Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: perdidochas wrote: I don't disagree with that, but there is nothing in the Constitution that even using my wildest creativity could give the government the power to regulate maximum wage.

almost every government power in regards to the ecconomy comes from Article 1 Section 8

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Commerce applies to trade, not internal business practices.

[RueTheDay]

PS_Student wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
They're supposed to be serving the interests of their shareholders, not their own. The executives do not own the companies. This is a classic principal-agent conflict.

You must have an economics degree- your comments are very dead on and make so much sense, I just have an econ textbook infront of me deciphering what your saying so this is great keep em commin'

Yes, I do have an economics degree. Unlike the majority on here who learned what they think counts as economics by reading the propaganda webpages of think tanks.

[RueTheDay]

Harbinger wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Nathyn wrote:
Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.
I oppose. Salaries should only be capped by the free market.

There is no "free market" for executive compensation.

Quote:
If the shareholders are the owners, then they should have the exclusive right to vote on what executives get paid based on how satisfied they are with the performance of their stocks.

Except that's not how corporations function. Shareholders do not typically get to vote on executive compensation. The compensation committee within the board of directors makes the call.

Quote:
However, I have a problem with the whole idea of shareholding. It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared.

Huh?

Quote:
If a corporation is a legal person, then it should own itself entirely just as actual persons own themselves entirely.

People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

And corporate personhood has absolutely nothing to do with "shared ownership".

Quote:
In that case, corporate executives acting as agents of their corporate principles should have the power to manage their own salaries as part of managing their principles.

WTF do you imagine you're talking about? First of all, it's principal not principle. I normally don't correct people's spelling, but these are two different words with two different meanings and I really don't think you understand that. Furthermore, agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

[John Locke]

Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?
I oppose it, completely and utterly, not only would it be a dangerous step backwards along the Socialist track (which history has shown works very poorly in a real world environment), but it completely undermines the American dream.

[Harbinger]

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
I oppose. Salaries should only be capped by the free market.

There is no "free market" for executive compensation.

That's the problem.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
If the shareholders are the owners, then they should have the exclusive right to vote on what executives get paid based on how satisfied they are with the performance of their stocks.

Except that's not how corporations function. Shareholders do not typically get to vote on executive compensation. The compensation committee within the board of directors makes the call.

Again, that's the problem. They aren't working for themselves, they're working for the shareholders.

[Harbinger]

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
However, I have a problem with the whole idea of shareholding. It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared.

Huh?

Harbinger wrote:
If a corporation is a legal person, then it should own itself entirely just as actual persons own themselves entirely.

People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

RueTheDay wrote:
And corporate person-hood has absolutely nothing to do with "shared ownership".

You're right, it doesn't. Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time. The same applies to people. People naturally have full ownership rights over themselves. And, since there is no way of separating a person from themselves, a person cannot be owned by anyone else.

RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
In that case, corporate executives, acting as agents of their corporate principals, should have the power to manage their own salaries as part of managing their principals.

WTF do you imagine you're talking about? Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's. Otherwise, if the business operations cannot be distinguished from the corporate persons, then executive agents are in fact managing their corporate principles- like how a doctor would manage a brain-dead patient.

(Thank you for the spelling and grammar checks.)

[Rand Knight]

Maximum wage is a horrendous idea. It would lead to reduced labor on the part of the skill-sets that we place the most value on. In fact, I could argue pretty persuasively that the health-care crisis we're currently experiencing is primarily due to a combination of increased costs (caused by negative factors like frivolous lawsuits), increased demand due to longer life-expectancy and an aging populace, and what effectively amounts to "maximum wages" for physicians by government programs.

Let's assume for example that we need more doctors and nurses (I know it's a crazy assumption, but bear with me). Increased demand for their services would naturally lead to increased salaries, which in turn, means more students are willing to invest the time and money to become physicians and nurses. While this causes some short-term price increases, in the long run, those extra doctors and nurses represent an increase in supply, which places downward pressure on prices.

If those doctors and nurses have a maximum amount that they can make and increasing costs due to things like malpractice insurance, they begin making less, which means we'll actually end up with fewer of them around. The price increase that would normally lead to a supply increase can't happen, so no one gets the quality of health-care that they need, and the companies look for ways to shuffle the burden of increasing costs to the consumer by making ancillary services cost much more. Voila - we end up with the labor economics equivalent of stagflation - rising costs and reduced services.

[Harbinger]

Rand Knight wrote:
Maximum wage is a horrendous idea. It would lead to reduced labor on the part of the skill-sets that we place the most value on. Let's assume for example that we need more doctors and nurses. Increased demand for their services would naturally lead to increased salaries, which in turn, means more students are willing to invest the time and money to become physicians and nurses. While this causes some short-term price increases, in the long run, those extra doctors and nurses represent an increase in supply, which places downward pressure on prices. If those doctors and nurses have a maximum amount that they can make and increasing costs due to things like malpractice insurance, they begin making less, which means we'll actually end up with fewer of them around. The price increase that would normally lead to a supply increase can't happen, so no one gets the quality of health-care that they need, and the companies look for ways to shuffle the burden of increasing costs to the consumer by making ancillary services cost much more. Voila - we end up with the labor economics equivalent of stagflation - rising costs and reduced services.

