This is capitalism?

[Auburn85 432]

TT, what do you think should be done? Should he be forced to give back all the money he's recieving? What would be done if we were under a TexasTiger administration?

[otterinbham 0]

TT, what do you think should be done? Should he be forced to give back all the money he's recieving? What would be done if we were under a TexasTiger administration?

He would be picking rutabagas in a reeducation camp somewhere in Western Nebraska.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

And your statement of how "rewarding failure is bad economics" is off the mark. You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

Economics refers to the overall fiscal health of society. By stating that "rewarding failure is bad economics", you imply that executive compensation becomes a matter for public concern, thereby becoming the provenance of government.

It’s bad business and bad economics. Behavior that tends to lessen societal and investor confidence in corporate America takes a toll on the long-term economic life of a country. The impact is insidious. I don’t begrudge talented folks being well-compensated, but payouts this outrageous go well beyond being well-compensated.

Otherwise, you might as well advocate government scrutiny of how much public companies pay per square foot of office space.

Once again, you come up with the most extreme example that you can think of and it bears absolutely no relation to anything I said.

If networks pony up the money for broadcast rights and spectators go buy $100 tickets and $50 team jerseys and feel they have a good deal, then who are you and I to argue?

Show me a pro sports team not taking huge government handouts.

Who are we to say what is TOO much for a CEO payout? It's not your company. It's not the government's place, and it's not the every day citizen's place.

I’m a small, powerless stockholder. It is partly my company. I’ll complain if I want.

TT, what do you think should be done? Should he be forced to give back all the money he's recieving? What would be done if we were under a TexasTiger administration?

Give it back? Of course not. I’m not aware of any law that was broken. I believe in freedom. Democratic societies are free to even fail.

What I would do is establish more stringent regulations regarding the tax deductibility of executive compensation. If a business wants to pay out outrageous amounts they can, but what is considered a legitimate business expense for tax reasons should be significantly curtailed.

[otterinbham 0]

And your statement of how "rewarding failure is bad economics" is off the mark. You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

Economics refers to the overall fiscal health of society. By stating that "rewarding failure is bad economics", you imply that executive compensation becomes a matter for public concern, thereby becoming the provenance of government.

It’s bad business and bad economics. Behavior that tends to lessen societal and investor confidence in corporate America takes a toll on the long-term economic life of a country. The impact is insidious. I don’t begrudge talented folks being well-compensated, but payouts this outrageous go well beyond being well-compensated. Wrong. Fraud affects investor confidence. Incompetence affects investor confidence. Bad performance affects investor confidence. Executive compensation does not affect investor confidence, especially when paid to a CEO who has increased share price by 50% in five years and doubled market capitalization within the same period of time.

Otherwise, you might as well advocate government scrutiny of how much public companies pay per square foot of office space.

Once again, you come up with the most extreme example that you can think of and it bears absolutely no relation to anything I said. Hardly extreme. Because once you get government into the business of deciding what is and what is not competent executive decision making, then almost anything is really subject to scrutiny. So if a company is losing 100 million in a year, does the CEO have a right to use his Bombadier jet? Does the government decide how many employees a company can hire and still remain fiscally solvent? Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

If networks pony up the money for broadcast rights and spectators go buy $100 tickets and $50 team jerseys and feel they have a good deal, then who are you and I to argue?

Show me a pro sports team not taking huge government handouts. None. Yet, even then, government isn't seeing fit to intervene in the management of a company in whose performance they have a huge stake.

Who are we to say what is TOO much for a CEO payout? It's not your company. It's not the government's place, and it's not the every day citizen's place.

I’m a small, powerless stockholder. It is partly my company. I’ll complain if I want. Exactly. As a shareholder, but not as a citizen. The two are completely different things.

TT, what do you think should be done? Should he be forced to give back all the money he's recieving? What would be done if we were under a TexasTiger administration?

Give it back? Of course not. I’m not aware of any law that was broken. I believe in freedom. Democratic societies are free to even fail.

