Boss-Employee Gap Legislation

[Recidiva]

Why?

Because you disagree with Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Freidman...,

I have never seen anymore a rational deconstruction of what she has written than I have of the economists that she emulates.

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier in The Fountainhead, no one better presaged Alinsky and his acolytes from ACORN to Obama with the Metaphor of Uncle Ellsworth Toohey, the press, and the value of a network of dispirit little organizations that can be united quickly by the power of celebrity.

Because she got it so wrong that her helpful hints make things worse despite her actual intentions.

 

[Recidiva]

They will get what they have second coming.

I'm hoping to check out hell's library. It's got to be awesome, all the best authors are there.

I will avoid Ayn Rand's contributions but be polite to her at dinner.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because she got it so wrong that her helpful hints make things worse despite her actual intentions.

You make my point.

Deconstruct Rand.

She's just so wrong. She's a shitty writer. She took SUBSIDIES!!!


Try naming some "helpful hints" and how they made anything worse since the prevailing polity that she warned against (as did DeTocqueville and a host of others from Aristotle to von Humboldt) is the one that actually has prevailed.

 

[Recidiva]

You make my point.

Deconstruct Rand.

She's just so wrong. She's a shitty writer. She took SUBSIDIES!!!


Try naming some "helpful hints" and how they made anything worse since the prevailing polity that she warned against (as did DeTocqueville and a host of others from Aristotle to von Humboldt) is the one that actually has prevailed.

I don't think that pure selfishness serves the community. It serves the self. Which if that is what you want, fine. However, if you do nothing to help the community, you have very little right to complain about how fucked up the world is since you won't lift a finger.

I do not understand why Rand adherents consider community to be a nonexistent concept and idealize selfishness as some sort of virtue.

Selfishness is something to be built upon, not polished up and set like a centerpiece to be admired.

I find her philosophy repugnant and it's the same level of maturity as hearing a five year old talk about what they'd do if they could rule the world.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't think that pure selfishness serves the community. It serves the self. Which if that is what you want, fine. However, if you do nothing to help the community, you have very little right to complain about how fucked up the world is since you won't lift a finger.

I do not understand why Rand adherents consider community to be a nonexistent concept and idealize selfishness as some sort of virtue.

Selfishness is something to be built upon, not polished up and set like a centerpiece to be admired.

I find her philosophy repugnant and it's the same level of maturity as hearing a five year old talk about what they'd do if they could rule the world.

Wrong. Decidedly wrong. You have made a moral subjective judgement with roots lying deep in Christianity.

If one considers what selflessness is, then one has the perfect example in the beehive; a perfect social order, harmonious, but in which the vast majority are only workers devoted to the needs of the queen and the hive, a stagnant state of social affair.

Man, the individual is on his own and inclined, as are many of the lower animals, to a brutish behavior of might makes right without selfishness for it is selfishness that leads him to the conclusion that his life is better with mutual cooperation rather than daily struggle. This cooperation leads to the division of labor, barter, exchange and peace. What destroys this is the selflessness of primitive minds who want to use brute force to redistribute the gains of the selfish cooperatives to their barely cooperative band of thieves which is just as likely to disband and turn upon itself once the plundered loot has been exhausted.

It is clearly in the reasoned and selfish exchanges of goods and services that man makes the most progress and the least in communal societies where selflessness is the rule (outside of the ruling oligarchy).

(This line of reasoning comes from Mises' Socialism.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its like this: In 1776 ninety-eight percent of Americans farmed; today 2% farm, and the rest do other work.

In 1870 whale oil cost 95 cents a gallon, a few years later kerosene cost 5 cents a gallon and the whaling industry was kaput. In 1870 hardwood lumber was almost impossible to find east of the Mississippi River, today there are more hardwood forests than existed in 1776. Hookworm disease is gone. Smallpox is gone. Polio is gone.

 

[Recidiva]

Wrong. Decidedly wrong. You have made a moral subjective judgement with roots lying deep in Christianity.

If one considers what selflessness is, then one has the perfect example in the beehive; a perfect social order, harmonious, but in which the vast majority are only workers devoted to the needs of the queen and the hive, a stagnant state of social affair.

