Good Articles That Don't Deserve Their Own Threads

[Grand Potentate]

States' rights.

To keep slaves?

 

[OfficePants]

To keep slaves?

Indirectly. More about if states should have the ability to decide if they want to adopt federal laws.

The modern lens loves to make everything about racism and the plight of slaves. While abolition of slavery was a moral issue to the north, it was an economic issue for the south, they didn't give a shit about a bunch of blacks, they gave a shit about their wallets and being able to take territorial expansion west with their economic models in place.

The net effect of the Civil War was to neuter state's power to govern themselves.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Indirectly. More about if states should have the ability to decide if they want to adopt federal laws.

To keep slaves? Because the federal government outlawed slavery and those government types weren't going to tell them what to do. Right?

 

[Russell Street]

Thank you. This rather proves the claim that open comments would have led to people who knew a bit more than the wikipedia-depth author raining on the party.

That the Confederate flag is the symbol of of white supremacists is evidenced by the very words of those who birthed it:

Oh yes, and a United States flag is racist because Three-Fifths Compromise!
He calls Lincoln a "Great Emancipator" ignoring the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation (150 years old yesterday) did not apply to the Union, and was meaningless to the Confederacy.
The Union had US Marshalls returning escaped slaves well into the Civil War.

By 1865, the Civil War had morphed into a war against slavery...

It's nice that he tacitly admits that it was in no way the initial cause, but ...the war ended in 1865, and where's the supporting evidence? Lincoln, already hated everywhere, repeatedly talked of his imperial urge to "save the Union" way more than his mamby-pamby wish-washy statements on slavery.

 

[LelandJ]

To keep slaves? Because the federal government outlawed slavery and those government types weren't going to tell them what to do. Right?

Abolishing slavery turned out to be more profitable for southern plantation owners who no longer were responsible for housing, clothing, and feeding slaves. They obviously continued doing so but now they could charge 'freed' slaves money for all the essentials and which in almost all cases cost more than the wage they were then given. In practice the debt slave was in no better position than the chattel slave and worse off in many cases, which is pretty much what we have today all of the world.

On a similar note, it was the bankers who first funded the feminist movement in the states because they realized if the woman were "equal" to men and no longer responsible for taking care of the household then they too could work for the man and likewise pay taxes. It's also easier to program children when the mothers were removed from the educator role. Divide and conquer as usual.

 

[OfficePants]

To keep slaves? Because the federal government outlawed slavery and those government types weren't going to tell them what to do. Right?

As I said, indirectly. The issue of state's rights was much larger in scope than abolishing slavery. American's believe the Civil War was a good war because it destroyed slavery, but in reality very little was done post war to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, which is strange considering this was supposed to be the reason behind the war.

 

[LelandJ]

As I said, indirectly. The issue of state's rights was much larger in scope than abolishing slavery. American's believe the Civil War was a good war because it destroyed slavery, but in reality very little was done post war to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, which is strange considering this was supposed to be the reason behind the war.

Nothing strange about it, just another part of propaganda taught as history in schools.

 

[Journeyman]

As I said, indirectly. The issue of state's rights was much larger in scope than abolishing slavery. American's believe the Civil War was a good war because it destroyed slavery, but in reality very little was done post war to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, which is strange considering this was supposed to be the reason behind the war.

I'm not from the US and I could well be mistaken.

However, my distant memory of high school modern history classes was that the state's rights issue largely (although not entirely) arose *because* of the issue of slavery. Hence, I think that it's fair to say that slavery was an integral cause of the US civil war.

In the first half of the 1800s, there'd been a lot of discussion and argument in the US over whether new states and territories should be slave-free, or whether people in the new states and territories should be able to own slaves. If I remember correctly, the number of new "non-slave" states and territories was larger than the new "slave-owning" states by a large margin - perhaps none of the new states/territories were slave-owning, although I'm not sure about Kansas.

Lincoln spoke out against slave-owning in the decade leading up to his election as president and it was well-known that he opposed slavery - the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the late 1850s are famous as examples of Lincoln's oratory, his clear opposition to slavery, and his opinion that slavery, and the power wielded by wealthy slave-owners, was threatening the values of Republicanism and the safety of the union.

Lincoln was elected president in late 1860 and one state - one of the Carolinas, I think - immediately voted to repeal the state's ratification of the US Constitution and to secede from the union. Significantly, the state's government was dominated by wealthy slave-owners. Before Lincoln's inauguration, six more states seceded from the union, all of them slave-owning states.