What I would do is establish more stringent regulations regarding the tax deductibility of executive compensation. If a business wants to pay out outrageous amounts they can, but what is considered a legitimate business expense for tax reasons should be significantly curtailed.

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

The market offers a pretty simple solution. If a company is not consistently profitable, its share value plummets. Shareholders revolt. The executive suite gets the axe.

Again, you ignore the facts in favor on parroting some pseudo economic nonsense. O'Neal created indisputable profit, market capitalization, and share value for Merrill Lynch (a previously moribund enterprise) within a very short period of time. The man deserves to be compensated for that. Period.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

Shareholders can decide what expenses are legitimate. Taxpayers can decide what expenses are legitimate tax deductions.

Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

Wrong again. I didn't advocate penalizing CEOs for poor executive decision making. I advocated not awarding companies with tax breaks for extravagant spending.

[otterinbham 0]

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

Shareholders can decide what expenses are legitimate. Taxpayers can decide what expenses are legitimate tax deductions.

Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

Wrong again. I didn't advocate penalizing CEOs for poor executive decision making. I advocated not awarding companies with tax breaks for extravagant spending. What's extravagant spending? Please define it for me, outside of not using army surplus desks or carpet supplied at the lowest cost per square foot. Ignoring low bidders on office supplies? Not photocopying on both sides of the paper? I really defy you to come up with a satisfactory working definition for the purposes of effective regulation. Pious, high-minded indignation aside, you can't do it. Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute. Instead, you've resorted to an ad hominem argument that a resigning employee isn't entitled to get the money he's really earned by delivering value to the stockholder.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

My, aren't you full of yourself. But, of course, we already knew that. I'm glad you persuaded yourself. You haven't persuaded me. You've said nothing I find convincing enough that requires refutation. We disagree. I can live with that.

The tax code already weighs in on what legitimate business expenses are. It further weighs in on which business expenses are tax deductible. For example, entertainment expenses have limitations. People are free to disagree with any such conclusion. Such regulations are inherently subjective. For example, private jet to Davos? Why is that necessary? Planes leave for Davos every day. A private jet is not always a necessary expense. Yet, if a group of shareholders believe that it is economically advantageous for some reason to have their guys fly private jets and they don't object to that expense, fine. I'm not advocating government intervention on such decisions, but why should such extravagance be tax deductible? There is nothing extreme about my argument. It just differs from yours.

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

Shareholders can decide what expenses are legitimate. Taxpayers can decide what expenses are legitimate tax deductions.

Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

Wrong again. I didn't advocate penalizing CEOs for poor executive decision making. I advocated not awarding companies with tax breaks for extravagant spending. What's extravagant spending? Please define it for me, outside of using army surplus desks or carpet supplied at the lowest cost per square foot. Low bidders on office supplies? Photocopying on both sides of the paper? I really defy you to come up with a satisfactory definition. Pious nonsense aside, you can't do it. Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned ever dime of his termination package, something you've been unable to refute. Instead, you've resorted to an ad hominem argument that a resigning employee isn't entitled to get the money he's really earned by delivering value to the stockholder.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

I do have to add that I find your different positions on this issue interesting:

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute.

Seems like you've been arguing with yourself:

You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

...

However, with a more accurately stated "rewarding failure is bad business," then you'll get very little argument from me.

...

As with any public corporation, O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Inside your head must be an awfully confusing place.

[otterinbham 0]

My, aren't you full of yourself. But, of course, we already knew that. I'm glad you persuaded yourself. You haven't persuaded me. You've said nothing I find convincing enough that requires refutation. We disagree. I can live with that.

The tax code already weighs in on what legitimate business expenses are. It further weighs in on which business expenses are tax deductible. For example, entertainment expenses have limitations. People are free to disagree with any such conclusion. Such regulations are inherently subjective. For example, private jet to Davos? Why is that necessary? Planes leave for Davos every day. A private jet is not a necessary expense. Yet, if a group of shareholders believe that it is economically advantageous for some reason to have their guys fly private jets and they don't object to that expense, fine. I'm not advocating government intervention on such decisions, but why should such extravagance be tax deductible? There is nothing extreme about my argument. It just differs from yours.

