In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Yeah, he was just giving his opinion and you can say the same for people on the other side of the argument.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better. However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Yeah, he was just giving his opinion and you can say the same for people on the other side of the argument.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better. However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Yeah, he was just giving his opinion and you can say the same for people on the other side of the argument.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better. However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Umm, CEO pay is outpacing others... and that's with disclosure.
Ummm.. Yeah. So what does that matter?
You wrote:
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
That's in agreement with Buffet's claim.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better.
Huh? Nothing in your first sentence supports this assertion.
However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Again, huh? Nothing you posted supported the notion that more disclosure is better.
Then I offered a counter argument to your illogical blathering. CEO pay already has disclosure and therefore disclosure isn't having the indented effect.
Yeah, he was just giving his opinion and you can say the same for people on the other side of the argument.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better. However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
Again, huh? Nothing you posted supported the notion that more disclosure is better.
Then I offered a counter argument to your illogical blathering. CEO pay already has disclosure and therefore disclosure isn't having the indented effect.
. We find a strong negative relation between annual pay and future returns. In the year after the firms are classified into the lowest and highest compensation deciles respectively, firms in the lowest total compensation decile earn insignificant returns. In contrast, the firms in the highest compensation decile earn highly significant abnormal returns of -4.38%. To put this into perspective, the average yearly loss in abnormal shareholder wealth for firms in the top decile of pay is $2.39 billion, after paying out an average of $22.7 million in total CEO compensation. The performance worsens significantly over time. In the five years after the - 4 - classification period, firms in the high compensation decile earn a significant negative excess return of -12.27%
The more disclosure the easier it is to find patterns like these... Seems pretty obvious not sure how you missed it.
I won't drag this on.
My point is there is no reason to assume that what Buffett said has much significance beyond being a casual observation of something there is no data to support.
As such, it doesn't constitute a substantive opposition to increasing pay disclosure. So if neither side has supporting evidence as you suggest, then disclosure and transparency should be the default. Unless or until there is data to suggest it should be otherwise.
Yeah, he was just giving his opinion and you can say the same for people on the other side of the argument.
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better. However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Umm, CEO pay is outpacing others... and that's with disclosure.
Ummm.. Yeah. So what does that matter?
You wrote:
Except the other side has data showing how pay inequities, CEO/top executive pay grossly outpacing others, and other CEO/top executive pay schemes have negative impacts.
That's in agreement with Buffet's claim.
So there is a clear and substantiated case to be made for why more disclosure is better.
Huh? Nothing in your first sentence supports this assertion.
However this data, as you admit, doesn't exist on the other side of this debate.
Again, huh? Nothing you posted supported the notion that more disclosure is better.
Then I offered a counter argument to your illogical blathering. CEO pay already has disclosure and therefore disclosure isn't having the indented effect.
. We find a strong negative relation between annual pay and future returns. In the year after the firms are classified into the lowest and highest compensation deciles respectively, firms in the lowest total compensation decile earn insignificant returns. In contrast, the firms in the highest compensation decile earn highly significant abnormal returns of -4.38%. To put this into perspective, the average yearly loss in abnormal shareholder wealth for firms in the top decile of pay is $2.39 billion, after paying out an average of $22.7 million in total CEO compensation. The performance worsens significantly over time. In the five years after the - 4 - classification period, firms in the high compensation decile earn a significant negative excess return of -12.27%
The more disclosure the easier it is to find patterns like these... Seems pretty obvious not sure how you missed it.
That's not a very good argument. If your system is encouraging that type of pattern, also being able to see it is a poor consolation.
I won't drag this on.
My point is there is no reason to assume that what Buffett said has much significance beyond being a casual observation of something there is no data to support.
As such, it doesn't constitute a substantive opposition to increasing pay disclosure. So if neither side has supporting evidence as you suggest, then disclosure and transparency should be the default. Unless or until there is data to suggest it should be otherwise.
Buffet isn't a casual observer. He's an expert in his field and he has substantial experience when it comes to executive pay, development and retention.