So, whilst it's right to say that the civil war arose because of the issue of state's rights, the primary issue was the right of states to decide whether or not people could own slaves. Had it not been for the fact that the southern states allowed slavery but the northern states did not, there wouldn't have been a civil war and thus it's entirely reasonable and fair to say that it was about the issue of slavery.

 

[OfficePants]

So, whilst it's right to say that the civil war arose because of the issue of state's rights, the primary issue was the right of states to decide whether or not people could own slaves. Had it not been for the fact that the southern states allowed slavery but the northern states did not, there wouldn't have been a civil war and thus it's entirely reasonable and fair to say that it was about the issue of slavery.

This is the modern lens of historical revision. Slavery was not the primary issue. Nobody gave a shit about blacks. The issue for the north was states simply ignoring federal laws and with it taxes/tariffs. Slavery was never a defining issue, in fact the north probably would have negotiated an exception, and Lincoln even suggested a gradual (with compensation) elimination of the idea of humans as property, and there were historical precedents for this.

The south was totally intransigent on the idea of federal power trumping states rights, and with it economic repercussions (taxes). Slavery just happened to be one among many issues at hand, but choosing it as the crux of the war is like calling the symptom the disease. Southerners viewed themselves as different people to the north, and the rights of their states were seen as the defining way to insulate them from intrusion on their economic interests.

Movies like Glory do little to dispel the fantasy.

The north didn't go to war to free slaves. The South seceded, and they went to war to put the union back together.

 

[Thruth]

Interesting, was not aware of this story

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories...-secretary-general-dag-hammarskjöld-1.3121036

Evidence may lead to new probe in 1961 death of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld
Documents, testimony add weight to case that plane crash was no accident

i

New evidence submitted to the United Nations' General Assembly this past week could help shed light on one of the enduring mysteries of the 20th century — namely, was the 1961 death of the second UN Secretary General an accident or an act of murder?

Dag Hammarskjöld died in a plane crash in Ndola, Northern Rhodesia — now Zambia — along with 15 others on Sept. 18, 1961.

The 56-year old Swedish diplomat was in Africa to try to unite the Congo, but faced resistance from a number of multinationals, often supported by mercenaries and openly hostile to the UN, who coveted the area's mineral wealth.

The crash has been a source of widespread speculation for decades, which has ramped up thanks to evidence uncovered in the last few years.

That includes testimony from a former U.S. National Security Agency intelligence officer who claims he heard a recording of another pilot attacking the plane, as well as a Belgian pilot who says that he accidentally shot the plane down after being hired to merely divert it.

UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said a three-member panel appointed by current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently travelled to Zambia to interview new witnesses and gathered new documents from public and private archives in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium.

Ban is examining the panel's report and will make his own recommendations on how to proceed before it is distributed to the General Assembly — expected to happen this coming week.

The evidence could result in a new UN probe into the crash, which would be the first since an inconclusive 1962 UN inquiry. But Dujarric says that decision will be left up to member states.

'They killed him'

Suspicions that the plane was shot down more than half a century ago are not new.

Just two days after the crash, former U.S. President Harry Truman told The New York Times, "Dag Hammarskjöld was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said, 'When they killed him,'" Truman emphasized, without elaborating.

At the time of the tragedy, Hammarskjöld was on a peace mission to unite the Congo, which had just gained independence from Belgium.

He was flying from the capital, Léopoldville (which later became Kinshasa), to meet with secessionist leader Moise Tshombé, who had declared the mineral-rich southeastern province of Katanga an independent state.

The men were to meet in Ndola, in the neighbouring British colony of Northern Rhodesia, because of ongoing fighting in Katanga.

But just after midnight on Sept. 18, Hammarskjöld's chartered DC6 crashed in a forested area about 14 kilometres from the Ndola airport. Hammarskjöld received a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize later that year.

Renewed speculation of foul play arose in 2011, on the 50th anniversary of his death, when Susan Williams published the book Who Killed Hammarskjold? The UN, the Cold War and White Supremacy in Africa.

It offered a new analysis of the evidence, including previously unseen documents, photographs, as well as testimony from eyewitnesses, many of them African, who had either not participated or not been taken seriously by Rhodesian officials or the UN.

Williams argues this was a direct result of the white minority regime in place in Northern Rhodesia at the time.

