most sensible plan is for them to pay a little more because they can afford it while the "poor" 99% can't, I wouldn't fight it tooth and nail.This is probably why I'm so unmotivated to vote; I can get on board with anything.
To me the "rich" and CEO's aren't the same thing even if CEO's are usually rich.I think the CEO "class" as I've written about above are gaming the system and taking more than their fair share from their companies in a lot of cases at the expense of shareholders and other people at the companies and society as a whole since if they weren't so expensive presumably the companies would be able to lower their prices and be more competitive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So it is your contention that the framers of the constitution were racist for demanding the president be a natural born citizen?
Can I buy pot from you?No, it's my contention that anyone who still doesn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii is racist or retarded or both.Ann Coulter told Shawn Hannity that 'our blacks are better than their blacks.' i don't really have anything to add to that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For HenryThis is why the few anti-semitic people who have showed up at various OWS rallies have been basically ignored.You don't think the ADL would be all over the OWS movement if they thought it was in any way anti-semitic at it's core ?http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6138_12.htm

We are seeing some individuals holding anti-Semitic signs at the "Occupy Wall Street" rallies, and some videos posted on YouTube from the rallies have shown individuals expressing classic anti-Semitic beliefs such as "Jews control the banks" and "Jews control Wall Street." While we believe that these expressions are not representative of the larger views of the OWS movement, it is still critical for organizers, participants and supporters of these rallies to condemn such bigoted statements clearly and forcefully. There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants. However, history demonstrates time and again how economic downturns can embolden anti-Semites to spread malicious conspiracy theories and promote stereotypes about Jews and money. As a consequence, these statements must not be left unchallenged. The League continues to monitor the tenor and messages at the demonstrations to ensure that they do not get hijacked by extremists or anti-Semitic elements.
And this one from prominent Jewish leaders including former NY Gov Spitzerhttp://jewishleadersagainstsmears.wordpress.com/
Jewish Leaders Denounce Right-Wing Smears of Occupy Wall StreetFor Immediate Release, Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011 Contact Mark Green, Carinne Luck, luckca81@gmail.com A Statement Against Smears We are publicly engaged American Jews who support both Israel and the ideas behind Occupy Wall Street and who also strongly oppose right-wing attempts to smear that movement with false charges of anti-Semitism. It’s an old, discredited tactic: find a couple of unrepresentative people in a large movement and then conflate the oddity with the cause. One black swan means that all swans are black. One particularly vile example was a television ad during Sunday talk shows paid for by something called the Emergency Committee for Israel that is organized by William Kristol and Gary Bauer. It is disingenuous to raise the canard about Jews and Wall Street in order to denounce it. Occupy Wall Street is a mass protest against rising inequality in America, a fact documented last week by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Anyone who visits Zuccotti Park understands that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do “with liberty and justice for all.” All of us irrespective of party or position should expose and denounce anti-Semitism where ever it occurs, but not tar hundreds of thousands of protestors nationwide because a handful of hateful people show up with offensive signs that can’t be taken down in a public park open to all. We are pleased that the Anti-Defamation League agrees that some random signs “are not representative of the larger views of the Occupy Wall Street movement.” Stuart Appelbaum, President, RWDSU* Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and President, J Street Richard Brodsky, former Assemblyman, New York Danny Goldberg, President, Goldve Entertainment Mark Green, former Public Advocate for New York City Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman and District Attorney (Brooklyn) Rabbi Steven Jacobs, founder, Progressive Faith Foundation Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Executive Director, Rabbis for Human Rights-North America Madeleine Kunin, former Governor, Vermont Jo-ann Mort, CEO, ChangeCommunicaitons Eliot Spitzer, former Governor, New York State Andy Stern, President Emeritus, Service Employees International Union Hadar Susskind, Vice President, Tides Foundation Margery Tabankin, President, Margery Tabankin Assoc. Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teacher *Institutions for identification purposes only
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I buy pot from you?No, it's my contention that anyone who still doesn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii is racist or retarded or both.Ann Coulter told Shawn Hannity that 'our blacks are better than their blacks.' i don't really have anything to add to that.
I have something to add to that, our women are hotter than their women too!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I piled on you for not thinking the birther movement was clearly racist and I'm not backing off that one an inch, sorry. I also believe you defended a sign depicting Obama as a voodoo witch doctor as not racist. I don't think you have lifted any curtains. Also, hooray capitalism: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/news/compa...x.htm?hpt=hp_t2Yeah, those OWS guys don't have a point at all.
So then you agree OWS is anti-semitic? Because if *some* people who believe in a cause are racist proves that *ALL* people who believe in that cause are also racist, then OWS has lots more problems than its repeated anti-semitism. So, are you going to be consistent here or not? Start calling out the OWSers for all their issues.As for your link, Bob says CEO salaries are going down, so why are you bringing up an anomaly instead of celebrating the bigger trend?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea if you do, but if you consider me one of those "lurking in the shadows covering my face," then don't. I'd respond to your point if you were saying anything that could be generalized outside of your personal filters.
