So does anyone like their system of government?

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The Chinese government, imo, is precisely that, government. China is governed and managed with a long term aim of improving prosperity for it's people. If you want a term, I would say the big decisions are in the hands of the top ten and the provincial gvernors, but power is floated down through every level of the party.

You may have noticed that there is less in the media regarding their management of their own currency (god forbid such a thing), because conditions have changed such we don't want them to have too strong a currency and they have taken some measures to open it more.

You should find the time to get the full picture from that clip. You would see that their figures we 21% in 2010 and 13% in 2011, but were taken from the entire DAX not just the top 100 companies of the footsie as in your figures. The biggest companies generally make the biggest profits and therefore those who lead them get the biggest rewards. The free market has decided that the people who run these companies are more valuable in terms of the skill pool available than are the average workers, i.e there is a very ready supply of people who can work on VW's production line, but only one CEO who could have lead the company to its record profit levels. They made 17 Billion Euros under him, and he got pay and bonuses of .001% of that. Almost an irrelevant figure when you consider the increase in profit that he has lead the company to for its stakeholders. My sales people get bonused at 500 times that rate for growth.

He now makes more than Wayne Rooney, which I would say he probably deserves.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
He now makes more than Wayne Rooney, which I would say he probably deserves.

I find it a puzzle that in the UK we have outrage over people in finance earning very large salaries, and even outrage at the salaries of our MPs, yet there is not a peep about what footballers and pop-stars get.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I find it a puzzle that in the UK we have outrage over people in finance earning very large salaries, and even outrage at the salaries of our MPs, yet there is not a peep about what footballers and pop-stars get.
I think the answer to that is simply that people can see exactly what they are paying for on a football pitch but cannot see any gain from a highly paid executive. So, two possibilities: Either executives have a BIG publicity problem explaining what they do which merits this pay, or they really do not do anything to deserve it.

The biggest companies generally make the biggest profits and therefore those who lead them get the biggest rewards.
So it appears, but how is this justified? It seems to me, put an average person in a small company and he makes a modest profit. Put an average person in a big company and he makes a big profit, just because of the scale of the operation. Any one of many other average people would have done the same. Maybe these people are truly exceptional, but I have NEVER seen any evidence this is the case. Incompetent people always use power to hang on to their positions. And with regard to bankers, the whole damn lot of them led their companies into bankruptcy. Possibly they did this knowingly because the way the industry is structured essentially compels taking uncoverable risks.

If there is a shortage of competent managers, why do we keep paying more and more to the few rather than training others? er....could that be because if the managers arranged matters so the companies were better run then they would become dispensable and not get those salaries?


The free market has decided that the people who run these companies are more valuable in terms of the skill pool available than are the average workers,
No. Obviously no. Who decides pay levels? Why managers! Managers of big companies have decided managers of big companies ought to get big salaries. That is no more than 70's britain miners saying they were indispensable so ought to be paid more than anyone else.

And to round this up by returning to the question of MP's. Voters see then getting a salary bigger than the very great majority of the people they represent, supposedly to represent their views and steer the country accordingly, yet they do nothing of the sort. Why should they be paid anything for failing to do their job?

(answer: MPs and voters have a different idea of what the job of an MP is. An MP thinks he is there to rule. A voter thinks the MP is there to obey orders)
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
They made 17 Billion Euros under him, and he got pay and bonuses of .001% of that. Almost an irrelevant figure when you consider the increase in profit that he has lead the company to for its stakeholders.
170,000 euros?
Sounds low, Drifter.
You must mean 0.1 percent.
That would give him 17 million euros.
 

manju

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Posts
406
Media
0
Likes
145
Points
128
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
First time I saw Alexanderplatz, McDonald's had just opened and there was a queue. I think Centrum was still there. Not sure quite when they morphed into something western.

I think you were there after me as I don't recall a McDonald's there. What I do remember at Centrum was a huge cardboard boxes filled with straw, bird shit and dried mud in which you had to sift through to find your filthy chicken eggs - most of them cracked. This was the Nieman Marcus of the Eastern Block.
 

The Dragon

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
5,767
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Every time I start getting upset about Australian politics I look at the massive cluster fuck that is the USA government and I decide we don't have it that bad after all.
 
5

554279

Guest
I find it a puzzle that in the UK we have outrage over people in finance earning very large salaries, and even outrage at the salaries of our MPs, yet there is not a peep about what footballers and pop-stars get.

Ditto in the US to the point of absurdity; and we the people support it like sheep.

Fans/tax payers won't hesitate to spend their last $75.00 for a nose-bleed section seat on a single ticketed event, but will piss and moan about having to pay $25.00 more a year in taxes in order for kids to get a better public education.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
So, two possibilities: Either executives have a BIG publicity problem explaining what they do which merits this pay, or they really do not do anything to deserve it.

Or that people need a major wake up call to understand how 85% of them get to have the benefits of our society.

170,000 euros?
Sounds low, Drifter.
You must mean 0.1 percent.
That would give him 17 million euros.

I think our billions have an extra 0 to the N. American one, so I'll meet you half way. Sadly I have personally never had to deal in billions :smile:.
 

B_lrgeggs

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Posts
836
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
mid-atlantic region
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
I don't know the exact source for this, but thought this was very telling about the US system of Government:

The SNAP/Food Stamp Program, administered by the US Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the US National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." This is because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think our billions have an extra 0 to the N. American one, so I'll meet you half way. Sadly I have personally never had to deal in billions :smile:.

Ah, the long scale, or some variation of.
Nope, you have been doing things the same as N. Americans since 1974, the year you got your drivers licence.
(That doesn't mean I won't meet you half way.:cool:)
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Or that people need a major wake up call to understand how 85% of them get to have the benefits of our society.

