I knew I liked Adam Carolla for some reason.. His take on the OWS Generation. LOL

[Al Moreno]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

.I think that almost EVERYONE can agree that no CEO is worth 100 million a year bonus... . .

Greg I'm going to have to respectfully disagree you here. When Disney's Micheal Eisner was paid the top salary for a CEO that year of $40MM, Disney had made over 2 Billion dollars. I think if you help a company make $2 BILLION, what $40MM. Nothing.

Now if the company is in the red and your still taking $100MM, that's another story.

As a business owner, you only get to keep the net after taxes, whatever that is but you get to keep 100% of the losses. If we keep putting restrictions on business, we will kill the incentive for entrepreneurs to risk 100% of there money, if they are only able to keep 10% of your profit. Seriously, how many people that are complaining would sign up for that program?

[parsonsj]

Originally Posted by That Atlantic Article by Conor Friedersdorf

what we must actually answer are questions like, "What sort of regulations, if any, should govern the market for derivatives of mortgaged backed securities," and "Should the federal government subsidize home ownership," and "What should the reserve requirements be for lending institutions."

Right. These are some of the policy questions to be answered, in order to see how the American economy transforms and how all Americans prosper over the next 30 years. Ayn Rand notions of pure capitalism, Rush Limbaugh straw man arguments about socialism, and trying to convince us that we should all be grateful to corporations (I'm not convinced Whittle's video wasn't parody) miss the mark.

Nicely written, Mr. Frledersdorf.

[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by Al Moreno

Greg I'm going to have to respectfully disagree you here. When Disney's Micheal Eisner was paid the top salary for a CEO that year of $40MM, Disney had made over 2 Billion dollars. I think if you help a company make $2 BILLION, what $40MM. Nothing.

Now if the company is in the red and your still taking $100MM, that's another story.

As a business owner, you only get to keep the net after taxes, whatever that is but you get to keep 100% of the losses. If we keep putting restrictions on business, we will kill the incentive for entrepreneurs to risk 100% of there money, if they are only able to keep 10% of your profit. Seriously, how many people that are complaining would sign up for that program?

Al -- I'd ordinarily agree with you -- and since I've owned SEVERAL businesses and have done extraordinarily well at it I would normally side with you -- but (that danged big BUTT) -- what we've witnessed is companies laying off employees and STILL getting these giant bonuses.... and or GETTING FIRED and collecting millions after they screwed the company up and cost many people their jobs. THAT is what people are so dismayed to see. It's just all upside-down... just like when the worst credit history folks got the lowest most favorable terms to buy houses they couldn't afford. When the "norm" goes upside-down... is when you have outrage.

[nacnac]

I couldn't agree with adam corolla more. Nicely said.

[Vegas69]

You climb to the top of the heap for a reason. If you have the profits, take them as you see fit. It may piss off outsiders, investor, and employees, but it's their pony show. It's a free country. If you don't like it, get off the boat.

[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by Vegas69

You climb to the top of the heap for a reason. If you have the profits, take them as you see fit. It may piss off outsiders, investor, and employees, but it's their pony show. It's a free country. If you don't like it, get off the boat.

For purposes of my statement I was talking about publicly traded companies, not sole proprietors. Those profits (of public companies) belong to the investors since "they" are the actual owners of the company. A sole proprietor can get as much as he can, or is willing to take.

[Etch]

From what I know, the OWS movement is more about corrupt politics than anything. This IMHO is a legitimate reason to be angry about.

I watched LAPD evict the protest members from Occupy LA. MYFOXLA was there interviewing the protesters, asking "what do you want to see change in Washington?" All the protesters answered something along the lines of "I want to see money out of Washington."

What does that mean? Money out of Washington?

Here are some examples of "money in Washington", and corrupt politics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LMAP0L5G4&noredirect=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristi...b_1101433.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Dbx...ature=youtu.be
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...mericans-face/

The real issues at hand is: Should big businesses be able to influence politics more than the average citizen?

Efficiency is a company's number one goal, it's how the government has set it up. But what happens when 'efficiency' oversteps people? The government needs to be changed.

Some objective data to look at: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.co...heir-paycheck/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality
*note that we have the same income distribution as China...weird...


Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much of anything, I'm only 20, going to college... and I'm honestly kind of confused about this. Anyone older, with more experience care to let me know what these numbers actually mean?

P.S. Does anyone know about http://wikileaks.org/? Thoughts? What about the hacker group 'Anonymous'?