I also don't see why your side should have the default win. Regulation regarding executive pay has a long history of backfiring:
This paper explores the legislative history of executive compensation, starting with Depression-era disclosure regulations and ending with the ongoing implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Over the past 80 years, Congress has imposed tax policies, accounting rules, disclosure requirements, direct legislation, and myriad other rules to regulate executive pay. With few exceptions, the regulations have generally been either ineffective or counterproductive, typically increasing (rather than reducing) CEO pay and leading to a host of unintended consequences, including the explosion in perquisites in the 1970s, golden parachute plans in the 1980s, stock options in the 1990s, and restricted stock in the 2000s. Part of the problem is that regulation – even when well intended – inherently focuses on relatively narrow aspects of compensation allowing plenty of scope for costly circumvention. A larger part of the problem is that the regulation is often mis-intended, driven by political rather than shareholder agendas.
Section 162 (m) and the rise of option-based compensation: Section 162 (m) was enacted in 1993 as a means of mitigating excessive pay The statue disallows tax deductibility for all compensation paid to “proxy-named executives” in excess of $1 million, unless such compensation is “performance-based” However, it ended up creating unintended consequences On an after tax basis, performance-based compensation, particularly stock options, became less expensive than base salaries and stock grants Stock options did satisfy the “performance-based” test, since they are directly linked to the underlying stock This must have lead to a dramatic rise in option-based compensation In fact, the average grant-date value of options soared from near zero in 1970 to over $7 million in 2000 (Hall and Murphy, 2003) Overly generous compensation packages with large-sized stock option grants may have created incentives for managers to manipulate company financial statements in order to drive up stock prices, contributing to the corporate scandals of the post-dot-com era
That's not a very good argument. If your system is encouraging that type of pattern, also being able to see it is a poor consolation.
Well just saying it is encouraging that type of pattern isn't evidence of it or demonstrative of the significance or level of influence. So being able to identify it is at least the first step. You can't know whether or not it is a problem if you cant even view the data.
I also don't see why your side should have the default win. Regulation regarding executive pay has a long history of backfiring
I am not even talking about regulating the actual pay, we are just talking about regulating it's disclosure which are two separate points.
It's not my side, it's just common sense. If there is no evidence or reason to believe that disclosing information will have significant negative consequences disclosure should be the default.
So far I haven't seen you provide anything to suggest that disclosure would have any significant negative impacts. You have however shown how regulations can be avoided and the situation can get worse if top executives choose to ignore or avoid those disclosure rules in an effort to increase their pay.
The first piece you cited essentially says the consistent practice of businesses and top executives cheating/skirting rules and regulations around disclosure (practices that the public and shareholders wouldn't have likely discovered without those disclosure rules) are not a result of them wanting to cheat/manipulate the system but because the system somehow encourages/forces them to break/avoid the rules...Instead of them being intent on bending/breaking the rules in order to maximize their personal gains regardless of regulation, which is the more logical explanation.
The blame for circumventing disclosure laws rests with both the writers of such laws and the people INTENTIONALLY circumventing those laws.
To put the entire onus on the regulation and none on the executives is emblematic of a consistent misallocation of responsibility seen in these types of discussion.
Saying disclosure causes top executives to manipulate/cheat disclosure rules is as ass backwards as saying Islam is the reason we have terrorists.
It removes the fact that those individuals are choosing to break/skirt disclosure rules and their intentions and that the problem is them and their practices not the rule (although it should be consistently analyzed for effectiveness).
A wildfire stoked by high winds and temperatures near 100 degrees Fahrenheit killed at least one man, destroyed several houses and forced people to flee near the Oklahoma town of Guthrie on Sunday, officials said.
Flames covered 3,000 to 4,000 acres near Guthrie, located about 30 miles north of Oklahoma City. About 1,000 people were evacuated from their homes.
As of early Monday morning, officials said the fire was 75 percent contained. Conditions, however, will not be on the side of the nearly 20 fire departments battling the blaze, with mid-90s temperatures and 20 mph wind gusts in the forecast.
Guthrie Fire Department Chief Eric Harlow said a 56-year-old man was found dead in his home Sunday night after the blazed passed through that area.