Oh, don't be a condescending prig when I offer up a better argument than you. By "full of myself," I'm guessing that I offered an argument that you couldn't refute. Saying you choose not to refute it is nothing more than a smoke screen on your part. As it happens, I just happen to advise businesses on a strategic level on a daily basis. Private businesses. Public corporations. Non-profits. And I'm good at it. It's not bragging. It's just how I put food on my table.

You're right. The tax code does weigh in on what legitimate business expenses are: Anything related to the conduct of business. Other than that, the tax code is completely neutral on the ratio of expenses to total corporate revenue. Why? Because, in a rare bit of sanity, the tax code recognizes that the markets recognize what's better use of corporate money than any IRS agent.

Case in point? A client of mine flew four prospects to South Dakota on a private ranch last weekend for quail hunting. Flew them up on a private jet, in fact. The entire expense was close to $8,000 per person, a grotesquely expensive sales call by conventional accounting. But it was worth every dime, because the client secured two separate contracts at the end of the weekend, both totalling in the millions of dollars. Yet, using your bizarre logic, this kind of expenditure would be disallowed because it would be deemed 'extravagant' by some bureaucratic functionary within the IRS or the SEC who is ticked off that he doesn't get to fly a Bombadier to his business meetings.

Or, using the example of the private jet even further, is it an extravagant expense of that same CEO flying using the corporate jet to make three different meetings within the same day? Or, using your false economy of flying coach on Delta, would you prefer to force him to schlep through airports so that he can, at best, make one business meeting a day? Again, you're trying to impose your own sensibilities on the strategic level operations of a company, while the IRS wisely chooses not to.

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

Shareholders can decide what expenses are legitimate. Taxpayers can decide what expenses are legitimate tax deductions.

Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

Wrong again. I didn't advocate penalizing CEOs for poor executive decision making. I advocated not awarding companies with tax breaks for extravagant spending. What's extravagant spending? Please define it for me, outside of using army surplus desks or carpet supplied at the lowest cost per square foot. Low bidders on office supplies? Photocopying on both sides of the paper? I really defy you to come up with a satisfactory definition. Pious nonsense aside, you can't do it. Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned ever dime of his termination package, something you've been unable to refute. Instead, you've resorted to an ad hominem argument that a resigning employee isn't entitled to get the money he's really earned by delivering value to the stockholder.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Well, it's certainly good for some businesses:

Tired of the rat race. Ready to travel in style. Sick of standing in line. Dreaming of excellent service, large seating areas, freedom to move around, or the ability to actually work on the plane. Well, your dreams might just come true. Once only the province of the mega-rich, private jets are becoming more main stream. If you are concerned about the expense, remember plane fares are tax deductible. Besides you deserve it. You work hard and have the right to travel like a billionaire.

http://www.affordablejetcharters.com/

The "right" to travel like a billionaire. The entitlement crowd is now firmly entrenced on "the Right." Pay for it through your tax deduction.

My, aren't you full of yourself. But, of course, we already knew that. I'm glad you persuaded yourself. You haven't persuaded me. You've said nothing I find convincing enough that requires refutation. We disagree. I can live with that.

The tax code already weighs in on what legitimate business expenses are. It further weighs in on which business expenses are tax deductible. For example, entertainment expenses have limitations. People are free to disagree with any such conclusion. Such regulations are inherently subjective. For example, private jet to Davos? Why is that necessary? Planes leave for Davos every day. A private jet is not a necessary expense. Yet, if a group of shareholders believe that it is economically advantageous for some reason to have their guys fly private jets and they don't object to that expense, fine. I'm not advocating government intervention on such decisions, but why should such extravagance be tax deductible? There is nothing extreme about my argument. It just differs from yours.

