Therefore in a fully socialist economy government spending is 100% of GDP.
Not necessarily. De-facto ownership can be established by forcing other people to spend money; for example, forcing people or companies to buy certain products and services. And also by using the police power to force the owner to do things with their propperty that they don't want to do with it, and to prevent their owner from doing things with their property that they want to do.
In this case; the private entities' spending doesn't get counted as government spending, but it's still very socialist.
The board of directors would be the employees of the holding company of the actual company that does the real work. It is so easy to cheat via corporate shell game. So make it 12x the legal Minimal Wage.
It's still easy to navigate around; divide the company into 50 related but separate entities.
The executive will be a worker for all the companies, and draw a compensation from each of them, so the "compensation limit" for any one company is not exceeded.
Or alternatively..... the executive can have a separate company "Of his or her own", that hires the executive, and the executive's 100% owned company provides the management services ---- the manager's compensation then is a Business to Business transaction.
Since the executive owns 100% of his own management company; his company getting paid in the business to business transaction, essentially means that he will eventually be entitled to 100% of the compensation, since he owns 100% of his business.
The low-wage employees will only be an employee of one of the companies.
That's true, but if you're trading physical tokens in person with people, you could just as well be exchanging USD.
Not unless you want to wire funds bank to bank; which will incur transaction fees, or write a check.
The US federal reserve has created barriers against exchanging USD currency; mainly by not providing large denominations. The highest denomination in circulation is the $100 bill.
There used to be a $1000 note, but it was removed from circulation, to help limit restrict/prevent people from exchanging cash.
you cannot have fractional deposits with bit coin because you cannot get more bitcoins. So there is no interest.
You can. Essentially; your deposit of Bitcoins to mt.gox your bitcoin balance would be a debt on their books.
Mtgox does not necessarily have as many bitcoins as the sum of users' deposits.
The only way you could prove that would be with audited financials, or if everyone cashed out theit BTC successfully.
They would likely greatly increase fees, long before that could happen.
Neither form of evidence is likely to be available any time soon.
Even more than not designed to be anonymous, it's specifically designed to have a global, completely public transaction ledger.
However; if you have sealed physical Bitcoin payment tokens, from a trustworthy issuer, e.g. a "1 BTC token", AND you trade your tokens in person with people, without entering any transactions in the block chain ------- then in that case, the ledger will record nothing, because there are no BTC transactions on the network associated with physical trade of bitcoins.
In regards to the referenced transaction, $150 million in $100 bills weighs over 1.5 tons.
Hate to say it there Mr. Cash Anonymous, but that ain't gonna fit in your carry-on.
Perhaps. But a $150 million sealed physical Bitcoin token with a public key and private key printed on it,
doesn't even weigh 1 ton.
And after the exchange.... the "traffic analysis" will probably ignore the following 1:1 transaction to move it
to a newly generated sealed paper wallet... just like you said.
If I were the sole manager left who got shuttled off to run the McDonalds Employee Rental Co. (MERC?), I'd find myself pretty unhappy to be the one Executive that had to live with the new wage cap.
You'd be a part-time employee of the Rental Co. and probably receive compensation from both companies.
Most of the executive management services for the Kitchen management company would be outsourced to the other company.
Wouldn't a better example be Norway or other N European first world countries? Using Venezuela as a typical socialist country is like using Somalia as a typical capitalist country.
No, because while Norway has many attributes of Socialist governments They have capitalist foundations, and many free-market attributes.
So Norway is not entirely socialist; they're not pure socialists --- even though there are some very socialist policies there.
Contrary to popular belief; Socialism is not a binary quantity --- a country is not necessarily purely Socialist or purely Capitalist.
The US is also not purely capitalist, and has taken on some socialist policies over time.
Venezuela, on the other hand, sits with the Socialist policy gauge pointing nearly to Purely socialist
Perhaps some of this IS because Venezuela is still a developing country ----- to solve their problems, they need to become less socialist in the process.