"[The locals'] testimony was dismissed, disqualified, ignored, in some cases changed," said Williams, adding that some people were afraid to come forward.

Williams said a number of local eyewitnesses told her that they saw a second, smaller aircraft "that dropped something that looked like fire" on top of the bigger plane right before it went down.

The crash killed the UN chief and 15 others, including Alice Lalande, Secretary to the head of the UN mission in the Congo, who was from Joliette, Que. She was the only Canadian and the only woman on board the aircraft.

Williams has two primary theories: that it was an assassination or a hijacking gone wrong.

The second theory is based on testimony from a former Belgian pilot known only as "Beukels," who claimed in 1967 that he accidentally downed Hammarskjöld's plane while trying to divert it with warning shots.

A group of international jurists known as the Hammarskjöld Commission sums up Beukels' testimony in a 2013 independent investigative report by stating he claimed he was acting on behalf of a group representing "a number of European political and business interests" who wanted to "persuade [Hammarskjöld] of the case for Katanga's continued independence."

No shortage of suspects

Henning Melber, former director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, explains the UN chief's mission to unite the Congo automatically pitted him against colonial settlers desperate to hold onto power and Katanga's vast mineral resources.

That included Belgians, French, the British and "mercenaries of all shapes and colours," said Melber, who also helped establish the Hammarskjöld Commission of Inquiry.

For the Rhodesian Federation, which included modern-day Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe, Katanga acted as a barrier against the southward migration of African nationalism. One year earlier, in 1960, the UN had admitted 17 new member states, 16 of which were newly independent nations in Africa — including the Congo.

While the European colonies were slowly dying, the U.S. and USSR were jockeying to expand their Cold War sphere of influence, as well as their share of the resources.

"One needs to remember that the uranium that was used in the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from the Katanga province," said Melber.

The commission said the "chaotic, contradictory, frequently inexplicable and in places irresponsible reaction (or lack of reaction) of the Federation authorities" following the crash has helped fuel the rumour mill.

For example, it took the Rhodesian RAF pilots 15 hours to "officially" locate the aircraft, while Daily Telegraph correspondent Ian Colvin said he had spotted the crash site — crawling with police — six hours earlier in a chartered Cessna.

Other oddities: Some of the bodies of the victims had bullet holes, and a playing card — rumoured to be the ace of spades — was found in Hammarskjöld's collar.

The sole survivor of the crash was American security officer Sgt. Harold Julien. In his testimony, he spoke of "sparks in the sky" and said the plane "blew up," but the lead inspector of the local investigation dismissed his statements as "rambling."

According to the Hammarskjöld Commission, hospital staff said that although he was badly burned, Julien was often coherent and lucid. He died six days after the crash.

'The Lone Ranger'

Some of the most compelling testimony of foul play comes from Charles Southall, who in 1961 was an intelligence officer stationed at the U.S. National Security Agency's naval communications base in Cyprus.

He said he heard a pilot shoot down Hammarskjöld's plane and that the CIA and/or the NSA have a recording of it.

"The watch supervisor called me and said, 'Come [into work] about midnight, something interesting is going to happen,'" Southall told CBC.

That's when he said he heard a recording of the crash that somebody told him was seven minutes old, which, according to Southall, "meant that somebody down there in the Ndola area, also waiting for this to happen, made a recording of it, put a date-time stamp on it and… sent it off."

In his statement to the Commission of Inquiry, Southall recalled the pilot saying, "I see a transport plane coming low. All the lights are on. I'm going down to make a run on it. Yes, it's the Transair DC6. It's the plane."

Then, the sound of cannon fire, at which point the voice, which he described as cool and professional, became animated: "I've hit it. There are flames. It's going down. It's crashing."

Southall, now 82, believes the voice he heard was that of a Belgian mercenary pilot nicknamed "The Lone Ranger."

Hours before the wreckage was officially located, the U.S. Ambassador in the Congo, Edmund Gullion, sent a cable to Washington speculating that the secretary general's plane might have been attacked by a known Belgian mercenary.

"There is possibility he was shot down by the single pilot who has harassed UN operations," Gullion wrote.

The document, which was released by the State Department following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of the Hammarskjöld Commission, identified the pilot as Vak Riesseghel, likely a misspelling of Katanga Air Force Commander Jan Van Risseghem.

A UN Military report stated that Van Risseghem, a former South African and Royal Rhodesian AF pilot, had been arrested and repatriated to Brussels 10 days before the crash, but had managed to return to Katanga.