No, you weren't around much back during the last go-around.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For HenryThis is why the few anti-semitic people who have showed up at various OWS rallies have been basically ignored.You don't think the ADL would be all over the OWS movement if they thought it was in any way anti-semitic at it's core ?http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6138_12.htmAnd this one from prominent Jewish leaders including former NY Gov Spitzerhttp://jewishleadersagainstsmears.wordpress.com/
As long as we are consistent about the standard that a few voices don't represent the whole, I have no problem with this. All I ask is consistency.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So then you agree OWS is anti-semitic? Because if *some* people who believe in a cause are racist proves that *ALL* people who believe in that cause are also racist, then OWS has lots more problems than its repeated anti-semitism. So, are you going to be consistent here or not? Start calling out the OWSers for all their issues.As for your link, Bob says CEO salaries are going down, so why are you bringing up an anomaly instead of celebrating the bigger trend?
Yeah, like half of all tea partiers were birthers back then if you believe any polls. Not the same as a couple random anti-Semites showing up at Ows protests, sorry.There is a difference between most polls showing half of all GOP primary voters don't believe Obama is an American and "hey some Jew haters showed up at those massive protests uninvited." I dont think consistency means what you thnk it does. Golden parachutes are not an anomaly.Edit: also, you misinterpreted what Bob said apparently. Not shocking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As for your link, Bob says CEO salaries are going down, so why are you bringing up an anomaly instead of celebrating the bigger trend?
No, CEO salaries are going way up but not because of SOX. Studies are showing that SOX has had a calming effect on the increase on CEO salaries and that they would be even higher without the SOX regulations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, like half of all tea partiers were birthers back then if you believe any polls. Not the same as a couple random anti-Semites showing up at Ows protests, sorry.There is a difference between most polls showing half of all GOP primary voters don't believe Obama is an American and "hey some Jew haters showed up at those massive protests uninvited." I dont think consistency means what you thnk it does. Golden parachutes are not an anomaly.Edit: also, you misinterpreted what Bob said apparently. Not shocking.
You still haven't demonstrated that a significant portion of birthers are racist, only that some people who are racist may use the birther thing as another reason to dislike Obama. And then you use the reasoning that some birthers are racists, and some tea partiers are birthers as evidence that the tea party is inherently racist. Do you see the fallacy of your logic? You have presented NO evidence -- NONE -- of the prevalence of racism among birthers, yet you just assume it is widespread. We have evidence of anti-semitism among OWSers. Certainly the OWS movement *could be*, theoretically, based on a hatred of Jewish bankers. So which is it: the possibility that a belief *could be* based on racism reflects on the whole movement, or it doesn't. You don't get to say "my side is never racist, therefore the racism is irrelevant, while the exact same evidence and logic of racism on the other side is meaningful." I do not believe you are that intellectually dishonest, so I'm not sure why you are making these irrational statements. Are you trolling?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, CEO salaries are going way up but not because of SOX. Studies are showing that SOX has had a calming effect on the increase on CEO salaries and that they would be even higher without the SOX regulations.
Well then that's just become an unfalsifiable theory, similar to the "we would've lost more jobs without the stimulus".
Link to post
Share on other sites
You still haven't demonstrated that a significant portion of birthers are racist, only that some people who are racist may use the birther thing as another reason to dislike Obama. And then you use the reasoning that some birthers are racists, and some tea partiers are birthers as evidence that the tea party is inherently racist. Do you see the fallacy of your logic? You have presented NO evidence -- NONE -- of the prevalence of racism among birthers, yet you just assume it is widespread. We have evidence of anti-semitism among OWSers. Certainly the OWS movement *could be*, theoretically, based on a hatred of Jewish bankers. So which is it: the possibility that a belief *could be* based on racism reflects on the whole movement, or it doesn't. You don't get to say "my side is never racist, therefore the racism is irrelevant, while the exact same evidence and logic of racism on the other side is meaningful." I do not believe you are that intellectually dishonest, so I'm not sure why you are making these irrational statements. Are you trolling?
I think the birther movement is only explainable by racism. I never said nor do I believe that makes the tea party racist. But, I do believe birthers are racist and the GOP has a lot of birthers.I also disagree we have any evidence of anti-semitism among actual ows protesters. Some of them attending a rally is not equivalent to numerous polls stating half of all GOP primary voters were birthers. I think to equate the two is the height of irrationality. You are making an equivalency between 50% of GOP voters and a few scattered people at a rally. And I'm being intellectually dishonest? :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then that's just become an unfalsifiable theory, similar to the "we would've lost more jobs without the stimulus".
Or tax cuts create jobs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...