If Norway becomes more socialist: things might get much worse for Norway.
Oh wait a Large Screen TV is not a staple.
If you are going to rag on someone for bad analogies, maybe you should follow the thread first.
In the US; a large screen TV is a widespread commodity product, that you won't be waiting in line for hours to buy.
It is not a "staple" in the sense that it is a life essential product such as water or flour; HOWEVER, economically speaking,
a large screen TV is a staple in the US.
In Venezuala, things are different, partly because of socialist promo behaviors by officials and government political fiascos.
I feel the first approach may be the better solution to start with, since this is an environment where a CEO controls the wage scale.
Solution to what problem, in the first place? Jealousy?
To be clear CXO is a competitive market. If a company doesn't pay their CEO X million dollars; the CEO may very well bail, and leave the company in dire straits, with no direction.
Companies succeed or fail based on good management decisions.
Unmotivated CEOs = global economic failure.
Just like mutual fund managers get an expense ratio of 2 to 3% of all the funds you invest with them, to manage them, and a load fee usually around 5 or 6%.
And salespeople get a commission on their sales, in order to motiviate behavior that all the company's shareholders and employees benefit from;
So to do CEOs.
It's not unusual for a company to spend 1% or 2% of its operating expenses on executive compensation.
If they don't; it will not substantially improve matters for shareholders, BUT it will likely result in a lot less economic success ---
which, EVENTUALLY, employees should care about living in a lagging economy.
That would be, if CXOs didn't have many tricks up their sleeves --- and plenty of ways of paying themselves, without creating a dollar amount in the books as a salary amount paid.
CEO got most of his pay from nearly-secret small companies that he owned, which the large company bought parts from at insane markups. Millions a year that don't show up as "executive comp"
Perhaps.... but a large public company; the CEO buying his own company above fair market value could result in shareholder lawsuits over self-dealing and conflict of interest, in the CEO's buying decision.
What would happen is that CEO pay would end up being paid at the maximum... but there are many ways to give people value.
If it's just a ratio; then why not increase the rate of the lowest employee?
Fire all your low-wage employees
Create a new "Employee rental company" with separate management whose sole purpose in life is to manage all the low-wage employees. For example: "McDonalds Employee Rental company." or "McDonalds Outsourced Customer service and Kitchen Operatins Inc."
Establish a long-term contract between the two companies; so the Kitchen/CS Outsourcing company's source
of revenue is that outsourcing contract. The outsourcing company hires all the low-wage workers.
The company outsourcing its operations pays this contract; that capitalizes the cost of maintaining the
daily operations of all the restaurants, to the outsourcing/Employee Rental company.
McDonalds itself, has only management, then has the lowest employee paid at $10000/Hour or so.
If the government can't curb them, that just leaves angry mobs killing their leaders and burning their headquarters down. Not regulating them is not an acceptable answer.
They can inflate the "lowest wage worker", by increasing their base pay --- at the same time, as they adopt policies requiring the low wage worker to bear more costs, which will simply be witheld from their wages, instead of paid by the company; for example, costs for things such as uniforms, insurance, or supplies, that might more traditionally be covered by the company.
Execs are a favorite target of media, because their earnings tend to be disclosed.
While the highest salary worker, not only has their salary secret and private between them and their employer, BUT in many large companies, the employee isn't even allowed to discuss it --- disclosing your salary is a firing offense.
It makes sense then, that even publicly traded companies Should stop disclosing their CEO's compensation details. The accounting disclosure should simply have a line item for "Executive/Management/Board Compensation"; with no public information about CXO salary.
There will be landlords who will tell them, "if you want chargers, find some place that has them." Of course, there will be places that will have them... but their rent will more than offset those costs. Especially in towns like Austin where apartments get filled up regardless of amenities.
Well..... If they have a Swipe-Your-Credit-Card machine.... perhaps the charging outfit could make them money, selling to the public in general, not necessarily just tenants.
