Surprise, surprise. Transocean Execs Getting huge bonus for their "performance" 2010

[fskimospy]

One example of a direct quote. Call him a non-representation of the left, but that sentiment is inferred in just about every statement made about concentration of wealth, taxes, rich people, etc. He just comes right out and says it.

A direct quote referring to what? Please provide a link for context.

 

[PeshakJang]

NO ONE (not even you), wants to live in a world where there is some kind of corporate anarchy. You argument about allowing companies to do whatever they want is as ridiculous as saying they should always act however society wants.

Who lets them do whatever they want? How does their CEO getting a pay raise with money that the company earned affect you in any way whatsoever, other than through outrage?

Now for the current thread - I haven't read anything which details how much of their bonus is tied to safety. Should their performance in other areas not be rewarded even if not given anything for safety?

Now with that said, just because a major accident happened does not NECESSARILY mean that people shouldn't be getting a safety bonus. Who is more entitled to a bonus? Executive A who keeps current safety procedures where there's a 10% chance of a major accident every year, but one doesn't happen this year. Executive B who upgrades safety procedures and research/statistics show there's only a 1% chance of a major accident every year, but one happened to occur this year.

If someone bets me even money that a roulette roll will show 30 (I get paid if it shows anything other than 30), and it happens to show 30, did I make a bad bet?

It sounds like you are agreeing with me. Maybe these executives reduced the statistical chances of a major accident from 10% to 5%... the fact that it happened doesn't negate their efforts.

 

[PeshakJang]

A direct quote referring to what? Please provide a link for context.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...heirs_thats_a_national_resource_its_ours.html

Video link to his whole conversation.

 

[fskimospy]

One example of a direct quote. Call him a non-representation of the left, but that sentiment is inferred in just about every statement made about concentration of wealth, taxes, rich people, etc. He just comes right out and says it.

Nevermind, I found it.

I am unaware of any mainstream liberal who believes that money is a national resource to be dispensed as we see fit. You really are trying to take extreme people and tar an entire movement with it.

It's just as dumb as when people try to accuse all Republicans of being homophobes because of Rick Santorum, so why would you even try?

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...heirs_thats_a_national_resource_its_ours.html

Video link to his whole conversation.

Yeah, that really is a shit example. You have a really bad habit of trying to invent positions for liberals to hold so that you can furiously battle against them.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah, that really is a shit example. You have a really bad habit of trying to invent positions for liberals to hold so that you can furiously battle against them.

This is SOP for the paid GOP shills of the interwebz. This is their job.

 

[actuarial]

Who lets them do whatever they want? How does their CEO getting a pay raise with money that the company earned affect you in any way whatsoever, other than through outrage?

I was just taking your exaggeration to the other end of the spectrum. We already require companies to allocate revenue (which would be profits if not for the mandatory expense) to maintaining minimum safety standards. Do you believe we should remove that restriction on the use of revenue (profits)? Do you believe in a 0% corporate tax rate? Corporate taxes are forced allocation of funds in a manner deemed appropriate by society.

You may believe that in this instance it's not for the overall good of society, but to claim that society shouldn't have any say at all on how a company spends money is asinine, unless of course you believe in eliminating minimum wage, safety standards, most employment benefits (mandatory vacation etc.), corporate tax etc. all of which are society exerting their influence on a companies profits.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me. Maybe these executives reduced the statistical chances of a major accident from 10% to 5%... the fact that it happened doesn't negate their efforts.

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you (really the second part should have been a separate post). I'm saying that just because an accident happened doesn't mean a bonus isn't warranted, which a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion.

A disaster happening is certainly something that should make us look at the company though. Even with a major disaster they felt the economic performance was good enough to lay out tons of cash to execs. That may point to the fact that the penalties imposed on the company weren't strict enough to provide economic incentive to prevent further disasters.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yeah, that really is a shit example. You have a really bad habit of trying to invent positions for liberals to hold so that you can furiously battle against them.

Its all he is capable of doing. Whatever other forum that gives him ideas is pretty limited. Can't expect much from someone with his disadvantages in life.

 

[CycloWizard]

If you're going to continue to peddle this I guess someone has to shoot it down.