Man, the individual is on his own and inclined, as are many of the lower animals, to a brutish behavior of might makes right without selfishness for it is selfishness that leads him to the conclusion that his life is better with mutual cooperation rather than daily struggle. This cooperation leads to the division of labor, barter, exchange and peace. What destroys this is the selflessness of primitive minds who want to use brute force to redistribute the gains of the selfish cooperatives to their barely cooperative band of thieves which is just as likely to disband and turn upon itself once the plundered loot has been exhausted.

It is clearly in the reasoned and selfish exchanges of goods and services that man makes the most progress and the least in communal societies where selflessness is the rule (outside of the ruling oligarchy).

(This line of reasoning comes from Mises' Socialism.)

No, I haven't. I think that Ayn Rand is a combination of lazy thinking, hedonism and sloth. It's the same argument about "enlightened self interest" saying that nobody ever does what they don't want to do.

It's bullshit. Doing the right thing is hard and involves self sacrifice and excusing self interest as the ideal is criminally stupid in its effects.

Same way that Jenny McCarthy simplistically deciding that she knew all about genes and biochemistry and pointed at immunizations, one of the greater goods in our human existence as wrong.

Ayn Rand is that simplistic and that easy to follow. "People do dumb things, don't try to understand or help, laugh and walk away and just go be awesome."

It's boiling down all the complexity of a social and political life and blaming all the wrong causes and taking all the wrong actions.

No, of course it's not wrong for one person, same as it doesn't matter if Jenny Mcarthy's son had an immunization booster. It's just incredibly lazy and disingenuous as a philosophy and harms other people because the herd starts doing unbelievably irresponsible things and feeling righteous about it.

 

[Recidiva]

Its like this: In 1776 ninety-eight percent of Americans farmed; today 2% farm, and the rest do other work.

In 1870 whale oil cost 95 cents a gallon, a few years later kerosene cost 5 cents a gallon and the whaling industry was kaput. In 1870 hardwood lumber was almost impossible to find east of the Mississippi River, today there are more hardwood forests than existed in 1776. Hookworm disease is gone. Smallpox is gone. Polio is gone.

And that has to do with the topic...how?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, I haven't. I think that Ayn Rand is a combination of lazy thinking, hedonism and sloth. It's the same argument about "enlightened self interest" saying that nobody ever does what they don't want to do.

It's bullshit. Doing the right thing is hard and involves self sacrifice and excusing self interest as the ideal is criminally stupid in its effects.

Same way that Jenny McCarthy simplistically deciding that she knew all about genes and biochemistry and pointed at immunizations, one of the greater goods in our human existence as wrong.

Ayn Rand is that simplistic and that easy to follow. "People do dumb things, don't try to understand or help, laugh and walk away and just go be awesome."

It's boiling down all the complexity of a social and political life and blaming all the wrong causes and taking all the wrong actions.

No, of course it's not wrong for one person, same as it doesn't matter if Jenny Mcarthy's son had an immunization booster. It's just incredibly lazy and disingenuous as a philosophy and harms other people because the herd starts doing unbelievably irresponsible things and feeling righteous about it.

I find great math and science pretty simple to follow and that it is only when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes that it gets complex.

Please get off of Jenny McCarthy; it has nothing to do with our conversation other than continuing the ad hominem attack on Rand.

Bullshit is a brilliant rebuttal by the way. That is about the same as when certain posters jump in with their witty one-line attacks that is their way of saying that my thoughts are so superior and right that they are a prior and need no elucidation.

Let us try another, reasoned angle of example. If I am unable to help myself, then I am unable to help anyone else, therefore I must act selfishly (and remember we are not using the word as a moral judgement but as objective action) otherwise I might turn to you for selfless sacrifice demanding that you not be selfish (morally). In fact, I might join with other selfless souls and demand that government make sure that I am helped.

The selfish man realizes that it is not to his benefit to have his neighbor down and out (lest he join with the moral looters and simply take) so he engages in charity and it is not selfish to expect that that charity be temporary as a path back to self-sufficiency. However, once government becomes the arbiter of charitable, then paths back to self-sufficiency are not as important and the voters that rely upon the charitable redistribution of the profits of the selfish.