A parking space, and a bench for the vehicle owner to sit at and wait for their car to charge, is a lot cheaper for a landlord to deliver, than an entire apartment unit
I dunno how you'd do it for large apartment buildings, but with the smaller (4-10 unit) ones in cold climates around here it's not uncommon for each unit to have an assigned parking space, with a plugin that runs off the unit's electric meter and can be turned on and off from the apartment.
You probably need a little box, that you attach the charger to, then plug it into your car, and enter in a user id and secret PIN number, to power on.
The charger is powered up, and starts charging your car.
After a specified duration, kilowatt hours, OR whenever the load drops below a threshold (charging done); the power to the outlet shuts off.
At the end of the month, you pay a small service fee plus kilowatt hours spent.
I live in an apartment building. I've discussed the matter with the building management but we haven't come up with an answer. While new buildings must have electrical hookups for electric cars, there is no incentive to retrofit old buildings.
The problem is you already live in that building..... get lots of prospective renters asking about it, and making clear the absence of the hookup is the reason they'll be looking elsewhere; at a time when the building owner is having trouble filling up all the vacancies.
The NHTSA doesn't want manufacturers to optimise for the particular suite of sample accident scenarios to gain an extra 0.1 score and beat their rivals, because that would not mean that the real-world safety was improved and might even mean that safety declined slightly in non-tested accident scenarios. By rounding the scores it eliminates the motivation for this pointless effort
There is another way to deal with that.... Don't disclose what testing scenarios will be used in advance.
Also; if the point score won't be published, perhaps the NHTSA should not reveal the point score in the first place.
Don't share any information or results with the manufacturer, except what is shared with the public at large; in the publications.
Tesla are also facing criticism for doing a similar thing in accounting - designing their own 'non-GAAP' measures of financial performance and highlighting them, with the 'GAAP' measures less prominent.
Companies commonly supplement reported earnings with non-GAAP financial measures that the management believes more accurately reflect their results. These "non-GAAP" measures are frequently very useful.
There is no analytical basis to explain exactly how 5.1 is less safe than 5.4 and the analysis makes no such claim. If the NHTSA allowed manufacturers to abuse the figures by claiming these fractions are meaningful then the rating system would lose credibility.
If that's true, then there's also no analytical basis to explain how exactly 4.4 (Which you rounded down to 4) is less safe than 4.6 (Which you rounded up to 5).
The fact of the matter is, if such is your degree of error, then You have to make distinctions for which there is no analytical basis;At some point, if you are truncating the number: you have to choose which whole number you will truncate it too, AND another figure that is only 0.1 different, will appear as a whole POINT less safe or more safe than the other --- while other numbers that differ by 0.4 or more, will be truncated to the same value.
Listing the more detailed figure is not per-se an abuse, then.
There is false precision there; and there is also false precision truncating the number+fractional part to one of the surrounding whole numbers.
Conveying the decimal point conveys false precision, BUT at the advantage of eliminating bias and haphazard truncation.
You can actually see that one car got 4.4, and another got 4.6; instead of seeing "4 and 5"; Off by a whole star ------ there is something to hand you a relative showing, that they're really rather close, maybe the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore in a fully socialist economy government spending is 100% of GDP.
Not necessarily. De-facto ownership can be established by forcing other people to spend money; for example, forcing people or companies to buy certain products and services. And also by using the police power to force the owner to do things with their propperty that they don't want to do with it, and to prevent their owner from doing things with their property that they want to do.
In this case; the private entities' spending doesn't get counted as government spending, but it's still very socialist.
The board of directors would be the employees of the holding company of the actual company that does the real work. It is so easy to cheat via corporate shell game. So make it 12x the legal Minimal Wage.
It's still easy to navigate around; divide the company into 50 related but separate entities.
The executive will be a worker for all the companies, and draw a compensation from each of them, so the "compensation limit" for any one company is not exceeded.
