3 ms·

> "> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line. True." Awesome! So you

by stale2002 7y ago

> "> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line. True." Awesome! So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. (And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something?) That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about. The people who said this, have not proven their statements, and you seem to agree that they have not established their claims, great! And I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on the main thing I was trying to explain which is that the people saying this have not proven their statements to be true. :)

mistermann 7y ago
> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. Well, not really. As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate." There is no proof either way that we should or should not be "worrying about this". Whether we should be worrying about this is for voters to decide. Well, assuming Democracy wasn't a complete facade that is. In lieu of Democracy, about all individuals can do is bitch and moan, and hope the conversation makes it into mainstream discourse, and perhaps something might be done out of shame or fear. > And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something? It can rarely be demonstrated with any sort of accuracy what any one individual contributes to society. > That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about. This is dishonest revisionism - you made several specific points. If you'd like, you can admit that outright, or you can continue to write in a disingenuous manner. Up to you.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > There is no proof either way Cool. So you agree that it has not been established, with any substantiated facts, that CEOs are overpaid. So we agree on this point. Awesome! I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on this point! Thank you for the good conversation, and have a nice day!
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Shall I take this as a withdrawal of your earlier assertions?

mistermann 7y ago

> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. Well, not really. As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate." There is no proof either way that we should or should not be "worrying about this". Whether we should be worrying about this is for voters to decide. Well, assuming Democracy wasn't a complete facade that is. In lieu of Democracy, about all individuals can do is bitch and moan, and hope the conversation makes it into mainstream discourse, and perhaps something might be done out of shame or fear. > And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something? It can rarely be demonstrated with any sort of accuracy what any one individual contributes to society. > That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about. This is dishonest revisionism - you made several specific points. If you'd like, you can admit that outright, or you can continue to write in a disingenuous manner. Up to you.

stale2002 7y ago
> There is no proof either way Cool. So you agree that it has not been established, with any substantiated facts, that CEOs are overpaid. So we agree on this point. Awesome! I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on this point! Thank you for the good conversation, and have a nice day!
- mistermann 7y ago
  Shall I take this as a withdrawal of your earlier assertions?