I don't think a direct earnings limit would cause people to give up on their career plans. There would still be plenty of incentives for people to work. Those who earn the max may not be able to increase their incomes but, they could increase the value of their incomes by reducing the earnings of their employees. Average middle class income would fall and that would cause significant deflation at first. Once incomes stabilize, earnings would be "locked" between the earnings limits so, the cycle of inflation/deflation would have to average out to zero. Wage gaps in the middle class would decrease as well and that would make prices more consistent and, in turn, the cost of living more consistent for everyone. If earnings represent the inefficiency of labor, we can think of a maximum earnings limit as a standard of efficiency and the overall reduction of wages and prices as an increase in the efficiency of the overall economy. Coins would become useful again as the value of currency in general would be where it was a long time ago. We could even see the standardization of prices and wages for certain basic goods and entry level jobs- not by government but by the free market itself.

I would support relative earnings limits- a maximum earnings limit as a multiple of a minimum earnings limit (the minimum wage) and a minimum earnings limit as a fraction of average middle class earnings. This would work similar to direct earnings limits in keeping wages proportional but it would do so despite ongoing inflation and wage increases.

[RueTheDay]

Harbinger wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
However, I have a problem with the whole idea of shareholding. It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared.

Huh?

Harbinger wrote:
If a corporation is a legal person, then it should own itself entirely just as actual persons own themselves entirely.

People do not "own themselves". I've debunked the nonsense about self-ownership a hundred times.

What do you mean you've "debunked" it? You can kid yourself a hundred times but, you can never "debunk" the truth.

Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing". It is not some natural right based on the natural laws of the universe or any other similar such nonsense. And being a relationship between an individual and society regarding the thing, it cannot concern the "self" unless you consider the individual and the self to be two separate entities.

Do a search. I have covered this time and time again.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
And corporate person-hood has absolutely nothing to do with "shared ownership".

You're right, it doesn't. Exclusivity is one of the most fundamental principles of property ownership. It's logistically impossible for more than one person to have full ownership rights over the same piece of property at the same time.

False. My house is registered jointly in my name and my wife's name. So is my checking account. The title to my car is is my name, but my bank holds a lien against it. In all three cases, the property relationship is shared between multiple parties.

Quote:
The same applies to people. People naturally have full ownership rights over themselves.

False. A property right by definition includes the right to transfer. You can't transfer ownership of yourself to another party because you and yourself are not two separate entities.

Quote:
And, since there is no way of separating a person from themselves, a person cannot be owned by anyone else.

Nor can he be owned by "himself". A person cannot be owned by anyone. The entire concept of self-ownership is literal nonsense.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
In that case, corporate executives, acting as agents of their corporate principals, should have the power to manage their own salaries as part of managing their principals.

WTF do you imagine you're talking about? Agents do not manage principals, they manage something for a principal.

Okay, then executive agents manage business operations for their corporate principal's.

Correct.

Quote:
Otherwise, if the business operations cannot be distinguished from the corporate persons, then executive agents are in fact managing their corporate principles- like how a doctor would manage a brain-dead patient.

Nonsense. Corporate personhood does not refer to the persons who own the corporation, it refers to the legal standing that is granted the corporation by law.

[PS_Student]

hey ruetheday,
you have any recommendations for books/textbooks about economics
I only have the Heyne economic way of thinking, and the Pindyk Microeconomics texts.

[RueTheDay]

PS_Student wrote: hey ruetheday,
you have any recommendations for books/textbooks about economics
I only have the Heyne economic way of thinking, and the Pindyk Microeconomics texts.

We have a thread on this forum entitled Economics Reading List. Take a look for it. It would be a good start.

[ubikk]

Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?

I also oppose it. That's what you use a progressive income tax for. I think we should bring back the 90% tax bracket for all income over $100 million.

[pyrophasma]

ubikk wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

I oppose it. What do you think?

I also oppose it. That's what you use a progressive income tax for. I think we should bring back the 90% tax bracket for all income over $100 million.

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

[ubikk]

pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

[pyrophasma]

ubikk wrote: pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

I think takin your stuff is the moral thing to do.

[Atlas Bergeron]

perdidochas wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: perdidochas wrote: I don't disagree with that, but there is nothing in the Constitution that even using my wildest creativity could give the government the power to regulate maximum wage.

almost every government power in regards to the ecconomy comes from Article 1 Section 8

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Commerce applies to trade, not internal business practices.

yep. And almost all buisness trade accross borders. So, the federal gov says its in their power to regulate them.

[ubikk]

pyrophasma wrote: ubikk wrote: pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

I think takin your stuff is the moral thing to do.

Excuse me?

Perhaps you could elaborate. Please.

Thank you.

[ubikk]

pyrophasma wrote: ubikk wrote: pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

I think takin your stuff is the moral thing to do.

Excuse me?

Perhaps you could elaborate. Please.

Thank you.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

ubikk wrote: pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

Do you love forcing your morality upon people?

[ubikk]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: ubikk wrote: pyrophasma wrote:

Yeah, because people who make that much money use more government services and should pay for them.

I just think it's the moral thing to do.

Do you love forcing your morality upon people?

I make choices based on my moral convictions, if that is what you're asking. (like who to vote for, for instance)