Or alternatively..... the executive can have a separate company "Of his or her own", that hires the executive, and the executive's 100% owned company provides the management services ---- the manager's compensation then is a Business to Business transaction.
Since the executive owns 100% of his own management company; his company getting paid in the business to business transaction, essentially means that he will eventually be entitled to 100% of the compensation, since he owns 100% of his business.
The low-wage employees will only be an employee of one of the companies.
Government spending as % of GDP:
Socialism is not defined as amount of government spending relative to GDP.
Socialism is the government or society seizing or exercising ownership rights over the means of production.
For example: sending armed soldiers to a store, to force the management to sell products at a government prescribed price.
That's true, but if you're trading physical tokens in person with people, you could just as well be exchanging USD.
Not unless you want to wire funds bank to bank; which will incur transaction fees, or write a check.
The US federal reserve has created barriers against exchanging USD currency; mainly by not providing large denominations. The highest denomination in circulation is the $100 bill.
There used to be a $1000 note, but it was removed from circulation, to help limit restrict/prevent people from exchanging cash.
I know what would happen to my bank account, but would that have thrown the entire system into chaos if I cashed in that many at once?
There is a liquidity problem with BTC. You probably would have great trouble trying to cash in that many, AND get actual US dollars for them.
Sure... you could switch from a BTC balance to a USD balance at Mtgox... do you think they will be sending you your check anytime soon?
you cannot have fractional deposits with bit coin because you cannot get more bitcoins. So there is no interest.
You can. Essentially; your deposit of Bitcoins to mt.gox your bitcoin balance would be a debt on their books.
Mtgox does not necessarily have as many bitcoins as the sum of users' deposits.
The only way you could prove that would be with audited financials, or if everyone cashed out theit BTC successfully. They would likely greatly increase fees, long before that could happen.
Neither form of evidence is likely to be available any time soon.
Even more than not designed to be anonymous, it's specifically designed to have a global, completely public transaction ledger.
However; if you have sealed physical Bitcoin payment tokens, from a trustworthy issuer, e.g. a "1 BTC token", AND you trade your tokens in person with people, without entering any transactions in the block chain ------- then in that case, the ledger will record nothing, because there are no BTC transactions on the network associated with physical trade of bitcoins.
In regards to the referenced transaction, $150 million in $100 bills weighs over 1.5 tons.
Hate to say it there Mr. Cash Anonymous, but that ain't gonna fit in your carry-on.
Perhaps. But a $150 million sealed physical Bitcoin token with a public key and private key printed on it, doesn't even weigh 1 ton.
And after the exchange.... the "traffic analysis" will probably ignore the following 1:1 transaction to move it to a newly generated sealed paper wallet... just like you said.
This has in some respects already occurred. McDonald's is primarily a franchiser. They do own some stores where they have especially good reason
Ah... see... there you go.
They just need one more franchise division to separate those into a "store company", and a "management company"
Stick the managers in both companies, and let each of the execs draw a separate salary from both McDonalds companies.
If I were the sole manager left who got shuttled off to run the McDonalds Employee Rental Co. (MERC?), I'd find myself pretty unhappy to be the one Executive that had to live with the new wage cap.
You'd be a part-time employee of the Rental Co. and probably receive compensation from both companies.
Most of the executive management services for the Kitchen management company would be outsourced to the other company.
Wouldn't a better example be Norway or other N European first world countries? Using Venezuela as a typical socialist country is like using Somalia as a typical capitalist country.
No, because while Norway has many attributes of Socialist governments They have capitalist foundations, and many free-market attributes.
So Norway is not entirely socialist; they're not pure socialists --- even though there are some very socialist policies there.
Contrary to popular belief; Socialism is not a binary quantity --- a country is not necessarily purely Socialist or purely Capitalist.
The US is also not purely capitalist, and has taken on some socialist policies over time.
Venezuela, on the other hand, sits with the Socialist policy gauge pointing nearly to Purely socialist
Perhaps some of this IS because Venezuela is still a developing country ----- to solve their problems, they need to become less socialist in the process.