Harlow said the wildfire broke out Sunday when a controlled burn that began at about 4 p.m. got out of hand. He said that by 9 p.m., it had burned an estimated up to 6 square miles of land, as well as several homes.
A controlled burn is a fire "intentionally ignited to meet specific land management objectives, such as to reduce flammable fuels, restore ecosystem health, recycle nutrients or prepare an area for new trees or vegetation," according to the U.S. Forest Service.
Fire officials said that the area was not under a burn ban, but pointed out that whoever set the fire would be liable for the cost of any damages, despite the fact that the fire was set legally.
That's not a very good argument. If your system is encouraging that type of pattern, also being able to see it is a poor consolation.
Well just saying it is encouraging that type of pattern isn't evidence of it or demonstrative of the significance or level of influence. So being able to identify it is at least the first step. You can't know whether or not it is a problem if you cant even view the data.
I also don't see why your side should have the default win. Regulation regarding executive pay has a long history of backfiring
I am not even talking about regulating the actual pay, we are just talking about regulating it's disclosure which are two separate points.
It's not my side, it's just common sense. If there is no evidence or reason to believe that disclosing information will have significant negative consequences disclosure should be the default.
So far I haven't seen you provide anything to suggest that disclosure would have any significant negative impacts. You have however shown how regulations can be avoided and the situation can get worse if top executives choose to ignore or avoid those disclosure rules in an effort to increase their pay.
The first piece you cited essentially says the consistent practice of businesses and top executives cheating/skirting rules and regulations around disclosure (practices that the public and shareholders wouldn't have likely discovered without those disclosure rules) are not a result of them wanting to cheat/manipulate the system but because the system somehow encourages/forces them to break/avoid the rules...Instead of them being intent on bending/breaking the rules in order to maximize their personal gains regardless of regulation, which is the more logical explanation.
The blame for circumventing disclosure laws rests with both the writers of such laws and the people INTENTIONALLY circumventing those laws.
To put the entire onus on the regulation and none on the executives is emblematic of a consistent misallocation of responsibility seen in these types of discussion.
Saying disclosure causes top executives to manipulate/cheat disclosure rules is as ass backwards as saying Islam is the reason we have terrorists.
It removes the fact that those individuals are choosing to break/skirt disclosure rules and their intentions and that the problem is them and their practices not the rule (although it should be consistently analyzed for effectiveness).
My first spoilered source addressed disclosure specifically as well as other regulations. Section 2 is all about disclosure.
Over the past 80 years, Congress has imposed tax policies, accounting rules, disclosure requirements, direct legislation, and myriad other rules to regulate executive pay. With few exceptions, the regulations have generally been either ineffective or counterproductive ... 2. Disclosure Requirements
Since there is reason to believe that disclosure has negative consequences, disclosure shouldn't be the default win. We're talking about an idea here, not a sorry soul who is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to debate, you need to make good arguments, you can't claim default victory and then simply shove opposing views aside as 'not good enough'.
Misallocation of responsibility indeed - if one creates a system that encourages high executive pay, one cannot shift blame to actors within the system. If a 6 pool is powerful, you cannot blame a zerg for using it. The blame lies with the game designer who made the 6 pool powerful. Similarly, if executive stock options are encouraged by the regulations, one cannot blame the executive for using them. Backtracking and calling it 'cheating' is incorrect. As long as you are playing by the rules, you are not cheating.
In comments earlier this year only now coming to light, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court asserted that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity since neither Buddha nor Mohammed created man.
"Everybody, to include the United States Supreme Court, has been deceived as to one little word in the First Amendment called religion. They can’t define it," chief justice Roy Moore said in January, according to video published Friday by Raw Story.
“Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures. They didn’t bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship,” he continued. “Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history. Let’s stop playing games.”
The chief justice was speaking at a Pastor for Life Luncheon, an event in Jackson Miss., sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, according to Raw Story.
Moore lamented that it's not "politically correct" to discuss God and the law because Americans have been "divorced from God for so many years."
He then argued that the reference to "life" in the Declaration of Independence established a pro-life stance for the country.