 

[Recidiva]

I find great math and science pretty simple to follow and that it is only when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes that it gets complex.

Please get off of Jenny McCarthy; it has nothing to do with our conversation other than continuing the ad hominem attack on Rand.

Bullshit is a brilliant rebuttal by the way. That is about the same as when certain posters jump in with their witty one-line attacks that is their way of saying that my thoughts are so superior and right that they are a prior and need no elucidation.

Let us try another, reasoned angle of example. If I am unable to help myself, then I am unable to help anyone else, therefore I must act selfishly (and remember we are not using the word as a moral judgement but as objective action) otherwise I might turn to you for selfless sacrifice demanding that you not be selfish (morally). In fact, I might join with other selfless souls and demand that government make sure that I am helped.

The selfish man realizes that it is not to his benefit to have his neighbor down and out (lest he join with the moral looters and simply take) so he engages in charity and it is not selfish to expect that that charity be temporary as a path back to self-sufficiency. However, once government becomes the arbiter of charitable, then paths back to self-sufficiency are not as important and the voters that rely upon the charitable redistribution of the profits of the selfish.

Then say what you mean and don't bring Ayn Rand into it, I can't take her seriously in any form. If your argument comes from her, then I can agree that Ayn Rand is an idiot and you can go do your thing, whatever that is.

It's irrelevant to the argument as to whether or not a single easy calculation is an undue burden. It isn't.

Yes, absolutely. Be good at caring for yourself and then help others in whatever capacity you can. You have to care for yourself to provide a good base of health and extra energy to be able to help others at all. I agree with your last two paragraphs.

What that has to do with refusing to help when it's so very, very easy is not clear.

Government is made of people. Treat them like people, not like enemies.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm hard pressed to find how this proposed legislation is of any use at all. Like all similar legislation the devil is in the details. Is this ratio on an annualized basis, or just a raw hourly baseline? Is it going to be adjusted to local economies, both within the nation and, in the case of the multinationals, across the boundaries of the various nations? Is the reporting to include stock options and bonuses, or just be restricted to raw salary data?

Given the relative uselessness of the legislation there will be continuing attempts to increase the granularity of the information with the ultimate result being the reporting of the income of each and every employee? Why not just publish everyone's W-2's with the SS # redacted?

The only information that's really worthwhile is that of the individual across the industry/position and that information is readily available. All else is useless trivia.

Ishmael

 

[Recidiva]

I'm hard pressed to find how this proposed legislation is of any use at all. Like all similar legislation the devil is in the details. Is this ratio on an annualized basis, or just a raw hourly baseline? Is it going to be adjusted to local economies, both within the nation and, in the case of the multinationals, across the boundaries of the various nations? Is the reporting to include stock options and bonuses, or just be restricted to raw salary data?

Given the relative uselessness of the legislation there will be continuing attempts to increase the granularity of the information with the ultimate result being the reporting of the income of each and every employee? Why not just publish everyone's W-2's with the SS # redacted?

The only information that's really worthwhile is that of the individual across the industry/position and that information is readily available. All else is useless trivia.

Ishmael

Then perhaps it is of no use to you. It is of use to me for the stated reasons and I hope it is implemented and brings about changing the way that some (not all) people look at a business plan and philosophy.

So if it's useless and won't do anything, why not do it? Why all the worry and the resistance? It's easy. If it's wrong and all the dumb people interpret it incorrectly and lose all their money investing for the wrong reasons, how does that change what's already happening?

 

[Ishmael]

Then perhaps it is of no use to you. It is of use to me for the stated reasons and I hope it is implemented and brings about changing the way that some (not all) people look at a business plan and philosophy.

So if it's useless and won't do anything, why not do it? Why all the worry and the resistance? It's easy. If it's wrong and all the dumb people interpret it incorrectly and lose all their money investing for the wrong reasons, how does that change what's already happening?