If Norway becomes more socialist: things might get much worse for Norway.
Oh wait a Large Screen TV is not a staple.
If you are going to rag on someone for bad analogies, maybe you should follow the thread first.
In the US; a large screen TV is a widespread commodity product, that you won't be waiting in line for hours to buy.
It is not a "staple" in the sense that it is a life essential product such as water or flour; HOWEVER, economically speaking, a large screen TV is a staple in the US.
In Venezuala, things are different, partly because of socialist promo behaviors by officials and government political fiascos.
I feel the first approach may be the better solution to start with, since this is an environment where a CEO controls the wage scale.
Solution to what problem, in the first place? Jealousy?
To be clear CXO is a competitive market. If a company doesn't pay their CEO X million dollars; the CEO may very well bail, and leave the company in dire straits, with no direction.
Companies succeed or fail based on good management decisions. Unmotivated CEOs = global economic failure.
Just like mutual fund managers get an expense ratio of 2 to 3% of all the funds you invest with them, to manage them, and a load fee usually around 5 or 6%. And salespeople get a commission on their sales, in order to motiviate behavior that all the company's shareholders and employees benefit from;
So to do CEOs.
It's not unusual for a company to spend 1% or 2% of its operating expenses on executive compensation.
If they don't; it will not substantially improve matters for shareholders, BUT it will likely result in a lot less economic success --- which, EVENTUALLY, employees should care about living in a lagging economy.
That would be, if CXOs didn't have many tricks up their sleeves --- and plenty of ways of paying themselves, without creating a dollar amount in the books as a salary amount paid.
CEO got most of his pay from nearly-secret small companies that he owned, which the large company bought parts from at insane markups. Millions a year that don't show up as "executive comp"
Perhaps.... but a large public company; the CEO buying his own company above fair market value could result in shareholder lawsuits over self-dealing and conflict of interest, in the CEO's buying decision.
What would happen is that CEO pay would end up being paid at the maximum... but there are many ways to give people value.
If it's just a ratio; then why not increase the rate of the lowest employee?
Fire all your low-wage employees
Create a new "Employee rental company" with separate management whose sole purpose in life is to manage all the low-wage employees. For example: "McDonalds Employee Rental company." or "McDonalds Outsourced Customer service and Kitchen Operatins Inc."
Establish a long-term contract between the two companies; so the Kitchen/CS Outsourcing company's source of revenue is that outsourcing contract. The outsourcing company hires all the low-wage workers.
The company outsourcing its operations pays this contract; that capitalizes the cost of maintaining the daily operations of all the restaurants, to the outsourcing/Employee Rental company.
McDonalds itself, has only management, then has the lowest employee paid at $10000/Hour or so.
If the government can't curb them, that just leaves angry mobs killing their leaders and burning their headquarters down. Not regulating them is not an acceptable answer.
They can inflate the "lowest wage worker", by increasing their base pay --- at the same time, as they adopt policies requiring the low wage worker to bear more costs, which will simply be witheld from their wages, instead of paid by the company; for example, costs for things such as uniforms, insurance, or supplies, that might more traditionally be covered by the company.
Execs are a favorite target of media, because their earnings tend to be disclosed. While the highest salary worker, not only has their salary secret and private between them and their employer, BUT in many large companies, the employee isn't even allowed to discuss it --- disclosing your salary is a firing offense.
It makes sense then, that even publicly traded companies Should stop disclosing their CEO's compensation details. The accounting disclosure should simply have a line item for "Executive/Management/Board Compensation"; with no public information about CXO salary.
If the government adds a regulation, somebody will find a way around it.
Forced mark-to-market of options, equity interests, including fair market value appreciation of the underlier of in-the-money options.
With mandatory sale of securities and donation to charity of any excess earnings above the annual cap.
There will be landlords who will tell them, "if you want chargers, find some place that has them." Of course, there will be places that will have them... but their rent will more than offset those costs. Especially in towns like Austin where apartments get filled up regardless of amenities.