Oh, don't be a condescending prig when I offer up a better argument than you. By "full of myself," I'm guessing that I offered an argument that you couldn't refute. Saying you choose not to refute it is nothing more than a smoke screen on your part. As it happens, I just happen to advise businesses on a strategic level on a daily basis. Private businesses. Public corporations. Non-profits. And I'm good at it. It's not bragging. It's just how I put food on my table.

You're right. The tax code does weigh in on what legitimate business expenses are: Anything related to the conduct of business. Other than that, the tax code is completely neutral on the ratio of expenses to total corporate revenue. Why? Because, in a rare bit of sanity, the tax code recognizes that the markets recognize what's better use of corporate money than any IRS agent.

Case in point? A client of mine flew four prospects to South Dakota on a private ranch last weekend for quail hunting. Flew them up on a private jet, in fact. The entire expense was close to $8,000 per person, a grotesquely expensive sales call by conventional accounting. But it was worth every dime, because the client secured two separate contracts at the end of the weekend, both totalling in the millions of dollars. Yet, using your bizarre logic, this kind of expenditure would be disallowed because it would be deemed 'extravagant' by some bureaucratic functionary within the IRS or the SEC who is ticked off that he doesn't get to fly a Bombadier to his business meetings.

Or, using the example of the private jet even further, is it an extravagant expense of that same CEO flying using the corporate jet to make three different meetings within the same day? Or, using your false economy of flying coach on Delta, would you prefer to force him to schlep through airports so that he can, at best, make one business meeting a day? Again, you're trying to impose your own sensibilities on the strategic level operations of a company, while the IRS wisely chooses not to.

You can't be serious. What in the mind qualifies as legitimate or illegitimate expense. The corporate jet to whisk the CEO to Davos or a key sales meeting? Marble or carpet in the board room? Staples or paper clips?

Shareholders can decide what expenses are legitimate. Taxpayers can decide what expenses are legitimate tax deductions.

Because, after all TT, you want to penalize CEOs for poor executive decision making, then anything's fair game.

Wrong again. I didn't advocate penalizing CEOs for poor executive decision making. I advocated not awarding companies with tax breaks for extravagant spending. What's extravagant spending? Please define it for me, outside of using army surplus desks or carpet supplied at the lowest cost per square foot. Low bidders on office supplies? Photocopying on both sides of the paper? I really defy you to come up with a satisfactory definition. Pious nonsense aside, you can't do it. Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned ever dime of his termination package, something you've been unable to refute. Instead, you've resorted to an ad hominem argument that a resigning employee isn't entitled to get the money he's really earned by delivering value to the stockholder.

[otterinbham 0]

I do have to add that I find your different positions on this issue interesting:

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute.

Seems like you've been arguing with yourself:

You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

...

However, with a more accurately stated "rewarding failure is bad business," then you'll get very little argument from me.

...

As with any public corporation, O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Inside your head must be an awfully confusing place.

Ah, as always, when you can't nail me with a full quote, half a quote will do. The full quote, I believe was outlining a general position that governments should not be in the position of regulating good business practices. Instead, you had to resort to using only half of my statement, which I used to illustrate that any CEO can be deposed for bad business on his part.

That being said, my head is a far clearer-thinking place that your head, which seems to be populated by nothing more than incoherent populist screeds and back issues of the Mother Jones News.

My case is very clear and consistent: As long as fraud is not committed and all environmental, employment, and consumer safety laws are adhered to, the responsibility for corporate operations is strictly within the purview of the shareholders, not the government. Period.

You seem to favor government intervention based on whatever outrage is cooked up by the headline writers of the day. Sad.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

I do have to add that I find your different positions on this issue interesting:

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute.

Seems like you've been arguing with yourself:

You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

...

However, with a more accurately stated "rewarding failure is bad business," then you'll get very little argument from me.

...

As with any public corporation, O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Inside your head must be an awfully confusing place.