An Alabama justice in remarks at a pro-life event? Take it up with the citizens of Alabama and Alabama's partisan election process. In other news, how about 5 US supreme court justices from their bench?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court upheld decidedly Christian prayers at the start of local council meetings on Monday, declaring them in line with long national traditions though the country has grown more religiously diverse.
The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said in a 5-4 decision backed by its conservative majority.
Though the decision split the court along ideological lines, the Obama administration backed the winning side, the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester.
In comments earlier this year only now coming to light, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court asserted that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity since neither Buddha nor Mohammed created man.
"Everybody, to include the United States Supreme Court, has been deceived as to one little word in the First Amendment called religion. They can’t define it," chief justice Roy Moore said in January, according to video published Friday by Raw Story.
“Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures. They didn’t bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship,” he continued. “Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history. Let’s stop playing games.”
The chief justice was speaking at a Pastor for Life Luncheon, an event in Jackson Miss., sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, according to Raw Story.
Moore lamented that it's not "politically correct" to discuss God and the law because Americans have been "divorced from God for so many years."
He then argued that the reference to "life" in the Declaration of Independence established a pro-life stance for the country.
Anyone have a transcript? I'm not following where "the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court asserted that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity since neither Buddha nor Mohammed created man."
On May 06 2014 10:32 Danglars wrote: An Alabama justice in remarks at a pro-life event? Take it up with the citizens of Alabama and Alabama's partisan election process. In other news, how about 5 US supreme court justices from their bench?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court upheld decidedly Christian prayers at the start of local council meetings on Monday, declaring them in line with long national traditions though the country has grown more religiously diverse.
The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said in a 5-4 decision backed by its conservative majority.
Though the decision split the court along ideological lines, the Obama administration backed the winning side, the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester.
The relevant quote is around 1:45, but the context around 1:33 seems to be about a Ten Commandments case that the Supreme Court did not take. I'm not sure exactly which case he's talking about and neither TPM nor Raw Story even bother to mention what he might be talking about.
He seems to be referring to the belief that the United States bases the principles of guaranteed rights as provided by the Creator, which does usually refer to a monotheistic god and arguably the Judeo-Christian one. But that is very different from saying that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity, implying that he does not believe Muslims or Buddhists have or should have their rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well. I don't think he makes any such statement.
If anything, it seems to be an argument for American exceptionalism mixed with some complaining about the legal system and the perception that Christianity is under attack by political correctness. I personally find it strange to treat Christianity as a single mass, without noting that the Pilgrims came to America to flee persecution by an Anglican government, which at the time was itself at odds with Catholicism.
WASHINGTON -- The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is refusing to support a bill backed by the Obama administration that would lower the length of mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, putting her at odds with her boss Attorney General Eric Holder on one of the criminal justice reform initiatives he hopes to make a centerpiece of his legacy.
During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart about the role of mandatory minimums in drug cases. Grassley cited the opposition among some law enforcement groups to the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill that would reduce the length of mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
"Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, [and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations," Leonhart said. "We depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the ... level of violator we are going after."
The Huffington Post asked a DEA spokeswoman on Monday whether, given Leonhart's remarks, the DEA administrator supported the position of the Obama administration on the Smarter Sentencing Act.
"We will not be adding anything to Administrator Leonhart's on-the-record comment about mandatory minimum sentences before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week," the spokeswoman, Barbara Carreno, said in an email.
Leonhart's comment last week, Carreno said, "will have to speak for itself."
Leonhart was originally confirmed as deputy administrator of the DEA during the Bush administration in 2004, but was nominated to take over the agency by President Barack Obama over the objections of many drug policy reformers. She has been at the DEA since 1980.
Leonhart has already reportedly slammed the president behind closed doors for comparing weed to alcohol, and has said that the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado -- which the Obama administration allowed to move forward -- has only made DEA agents "fight harder." She's also suggested that gangs are taking over in Washington and Colorado in the wake of marijuana legalization, even as Holder has said he's "cautiously optimistic" about how things are going in those states.
In 2012, while testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Leonhart refused to acknowledge that marijuana poses fewer health risks than heroin or crack.
