US Politics Thread

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Except Bezos isn't CEO anymore and the vast majority of his wealth came from his sales of his shares or dividends so what's the immediate relevance?

Ask Bernie Sanders. Bezos took risk-of-loss when he founded AMZN and sold his stake down over time. AMZN doesn’t pay a divvy so his wealth is a function of that plus the paper value of the stake he still owns (plus his personal investments).

Compare this to average CEO-to-median worker salary ratio of 300x in the US last I looked. That’s annual dollars that could instead be going to workers, not inclusive of wealth built on options/stock grants which shouldn’t typically dilute the stakes of existing shareholders. Those options/grants could in fact go to employees, increasing their stakes in the businesses they work for.

Certainly a good portion of that CEO pay should ideally be performance based, but the hurdles to achieving it are often too low (and shareholder services firms are starting to encourage institutional Investors to vote against such companies packages and board members who support them) but I see reducing that ratio as a more compelling argument for wealth redistribution than “Bezos has a 500m dollar yacht.”

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The top 10% hold 86% of US equities (of which the majority is held by the top 1% overall) so I don’t think that’s the best argument in favour of lower corporation tax, especially when a cancer diagnosis means bankruptcy for millions.

I’m hardly a communist but the US’s wealth inequality and (real) tax rate on highest earners is beyond a joke.

Don’t disagree. It’s an argument but not the best one.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Ask Bernie Sanders. Bezos took risk-of-loss when he founded AMZN and sold his stake down over time. AMZN doesn’t pay a divvy so his wealth is a function of that plus the paper value of the stake he still owns (plus his personal investments).

Compare this to average CEO-to-median worker salary ratio of 300x in the US last I looked. That’s annual dollars that could instead be going to workers, not inclusive of wealth built on options/stock grants which shouldn’t typically dilute the stakes of existing shareholders. Those options/grants could in fact go to employees, increasing their stakes in the businesses they work for.

Certainly a good portion of that CEO pay should ideally be performance based, but the hurdles to achieving it are often too low (and shareholder services firms are starting to encourage institutional Investors to vote against such companies packages and board members who support them) but I see reducing that ratio as a more compelling argument for wealth redistribution than “Bezos has a 500m dollar yacht.”

That’s a wider debate and on the strategic level, maybe the fight with Bezos is just a question of tactics.

He has also talked about CEO pay before.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

That’s a wider debate and on the strategic level, maybe the fight with Bezos is just a question of tactics.

He has also talked about CEO pay before.

Yes, I think it’s just resonance. At the end of the day, the most important thing is worker power is changing — in a service-based economy without enough service workers, whether via unions or otherwise, corporations better get used to spreading the wealth or there are going to be meaningful consequences. Sanders is on the right side of this issue morally, politically and timing-wise.

 

[domalino]

Its a shambles. Fuck all will happen even though there are hours of video of her inciting and calling for insurrection and claiming the election was stolen. These fuckers can do what they want Without any consequence.

I think there's a decent chance she's kicked off the ballot. Her behaviour before yesterday certainly indicated they are panicking. Also she's followed Trump in hiring a genuinely incompetent lawyer who the judge doesn't like and who almost conceded the case in his opening statement.

Cawthorn might be in trouble too.

I think what's most interesting will be the fallout if those decisions come down.

 

[super_city_si]

I think there's a decent chance she's kicked off the ballot. Her behaviour before yesterday certainly indicated they are panicking. Also she's followed Trump in hiring a genuinely incompetent lawyer who the judge doesn't like and who almost conceded the case in his opening statement.

Cawthorn might be in trouble too.

I think what's most interesting will be the fallout if those decisions come down.

I hope you’re right but I just don’t see anything of consequence happening. I fully expect she’ll be on the ballot and claim she was exonerated and continue to lie and cheat and steal.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think there's a decent chance she's kicked off the ballot. Her behaviour before yesterday certainly indicated they are panicking. Also she's followed Trump in hiring a genuinely incompetent lawyer who the judge doesn't like and who almost conceded the case in his opening statement.

Cawthorn might be in trouble too.

I think what's most interesting will be the fallout if those decisions come down.

Maybe he is deliberately trying to lose by playing stupid.

Sensible lawyers who value their reputation wouldn't have taken her as a client as it is an unwinnable case with short term monetary gain for long term pain.

 

[domalino]

Maybe he is deliberately trying to lose by playing stupid.

Sensible lawyers who value their reputation wouldn't have taken her as a client as it is an unwinnable case with short term monetary gain for long term pain.

His name is James Bopp Jr and he is one of Trump's Kraken lawyers that take money from right wing PACs and think tanks to bring stupid cases and (usually) lose.

So he's taking her as a client because she's a poster-girl of the GQP and next time some conservative group raises $3m to sue the government for something stupid they'll think of him.

But that's not to say he's smart, because his performance yesterday was really shit. Maybe like Giuliani he might have been a good lawyer 40 years ago but his brain seems pretty mushy now. I think he genuinely forgot which client he was representing when he tried to claim executive privilege for MTG.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

His name is James Bopp Jr and he is one of Trump's Kraken lawyers that take money from right wing PACs and think tanks to bring stupid cases and (usually) lose.

So he's taking her as a client because she's a poster-girl of the GQP and next time some conservative group raises $3m to sue the government for something stupid they'll think of him.

But that's not to say he's smart, because his performance yesterday was really shit. Maybe like Giuliani he might have been a good lawyer 40 years ago but his brain seems pretty mushy now. I think he genuinely forgot which client he was representing when he tried to claim executive privilege for MTG.

Seems like he is true believer of right-wing nonsense.

"In 2009, Bopp was the lead sponsor of an RNC resolution that initially called on the Democratic Party to change its name to Democratic Socialist Party. A compromise resolution was passed instead, condemning President Barack Obama and the then-Democratic congressional majority for "pushing America toward socialism and more government control."

"We don't want Government control but we need to force the Democrats to change the name of their party [to something inaccurate] "

Reminds me of Jack Thompson, the anti videogame lawyer who sued Rockstar games.

Unsurprisingly the country that has the most lawyers per capita is full of unhinged fanatics working as attorneys.

 

[SWP's back]

Don’t disagree. It’s an argument but not the best one.

Anyway, back to the horrors of reality, only 2 years left and then he gets to have a go at being leader of the free world again.