Ah, but it's still a far clearer place that your head, which seems to be populated by incoherent populist screeds.

My case was very clear and consistent. As long as fraud is not committed and all environmental, employment, and consumer safety laws are adhered to, the responsibility for corporate operations is strictly within the purview of the shareholders, not the government. Period.

You seem to favor government intervention based on whatever interventionist whims are cooked up by the headline writers of the day. Sad.

You reply in a few key themes, regardless of what you are actually responding to. You don't really engage. You don't seem to read that well, and I'm sure you're not much of a listener. You lecture.

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

[otterinbham 0]

I do have to add that I find your different positions on this issue interesting:

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute.

Seems like you've been arguing with yourself:

You would have been far more accurate to say "rewarding failure is bad business."

...

However, with a more accurately stated "rewarding failure is bad business," then you'll get very little argument from me.

...

As with any public corporation, O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Inside your head must be an awfully confusing place.

Ah, but it's still a far clearer place that your head, which seems to be populated by incoherent populist screeds.

My case was very clear and consistent. As long as fraud is not committed and all environmental, employment, and consumer safety laws are adhered to, the responsibility for corporate operations is strictly within the purview of the shareholders, not the government. Period.

You seem to favor government intervention based on whatever interventionist whims are cooked up by the headline writers of the day. Sad.

You reply in a few key themes, regardless of what you are actually responding to. You don't really engage. You don't seem to read that well, and I'm sure you're not much of a listener. You lecture.

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

Nope. I said that any corporation, Merrill Lynch included, has to pay the price for bad decisions in the executive suite. But you can't seem to master that basic fact.

Further, rather than be lazy like you and content myself with heading up the lynch mob, I bothered to devote time to analyzing O'Neal's record as a CEO, which is far better than you are willing to admit.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

Nope. I said that any corporation, Merrill Lynch included, has to pay the price for bad decisions in the executive suite. But you can't seem to master that basic fact.

Okay, Hillary.

O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Further, rather than be lazy like you and content myself with heading up the lynch mob, I bothered to devote time to analyzing O'Neal's record as a CEO, which is far better than you are willing to admit.

So you think they were wrong to fire him?

[otterinbham 0]

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

Nope. I said that any corporation, Merrill Lynch included, has to pay the price for bad decisions in the executive suite. But you can't seem to master that basic fact.

Okay, Hillary.

O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Laugh all you want. But I've still smoked your lazy, kneejerk arguments.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

Nope. I said that any corporation, Merrill Lynch included, has to pay the price for bad decisions in the executive suite. But you can't seem to master that basic fact.

Okay, Hillary.

O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Laugh all you want. But I've still smoked your lazy, kneejerk arguments.

You smoked yourself!!!

[otterinbham 0]

Further, rather than be lazy like you and content myself with heading up the lynch mob, I bothered to devote time to analyzing O'Neal's record as a CEO, which is far better than you are willing to admit.

So you think they were wrong to fire him?

Actually, yes. Nobody, including Alan Greenspan, anticipated the rupture of the subprime markets. It was a kneejerk panic move to ditch a CEO who had done an excellent job growing the company and growing its shareholder values.

Quite frankly, if the Board had had any patience, I'm guessing this guy would have pulled Merrill Lynch's fat out of the fire in a another couple of quarters. It was a dumb, myopic thing to do to a guy who had done wonders for the company.

But they did the easy thing and lynch the guy.

In this case, though, you say the shareholders will be punished for their lack of oversight in regard to O'Neals compensation package. Then you say he earned every dime. Clear as mud.

Nope. I said that any corporation, Merrill Lynch included, has to pay the price for bad decisions in the executive suite. But you can't seem to master that basic fact.

Okay, Hillary.

O'Neal's compensation package and termination contracts were public knowledge and were voted upon by the shareholders. So the shareholders, and the shareholders alone, are the responsible parties. And they will punished by their lack of oversight by a drop in stock valuation.

Laugh all you want. But I've still smoked your lazy, kneejerk arguments.