"As long as he is still operating he may paralyze the air rescue operations," wrote Gullion in the 1961 cable.

The FOIA request, which asked for any recording, transcription or radio message intercepted the night of the crash, produced two additional documents.

But the Hammarskjöld Commission says that more than 50 years on, they remain "top secret" and sealed for national security reasons.

Related Links

• NSA could shed light on 1961 mysterious death of UN chief

 

[OfficePants]

Sony Files Part 2: WikiLeaks uploads 276K private documents, emails and financial files

 

[Journeyman]

This is the modern lens of historical revision. Slavery was not the primary issue. Nobody gave a shit about blacks. The issue for the north was states simply ignoring federal laws and with it taxes/tariffs. Slavery was never a defining issue, in fact the north probably would have negotiated an exception, and Lincoln even suggested a gradual (with compensation) elimination of the idea of humans as property, and there were historical precedents for this.

The south was totally intransigent on the idea of federal power trumping states rights, and with it economic repercussions (taxes). Slavery just happened to be one among many issues at hand, but choosing it as the crux of the war is like calling the symptom the disease. Southerners viewed themselves as different people to the north, and the rights of their states were seen as the defining way to insulate them from intrusion on their economic interests.

Movies like Glory do little to dispel the fantasy.

The north didn't go to war to free slaves. The South seceded, and they went to war to put the union back together.

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree, but to be frank, it seems that there's more than a little revision in your version of history, too.

As I mentioned, slavery was a big issue at the time and it was a massive divide between the southern and the northern states. Over the past few decades, there had been vigorous, and vicious, debates about whether new states or territories would be slave-free or slave-owning. Lincoln spoke out against slavery and his speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas exchanges are clearly anti-slavery whereas his opponent, Douglas, was pro-slavery. Lincoln's speeches were collected and published shortly after the speeches were made. When Lincoln was elected president, several southern states seceded in the few months between Lincoln's election and his inauguration.

As you say, the north went to war to get the southern states back into the union, but it seems to me that it's clear that they seceded because of the north's, and Lincoln's, anti-slavery stance. Of course that was an issue of state's rights because at stake was the question of whether the US government could over-ride state laws concerning, amongst other things, the owning of slaves. Yes, there were other issues, but slavery was a huge issue and to whitewash it smacks of historical revisionism.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Journeyman, a real American.

 

[Journeyman]

Journeyman, a real American.

What do Americans think?

I suspect that Office Pants will say that it's because of historical revisionism, but do people in the US think that the civil war was largely caused by the slavery question and how that fed into state's rights?

 

[Grand Potentate]

You can't take these two as a benchmark. If you ask 100 random people anywhere in the U.S. The overwhelming majority will say it was caught over slavery. Period.

 

[Thruth]

I'd say that probably the vast majority of people around the world of they had a thought about the civil war would say that it was over slavery period as Rambo states

 

[OfficePants]

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree, but to be frank, it seems that there's more than a little revision in your version of history, too.

As I mentioned, slavery was a big issue at the time and it was a massive divide between the southern and the northern states. Over the past few decades, there had been vigorous, and vicious, debates about whether new states or territories would be slave-free or slave-owning. Lincoln spoke out against slavery and his speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas exchanges are clearly anti-slavery whereas his opponent, Douglas, was pro-slavery. Lincoln's speeches were collected and published shortly after the speeches were made. When Lincoln was elected president, several southern states seceded in the few months between Lincoln's election and his inauguration.

As you say, the north went to war to get the southern states back into the union, but it seems to me that it's clear that they seceded because of the north's, and Lincoln's, anti-slavery stance. Of course that was an issue of state's rights because at stake was the question of whether the US government could over-ride state laws concerning, amongst other things, the owning of slaves. Yes, there were other issues, but slavery was a huge issue and to whitewash it smacks of historical revisionism.

As you rightly admit yourself, slavery was an issue of states rights. This is a correct assessment. There was no law banning slavery in the south at the time of the civil war. As you noted, there was debate as to whether new states should be slave free, among other issues, and this, again, was an issue of state's rights. Slavery was never anything more thank an economic argument to southerners anyway.

State's rights was the reason the south seceded. A host of concerns made up their reasoning, and phrase 'slippery slope' endures today in politics to describe the same kinds of worries the south had about Federal power.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Slavery was never anything more thank an economic argument to southerners anyway.