Given the relative uselessness of the legislation there will be continuing attempts to increase the granularity of the information with the ultimate result being the reporting of the income of each and every employee? Why not just publish everyone's W-2's with the SS # redacted?

That's why. It starts a process that is without end.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Social Engineering of the markets only leads to inefficiencies and cost.

With each cry of it's only $5 and the increase of the aforementioned granularity businesses begin to suffer death by paper-cut.

Entrepreneurs go into business to make things or provide services, not to cater to the whims of each and every single constituency that sees a benefit to themselves as a silent partner with a sincere desire to make the world a better place with just a little tweak of the business model.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's why. It starts a process that is without end.

Ishmael

Doin' right's got no end!
Cap'n Redlegs


"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Recidiva]

That's why. It starts a process that is without end.

Ishmael

I think it's a reasonable burden.

I think people have a simplified sense of how the market works. "Up is good" is the rule for most. "I am going to buy that because they went up and that means they might go up" is the model.

It's entirely too simplistic and has to do with the stockholder making money only, which is fine for what it is.

However, if a stockholder wishes to become more sophisticated and wants to check other indicators such as ... is it going up because it is utilizing business practices that are predatory and greedy? Is it going up because it is just really good at what it does and it still pays people well? Is it going up because people just buy what is going up so therefore always appear to be going up even if you are essentially cooking the books because down is the end of the world?

It's part of a way of looking at stocks and business plans in a more sophisticated way and making investments in something at its actual value, and not contributing to creating unrealistic bubble expectations.

What's really going on is complicated and shouldn't be measured by "up"

If we're obsessed with up and we can have constant feedback by seconds based o how up or down something is, it's not too much of a burden to provide one number a year used as a separate indicator of company health.

 

[Recidiva]

Social Engineering of the markets only leads to inefficiencies and cost.

With each cry of it's only $5 and the increase of the aforementioned granularity businesses begin to suffer death by paper-cut.

Entrepreneurs go into business to make things or provide services, not to cater to the whims of each and every single constituency that sees a benefit to themselves as a silent partner with a sincere desire to make the world a better place with just a little tweak of the business model.

Oh please, it's not social engineering, it's math.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Then say what you mean and don't bring Ayn Rand into it, I can't take her seriously in any form. If your argument comes from her, then I can agree that Ayn Rand is an idiot and you can go do your thing, whatever that is.

It's irrelevant to the argument as to whether or not a single easy calculation is an undue burden. It isn't.

Yes, absolutely. Be good at caring for yourself and then help others in whatever capacity you can. You have to care for yourself to provide a good base of health and extra energy to be able to help others at all. I agree with your last two paragraphs.

What that has to do with refusing to help when it's so very, very easy is not clear.

Government is made of people. Treat them like people, not like enemies.

Ignore Rand.

My argument comes from Liberalism, the same Liberalism that founded this country and wrote its Constitution and of those two things, Rand was a great admirer but not its greatest champion. I keep listing them, but you ignore them for the unhealthy fixation. You cannot seem to really address any of my points, so you keep going back to Rand like you keep going back to Jenny.

Government unconstrained is made up of an Oligarchy. It is people, but it is not nice people. It is moral busybodies who can legally rob you with their guns and police. What you propose makes sense your sense of social justice, but it also emboldens the Oligarchy to keep acting on each little demand...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh please, it's not social engineering, it's math.

I have a degree in math.

It is not math, it is economics and economics is a branch of Sociology, the study of Human Action and therefore it is a form of Social Engineering, your attempt to guide business towards your sense of morality.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think it's a reasonable burden.

I think people have a simplified sense of how the market works. "Up is good" is the rule for most. "I am going to buy that because they went up and that means they might go up" is the model.

It's entirely too simplistic and has to do with the stockholder making money only, which is fine for what it is.

However, if a stockholder wishes to become more sophisticated and wants to check other indicators such as ... is it going up because it is utilizing business practices that are predatory and greedy? Is it going up because it is just really good at what it does and it still pays people well? Is it going up because people just buy what is going up so therefore always appear to be going up even if you are essentially cooking the books because down is the end of the world?

It's part of a way of looking at stocks and business plans in a more sophisticated way and making investments in something at its actual value, and not contributing to creating unrealistic bubble expectations.