Well..... If they have a Swipe-Your-Credit-Card machine.... perhaps the charging outfit could make them money, selling to the public in general, not necessarily just tenants.
A parking space, and a bench for the vehicle owner to sit at and wait for their car to charge, is a lot cheaper for a landlord to deliver, than an entire apartment unit
I dunno how you'd do it for large apartment buildings, but with the smaller (4-10 unit) ones in cold climates around here it's not uncommon for each unit to have an assigned parking space, with a plugin that runs off the unit's electric meter and can be turned on and off from the apartment.
You probably need a little box, that you attach the charger to, then plug it into your car, and enter in a user id and secret PIN number, to power on.
The charger is powered up, and starts charging your car.
After a specified duration, kilowatt hours, OR whenever the load drops below a threshold (charging done); the power to the outlet shuts off.
At the end of the month, you pay a small service fee plus kilowatt hours spent.
I live in an apartment building. I've discussed the matter with the building management but we haven't come up with an answer. While new buildings must have electrical hookups for electric cars, there is no incentive to retrofit old buildings.
The problem is you already live in that building..... get lots of prospective renters asking about it, and making clear the absence of the hookup is the reason they'll be looking elsewhere; at a time when the building owner is having trouble filling up all the vacancies.
The cloud is fine and dandy until Microsoft Azure is unreachable for several hours ... again ...
The cloud does not mean Azure.
The cloud means something like Rackspace, Softlayer, Slicehost, Linode, BuyVM, DigitalOcean.
There are plenty of other hosting providers that don't have a 4 hour outage every 3 months.
The NHTSA doesn't want manufacturers to optimise for the particular suite of sample accident scenarios to gain an extra 0.1 score and beat their rivals, because that would not mean that the real-world safety was improved and might even mean that safety declined slightly in non-tested accident scenarios. By rounding the scores it eliminates the motivation for this pointless effort
There is another way to deal with that.... Don't disclose what testing scenarios will be used in advance. Also; if the point score won't be published, perhaps the NHTSA should not reveal the point score in the first place. Don't share any information or results with the manufacturer, except what is shared with the public at large; in the publications.
Tesla are also facing criticism for doing a similar thing in accounting - designing their own 'non-GAAP' measures of financial performance and highlighting them, with the 'GAAP' measures less prominent.
Companies commonly supplement reported earnings with non-GAAP financial measures that the management believes more accurately reflect their results. These "non-GAAP" measures are frequently very useful.
There is no analytical basis to explain exactly how 5.1 is less safe than 5.4 and the analysis makes no such claim. If the NHTSA allowed manufacturers to abuse the figures by claiming these fractions are meaningful then the rating system would lose credibility.
If that's true, then there's also no analytical basis to explain how exactly 4.4 (Which you rounded down to 4) is less safe than 4.6 (Which you rounded up to 5).
The fact of the matter is, if such is your degree of error, then You have to make distinctions for which there is no analytical basis;At some point, if you are truncating the number: you have to choose which whole number you will truncate it too, AND another figure that is only 0.1 different, will appear as a whole POINT less safe or more safe than the other --- while other numbers that differ by 0.4 or more, will be truncated to the same value.
Listing the more detailed figure is not per-se an abuse, then.
There is false precision there; and there is also false precision truncating the number+fractional part to one of the surrounding whole numbers.
Conveying the decimal point conveys false precision, BUT at the advantage of eliminating bias and haphazard truncation.
You can actually see that one car got 4.4, and another got 4.6; instead of seeing "4 and 5"; Off by a whole star ------ there is something to hand you a relative showing, that they're really rather close, maybe the same.
3rd tool: A thermal camera for when things go dreadfully wrong..
When things go dreadfully wrong? I though that's what the extra cell phone with the fire department and ambulance dispatcher on speed dial was for.
Clicking on the Media Players > Winamp Pro link gives me
"Winamp Pro Store not available"