Post-Olympic hangover stew

So a few things which have been stewing inside this head of mine, some of which happened during the Olympics, some after, mostly who cares.

I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.

I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.

To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.

And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?

Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?

If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?

fuggem

-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.

The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.

The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.

They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).

But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?

Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.

Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.

Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.

That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.

And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.

fugger. really.

-- Knuttel

double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.





night