You smoked yourself!!!

Oh, buddy, you're the only person in this forum smoking anything. And it ain't me.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, it's certainly good for some businesses:

Tired of the rat race. Ready to travel in style. Sick of standing in line. Dreaming of excellent service, large seating areas, freedom to move around, or the ability to actually work on the plane. Well, your dreams might just come true. Once only the province of the mega-rich, private jets are becoming more main stream. If you are concerned about the expense, remember plane fares are tax deductible. Besides you deserve it. You work hard and have the right to travel like a billionaire.

http://www.affordablejetcharters.com/

The "right" to travel like a billionaire. The entitlement crowd is now firmly entrenced on "the Right." Pay for it through your tax deduction.

By the way, your arguments are getting goofier by the minute. Let's see. Corporate CEO of multi-multi-billion dollar corporation learns at 4 p.m. that he needs to fly to Los Angeles the next morning to help close a deal, then rearrange his schedule to be in Chicago that afternoon to meet with venture capitalists to renegotiate a loan repayment schedule, and then make it to Washington DC that evening to attend a key meeting with lobbyists.

But he can't do all that, because the rental jet is booked.

Life is awfully interesting in CubicleLand is all I have to say.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Well, it's certainly good for some businesses:

Tired of the rat race. Ready to travel in style. Sick of standing in line. Dreaming of excellent service, large seating areas, freedom to move around, or the ability to actually work on the plane. Well, your dreams might just come true. Once only the province of the mega-rich, private jets are becoming more main stream. If you are concerned about the expense, remember plane fares are tax deductible. Besides you deserve it. You work hard and have the right to travel like a billionaire.

http://www.affordablejetcharters.com/

The "right" to travel like a billionaire. The entitlement crowd is now firmly entrenced on "the Right." Pay for it through your tax deduction.

By the way, your arguments are getting goofier by the minute. Let's see. Corporate CEO of multi-multi-billion dollar corporation learns at 4 p.m. that he needs to fly to Los Angeles the next morning to help close a deal, then rearrange his schedule to be in Chicago that afternoon to meet with venture capitalists to renegotiate a loan repayment schedule, and then make it to Washington DC that evening to attend a key meeting with lobbyists.

But he can't do all that, because the rental jet is booked.

Life is awfully interesting in CubicleLand is all I have to say.

There are certainly cases in which the use of a private jet may be reasonably deemed necessary. But I think many times it is not. Of course, this is a road you started down to avoid my main point.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Actually, yes. Nobody, including Alan Greenspan, anticipated the rupture of the subprime markets.

Well, there was this guy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172007/busin...f_subprime_.htm

[TexasTiger 13,031]

BTW, since you are so found of obfuscating, as a reminder, this was my key argument:

What I would do is establish more stringent regulations regarding the tax deductibility of executive compensation.

Disagree with it all you wish. You haven't refuted it or offered any compelling arguments against it. Pay 'em a billion dollars if you want. Just don't expect a tax break for it.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Merrill Lynch's Board of Directors should be pilloried for this.

...

Personally, I had stock in Merrill Lynch up to two years ago. I bailed about a year and half ago when the stock hit $80/share, chiefly because I didn't have much faith in O'Neal's abilities.

Guy likes to argue so much, just get out of his way! He'll take both sides!

I've made a very persuasive case that this man earned every dime of his termination package by increasing sales, share value, and market cap for Merrill Lynch, something you've been unable to refute.

Otter: Always cocksure, no matter what side he's taking at the moment.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Actually, yes. Nobody, including Alan Greenspan, anticipated the rupture of the subprime markets.

Well, there was this guy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172007/busin...f_subprime_.htm

Well also, while not everyone foresaw the utter meltdown that occurred, the vast majority were not so heavily invested in that area as Merrill Lynch was under O'Neal's leadership and continued to be even when the early warning signs appeared. Others began to pull out sooner and lessen their exposure in that market before the bottom dropped out.