Ah but 85% of people are ENTITLED. They have a RIGHT to X, Y and Z, and THE RICH should pay.

And instead of showing a bit of gratitude to the people who make it possible we're now in an ugly spiral of politicians competing to demonise the wealth creators.

The idea seems to be that everyone should be motivated solely by the needs of those who are not contributing - but when we do have those who voluntarily give of their time and money they too are demonised.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I've come to the view that the job of MP should be unpaid. It is a part-time task which they can fit around their paid jobs. It would be perceived as a form of public service.
Ah, but there is a compromise which seems to have gone out the window. Pay average wages. That would dispose of most of their salary anyway.

170,000 euros?
Sounds low, Drifter.
You must mean 0.1 percent.
That would give him 17 million euros.
Dunno. head of Barclays bank seems to have got more like 170 million euros. The shareholders are revolting.

Fans/tax payers won't hesitate to spend their last $75.00 for a nose-bleed section seat on a single ticketed event, but will piss and moan about having to pay $25.00 more a year in taxes in order for kids to get a better public education.
Maybe if the government promised to spend that $25 on schools people would pay it. But instead they spend it on a new war or tax cuts for the rich.

I think our billions have an extra 0 to the N. American one, so I'll meet you half way. Sadly I have personally never had to deal in billions :smile:.
I take a billion as a thousand million?

Ah but 85% of people are ENTITLED. They have a RIGHT to X, Y and Z, and THE RICH should pay.
Well, according to the income distribution which means probably the 1% never mind the top 15% are getting way more than everyone else put together, yes, in a fair society, they do.

And instead of showing a bit of gratitude to the people who make it possible we're now in an ugly spiral of politicians competing to demonise the wealth creators.
That is a big assumption. Increasingly the few at the top are threatening to move the companies abroad making it IMPOSSIBLE for the rest of the people to earn anything. You have argued they are blackmailing the country, either do not tax us or we will leave anyway. faced with such an ultimatum the only possible course is to change the ground rules so they cannot move industry abroad. It may mean workers have to accept lower pay....obviously including the higher paid ones.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
so here in the UK the debate on Lords reform is getting into swing.

It would appear the government report on reform is suggesting 15 year terms for elected lords. Well theres democracy for you, most people who become lords now dont have 15 years working life left in them, so no difference to appointing them. Wouldnt do to ask the voters if a lord is doing a good job after they get elected once, on a manifesto they will instantly tear up.

It sounds to me as if the commons is seeking to reform the lords in a way which will affect it as little as possible. Indeed, they state this blatantly, claiming the primacy of the commons must not be challenged. Why?

Amusingly someone also claimed it would be very expensive to introduce a Lords with full time members rather than the one we have now where lords are only paid on days they turn up. Well gosh. If people are happy now being lords only paid on days they turn up, why change the system? Why not introduce it for the commons too!

The idea of reform is to open up the lords to public scrutiny and make it representative, not boost its desirability as a 15 year pension plan for retired members of the commons, who would now not even have to be there to get full pay.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No one has an iota of interest in Lords reform. With a bit of luck Cameron will have the sense to tie it in knots. If we do get as far as a referendum I think it is quite possible that the great British public will vote no.

We need an appointed chamber. I don't agree with the Italian appointed government but I do think we need to look at a balance. Italy has replaced a rapist (Berlusconi) who did have a mandate with a decent guy (Mario) who is a so-far-benign dictator. We need appointments to check democracy. And we even need the random element offered by the lottery of birth (the hereditaries) to check appointment. A system which is truly democratic includes some elements which are not democratic.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We used to have an appointed chanber where the queen picked the lords. This is sadly long gone and now we have one where politicians pick the chamber. This is outrageously self-serving, and as I said is no more than a retirement plan where you dont have to bother satisfying the electorate any more. The Lords as it stands is pretty redundant and pointless. It just gives an appearance of some check on the commons.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
And breaking news. The conservative government has already lost its minister of defemce because he was found to have mysterious off the record contacts with defence companies. The mome secretary had a narrow escape recently when she arrested Abu Quatada to deport him too early before his time limit to appeal had expired. She merely got accused of incompetence.

Now Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary, has been discovered to have link with James Murdoch and to have exchanged tips with Murdoch's advisor frederich micel on how to get Murdoch's takeover bid passed, which he was supposed to be impartially deciding.

Looks like another minister is at risk of having to resign for putting business interests ahead of national ones. Great democracy, eh?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Great democracy, eh?

Brilliant democracy. We hold ministers to account.

If the culture secretary has done something illegal or lacking in morality then of course he should go - though we are not quite at that stage. The Liam Fox / Werrity affair struck me as odd - in the end Fox had not done anything illegal or in anyway damaging to anyone. And as for May - well maybe she has gummed up, and maybe she hasn't. It is possible that the ECHR will see things her way. It is also possible that the allegation that the ECHR tipped off Abu Qatada will be shown to be correct, in which case we have a court that has demonstrated bias. All these issues seem so far to be a storm in a teacup - though damaging to the government.

I read "The Sun" this lunch time - the only paper on the rack in the coffee shop. They are going to town on how a government that is making cuts can afford £10bn for the IMF. The story demonstrated enormous ignorance. The government loans £10bn by borrowing the same sum - and as it gets a higher rate than it is charged it makes a profit (about £100m) - as well as making a contribution to a necessary fire wall. I imagine The Sun journalist understands this, but he's decided not to let facts get in the way of a good story. Given that the average voter (and the swing voter) reads The Sun this sort of preference for abysmal journalism is just shocking. Our gutter press has given up on criticising one lot of politicians or another and is now criticising the whole lot.