Seriously? Had nothing to do with anything other than economics? Nothing at all???

 

[Thruth]

As you rightly admit yourself, slavery was an issue of states rights. This is a correct assessment. There was no law banning slavery in the south at the time of the civil war. As you noted, there was debate as to whether new states should be slave free, among other issues, and this, again, was an issue of state's rights. Slavery was never anything more thank an economic argument to southerners anyway.

State's rights was the reason the south seceded. A host of concerns made up their reasoning, and phrase 'slippery slope' endures today in politics to describe the same kinds of worries the south had about Federal power.

Mostly correct but I think you minimize the slavery aspect in and of itself. The rise in abolitionist sentiment and the successful nullification of the fugitive slave act in Northern states focussed the South's dismay with their ability to nullify federal law in favour of state law. So slavery played a role beyond a purely economic one. But again, it is hard to separate the human rights aspect from the economic and the destruction of the southern/plantation way of life, which was the replication of the class system with slavery being the most visible evidence of the system.

 

[OfficePants]

Seriously? Had nothing to do with anything other than economics? Nothing at all???

Slaves were free labor. They would never have been brought to America if it were not for this fact. And labor is an economic issue. Obviously there were other aspects, but slavery is and has always been about money.

Everything is made in China now, are the reasons behind this economic or is there some other argument? I would argue China is cheap labor, since slavery is illegal, you get shit made for the lowest price possible.

I guess somehow southerners were immune to economics?

Mostly correct but I think you minimize the slavery aspect in and of itself. The rise in abolitionist sentiment and the successful nullification of the fugitive slave act in Northern states focussed the South's dismay with their ability to nullify federal law in favour of state law. So slavery played a role beyond a purely economic one. But again, it is hard to separate the human rights aspect from the economic and the destruction of the southern/plantation way of life, which was the replication of the class system with slavery being the most visible evidence of the system.

I'm not minimizing it, I am trying to counter the overstatement of it's importance. As I said above, to southerners slavery was an economic issue, not a moral one.

 

[Grand Potentate]

This line of logic is astounding

 

[Thruth]

Slaves were free labor. They would never have been brought to America if it were not for this fact. And labor is an economic issue. Obviously there were other aspects, but slavery is and has always been about money.

Everything is made in China now, are the reasons behind this economic or is there some other argument? I would argue China is cheap labor, since slavery is illegal, you get shit made for the lowest price possible.

I guess somehow southerners were immune to economics?




I'm not minimizing it, I am trying to counter the overstatement of it's importance. As I said above, to southerners slavery was an economic issue, not a moral one.

I don't think anyone has overstated its importance but rather argued for its inclusion.

 

[OfficePants]

This line of logic is astounding

It isn't. Considering you are the one that started this line of discussion, maybe you should put forward a well reasoned argument instead of waiting for others to do it for you?

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not minimizing it, I am trying to counter the overstatement of it's importance. As I said above, to southerners slavery was an economic issue, not a moral one.

I think that you're dancing around the point. In essence, regardless as to whether you dress up the issue as one of state's rights or as one of economics, the crux of the matter here is slavery.

Yes, the issue of whether the South could continue to keep slaves was an issue of state's rights and it was an issue of economics, but fundamentally it was about slaves - the right to keep them, and how it would affect the South's economy and way of life if they could not keep slaves.

 

[OfficePants]

I don't think anyone has overstated its importance but rather argued for its inclusion.

It's overstatement came from Grand Potentate 's original post.

Take Down the Confederate Flag - The Atlantic

By 1865, the Civil War had morphed into a war against slavery—the “cornerstone” of Confederate society.

That statement is just bullshit. Most of what I've said is based on this overstatement.

 

[OfficePants]

I think that you're dancing around the point. In essence, regardless as to whether you dress up the issue as one of state's rights or as one of economics, the crux of the matter here is slavery.

Yes, the issue of whether the South could continue to keep slaves was an issue of state's rights and it was an issue of economics, but fundamentally it was about slaves - the right to keep them, and how it would affect the South's economy and way of life if they could not keep slaves.

Almost all wars are fought over economics.

Replace slaves with the right to own horses, what do you have? Session based on horses? Or does secession based on states rights and economics still survive as the reason? Like I said before, horses and slaves, just symptoms, not the disease. And as I posted previously, I an not denying slavery as an issue, it's just not the issue.