WASHINGTON -- The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is refusing to support a bill backed by the Obama administration that would lower the length of mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, putting her at odds with her boss Attorney General Eric Holder on one of the criminal justice reform initiatives he hopes to make a centerpiece of his legacy.
During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart about the role of mandatory minimums in drug cases. Grassley cited the opposition among some law enforcement groups to the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill that would reduce the length of mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
"Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, [and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations," Leonhart said. "We depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the ... level of violator we are going after."
The Huffington Post asked a DEA spokeswoman on Monday whether, given Leonhart's remarks, the DEA administrator supported the position of the Obama administration on the Smarter Sentencing Act.
"We will not be adding anything to Administrator Leonhart's on-the-record comment about mandatory minimum sentences before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week," the spokeswoman, Barbara Carreno, said in an email.
Leonhart's comment last week, Carreno said, "will have to speak for itself."
Leonhart was originally confirmed as deputy administrator of the DEA during the Bush administration in 2004, but was nominated to take over the agency by President Barack Obama over the objections of many drug policy reformers. She has been at the DEA since 1980.
Leonhart has already reportedly slammed the president behind closed doors for comparing weed to alcohol, and has said that the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado -- which the Obama administration allowed to move forward -- has only made DEA agents "fight harder." She's also suggested that gangs are taking over in Washington and Colorado in the wake of marijuana legalization, even as Holder has said he's "cautiously optimistic" about how things are going in those states.
In 2012, while testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Leonhart refused to acknowledge that marijuana poses fewer health risks than heroin or crack.
WASHINGTON -- The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is refusing to support a bill backed by the Obama administration that would lower the length of mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, putting her at odds with her boss Attorney General Eric Holder on one of the criminal justice reform initiatives he hopes to make a centerpiece of his legacy.
During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart about the role of mandatory minimums in drug cases. Grassley cited the opposition among some law enforcement groups to the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill that would reduce the length of mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
"Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, [and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations," Leonhart said. "We depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the ... level of violator we are going after."
The Huffington Post asked a DEA spokeswoman on Monday whether, given Leonhart's remarks, the DEA administrator supported the position of the Obama administration on the Smarter Sentencing Act.
"We will not be adding anything to Administrator Leonhart's on-the-record comment about mandatory minimum sentences before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week," the spokeswoman, Barbara Carreno, said in an email.
Leonhart's comment last week, Carreno said, "will have to speak for itself."
Leonhart was originally confirmed as deputy administrator of the DEA during the Bush administration in 2004, but was nominated to take over the agency by President Barack Obama over the objections of many drug policy reformers. She has been at the DEA since 1980.
Leonhart has already reportedly slammed the president behind closed doors for comparing weed to alcohol, and has said that the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado -- which the Obama administration allowed to move forward -- has only made DEA agents "fight harder." She's also suggested that gangs are taking over in Washington and Colorado in the wake of marijuana legalization, even as Holder has said he's "cautiously optimistic" about how things are going in those states.
In 2012, while testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Leonhart refused to acknowledge that marijuana poses fewer health risks than heroin or crack.
How does the DEA have someone in charge who seems to be woefully ignorant of the basic pharmacology of drugs.
She didn't seem ignorant, she seemed as if she didn't want to say that one illegal drug was worse than another. For someone in her position, that's pretty understandable.
are there special laws for mariujana? i get that she has to tread lightly, but the classification of mariujana is unreasonable. suspending herself from reality in such a cringeworthy manner (the video oh my) is a farce! youtube, haha ohhh.
On May 06 2014 11:54 nunez wrote: are there special laws for mariujana? i get that she has to tread lightly, but the classification of mariujana is unreasonable. suspending herself from reality in such a cringeworthy manner (the video oh my) is a farce! youtube, haha ohhh.
Drugs are put into categories (schedule 1 - 5).
She clearly didn't want to answer the question as he laid it out, which is normal. Hearings tend to be more opportunities to push an agenda than fact finding endeavors. People ask specific questions and demand yes or no answers and whoever is testifying struggles to add nuance and perspective.
EPT