What's really going on is complicated and shouldn't be measured by "up"

If we're obsessed with up and we can have constant feedback by seconds based o how up or down something is, it's not too much of a burden to provide one number a year used as a separate indicator of company health.

I think you hit your own nail on the head.

 

[Recidiva]

I have a degree in math.

It is not math, it is economics and economics is a branch of Sociology, the study of Human Action and therefore it is a form of Social Engineering, your attempt to guide business towards your sense of morality.

And then I don't get how you would be offended at even irrelevant data if all other data is essentially irrelevant unless it is placed in context. The more data you have, the better able you are to provide context.

So some people wont' be able to add it up anyway, and even the best person can't predict company futures based on the present, but it's all we got. If we have the illusion that we can predict, why not refine the model.

 

[Recidiva]

Ignore Rand.

My argument comes from Liberalism, the same Liberalism that founded this country and wrote its Constitution and of those two things, Rand was a great admirer but not its greatest champion. I keep listing them, but you ignore them for the unhealthy fixation. You cannot seem to really address any of my points, so you keep going back to Rand like you keep going back to Jenny.

Government unconstrained is made up of an Oligarchy. It is people, but it is not nice people. It is moral busybodies who can legally rob you with their guns and police. What you propose makes sense your sense of social justice, but it also emboldens the Oligarchy to keep acting on each little demand...

HAPPY and THRILLED to ignore Rand. That's all I asked in the first place.

My argument doesn't come from anything other than where it came from, which you can review and note it's reasoned and I only Jennied you when you Randed me.

This is not about government, this is about investor data. It is not against regulations, and it's hopefully about to be a regulation, to which I say YAY!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The title contains the word 'Legislation.'



You simply cannot pretend that it is then just about 'information.'

All the information you need to know about the profitability of any company is readily available but you seem to want to invest in companies that are more "fair." That is Social Justice thinking. Labor, in our society is mobile, not slave.

 

[Recidiva]

The title contains the word 'Legislation.'



You simply cannot pretend that it is then just about 'information.'

All the information you need to know about the profitability of any company is readily available but you seem to want to invest in companies that are more "fair." That is Social Justice thinking. Labor, in our society is mobile, not slave.

And you don't like any government, so I am not shocked that you'd be opposed to any new legislation.

I'm just surprised that people who consider themselves to be intelligent can be so very offended over something so very benign and actually helpful to the process of stock holding and market forces and prediction.

Smaller companies, it'll be one teensy bit of red tape amid the ocean of red tape. For bigger companies it will possibly affect their business and I think their businesses in that case should be affected if their investors were otherwise ignorant of that small piece of data.

The argument that it's the teensy bit of red tape that will drown certain businesses is just silly.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And you don't like any government, so I am not shocked that you'd be opposed to any new legislation.

I'm just surprised that people who consider themselves to be intelligent can be so very offended over something so very benign and actually helpful to the process of stock holding and market forces and prediction.

Smaller companies, it'll be one teensy bit of red tape amid the ocean of red tape. For bigger companies it will possibly affect their business and I think their businesses in that case should be affected if their investors were otherwise ignorant of that small piece of data.

The argument that it's the teensy bit of red tape that will drown certain businesses is just silly.

Ascription. The fallacy of none or all. If you do not like my little-bitty eansie weanie meaningless (well nearly, to 99.99% of investors interested purely in the profit motive) governmental improvement in our lives, THEN YOU DON'T WANT ANY GOVERNMENT AT ALL!!!

Yes, but how may other people out there want their own teensy but of red tape?

Sometimes it comes in big chunks, like the ACA which the President prefers to call Obamacare.

How can you measure the value of knowing that company books are sounder than they were before? Of no more overnight bankruptcies with the employees and retirees left holding the bag? No more disruption to entire sectors of the economy?
Michael Oxley 2002
Co-Author of Sarbanes-Oxley Law
(Jon Corzine, co-sponsor)

It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.
Chris Dodd
Co-Author Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act
Friend of Angelo

“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

"We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result."
Alan Grayson