 

[Journeyman]

Almost all wars are fought over economics.

Replace slaves with the right to own horses, what do you have? Session based on horses? Or does secession based on states rights and economics still survive as the reason? Like I said before, horses and slaves, just symptoms, not the disease. And as I posted previously, I an not denying slavery as an issue, it's just not the issue.

Interestingly, I was going to posit a similar theoretical example.

As I've said, I agree that state's rights and economics were reasons for the civil war - but what was the reason underlying those things? Slavery. Not the ownership of horses or any other such thing, but the ownership of humans.

In essence, we're talking about the same thing, but we're coming at from different angles. You're saying that economic issues and state's rights caused the south to secede, and I agree with that. It seems to me though, that what you're not doing is looking for the underlying reason as to why the southern states decided to secede based on their concerns about economics and state's right. That underlying reason was human slavery.

 

[LelandJ]

Schools also teach independence day as liberation from Great Britain but the central banking money creation monopoly continued from the European families and their interests in various forms. The only presidents ever assassinated were the ones who dared to issue U.S. currency debt free, as a constitutional right, apart from the central bank. "Let us control the money of a nation and we care not who makes its laws."

Cue PR regurgitation the bank is mostly government owned smh.

 

[Journeyman]

The only presidents ever assassinated were the ones who dared to issue U.S. currency debt free, as a constitutional right, apart from the central bank.

I look forward to your explanation as to why James A Garfield and John F Kennedy were assassinated.

 

[Grand Potentate]

I look forward to your explanation as to why James A Garfield and John F Kennedy were assassinated.

hahahaha

 

[LelandJ]

Dunno who Garfield is, JFK printed American currency but don't believe any of it went into circulation before CIA took him out.

 

[Journeyman]

The only presidents ever assassinated were the ones who dared to issue U.S. currency debt free, as a constitutional right, apart from the central bank.

Dunno who Garfield is, JFK printed American currency but don't believe any of it went into circulation before CIA took him out.

Well, that's not a very satisfactory explanation, considering it was you who proposed the theory!

There have been four US presidents assassinated:

- Abraham Lincoln;
- James A Garfield;
- William McKinley; and
- John F. Kennedy.

You should have a go at explaining why each of them was assassinated in connection with, as your theory has it, issuing US currency debt-free.

Of course, if you're going to mount a really thorough argument as to why the above four presidents were assassinated, you should also discuss the reasons behind the attempted (but ultimately unsuccessful) assassinations of Presidents Jackson, Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, Hoover, Franklin D Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.

 

[LelandJ]

K-nell thought Jackson was one of the four! Political history the meaningless details bore me though, I'm relatively good at remembering cultural history, countless thousands of artists, priorities is all !

 

[LelandJ]

California Water Cuts Leave City Days Away From Running Out Of Water « CBS Sacramento

 

[Grand Potentate]

Here's a good one for Russell Street that talks about how sky-high CEO pay being based on "market forces" is complete horseshit

New Study Debunks Myth That Exorbitant CEO Pay Results from "Talent" | naked capitalism

 

[Russell Street]

I'm a meritocrat, but CEO pay is an elite scam, by and large. There's some great crazy investor that is notorious for going to shareholder meetings and decrying the overcompensating CEO...because he wants higher dividends.
Anyway, it's largely akin to the silliness that public employee unions in NJ do. As soon as anyone anywhere gets a raise, everyone else goes and uses it as evidence that they are not being paid competitively and a feedback loop leads to gross inflation. It's the same with pro athlete pay.

 

[OfficePants]

I'm a meritocrat, but CEO pay is an elite scam, by and large. There's some great crazy investor that is notorious for going to shareholder meetings and decrying the overcompensating CEO...because he wants higher dividends.
Anyway, it's largely akin to the silliness that public employee unions in NJ do. As soon as anyone anywhere gets a raise, everyone else goes and uses it as evidence that they are not being paid competitively and a feedback loop leads to gross inflation. It's the same with pro athlete pay.

I think it's Carl Ichan you're talking about. Makes more than all those CEOs, that's for sure.

 

[OfficePants]

As if Whole Foods wasn't enough of a ripoff.

Whole Foods accused of overcharging customers - Telegraph

 

[OfficePants]

Obamacare lives on after Supreme Court ruling - CNNPolitics.com

 

[OfficePants]

Uber: Paris taxi drivers protest ride-sharing app—again - Fortune