'Take' has many definitions, including the #1 definition of take as a verb, which is how the article uses it:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take

v. 'To acquire possession'

Now lets look at the word 'national income': http://www.thefreedictionary.com/national+income

n. The total net value of all goods and services produced within a nation over a specified period of time, representing the sum of wages, profits, rents, interest, and pension payments to residents of the nation.

Nowhere in that definition is 'national income' defined as being the property of the nation as a whole as opposed to private property, and nowhere in the verb 'take' is such a word implying any impropriety.

It is perfectly reasonable to speak of the nation of the United States as collectively having an income, much as it has a national product. Are you against the term GNP/GDP as it implies that a nation's production can be measured collectively? These statements make no judgment as to who owns such production other than that it is created by residents of the state. This is how GNP/GDP can be used to measure North Korea's production as well as the United States'.

You basically flipped out because you didn't know the definition of words.

Dishonest bastard. Did you really think I would let that one slide? Let's post what your dictionary ACTUALLY gives as a definition for take:

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
d. Sports & Games To acquire in a game or competition; win: took the crown in horseracing.
e. Sports & Games To defeat: Our team took the visitors three to one.
f. Sports To catch (a ball in play), especially in baseball: The player took it on the fly.

Or, if you want to use a real dictionary:

: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as
a : to seize or capture physically <took them as prisoners>
b : to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing
c (1) : to move against (as an opponent's piece in chess) and remove from play (2) : to win in a card game <able to take 12 tricks>
d : to acquire by eminent domain

There's a big difference between seizing or acquiring by artifice and "acquiring possession. Anyone with a double-digit or higher IQ can easily see the context without needing to resort to invoking fabricated definitions, so I can only assume that you really are a lying douchebag.

 

[fskimospy]

Dishonest bastard. Did you really think I would let that one slide? Let's post what your dictionary ACTUALLY gives as a definition for take:

Or, if you want to use a real dictionary:

There's a big difference between seizing or acquiring by artifice and "acquiring possession. Anyone with a double-digit or higher IQ can easily see the context without needing to resort to invoking fabricated definitions, so I can only assume that you really are a lying douchebag.

Hahaha, first of all I noticed that you didn't mention the definition of 'national income'. Why? Because it shows how breathtakingly stupid your argument was.

Perhaps you can aid us all in understanding your unique approach to English. Since the definition of national income does not assign ownership of that income to any particular entity, and is merely the descriptive statistic of the sum total of production for a country, can you describe a situation in which a resident of America could acquire income or wealth without 'taking possession of it by force, skill, or artifice'?

I did make a grammatical error in thinking that it was the intransitive form as opposed to the transitive though, and so I'm wrong for that. (don't tell my mom, she's an english teacher)

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that 'take a portion of the national income' is about as bland and nondescriptive a statement as any you could possibly make. It basically means 'acquire any form of wealth in America by any definable means'. You probably didn't realize what the definition of those words meant, and so you inserted your own biases thinking "vanity fair!? OMG LIBRULS!". The phrase simply didn't mean what you thought it did. The right thing to do here is say 'oops, my mistake'.

 

[CycloWizard]

Hahaha, first of all I noticed that you didn't mention the definition of 'national income'. Why? Because it shows how breathtakingly stupid your argument was.

Perhaps you can aid us all in understanding your unique approach to English. Since the definition of national income does not assign ownership of that income to any particular entity, and is merely the descriptive statistic of the sum total of production for a country, can you describe a situation in which a resident of America could acquire income or wealth without 'taking possession of it by force, skill, or artifice'?

I did make a grammatical error in thinking that it was the intransitive form as opposed to the transitive though, and so I'm wrong for that. (don't tell my mom, she's an english teacher)

An individual could earn income or wealth rather than take it. The "national income" BS is simply a misattribution by the author that you are trying to sweep under the guise of relating to GDP, which is clearly not how it was intended by the author. Again, this only matters if you understand the concept of context.

 

[fskimospy]

An individual could earn income or wealth rather than take it. The "national income" BS is simply a misattribution by the author that you are trying to sweep under the guise of relating to GDP, which is clearly not how it was intended by the author. Again, this only matters if you understand the concept of context.

Ahahahahaha. This is getting good. Now you're insisting that we use less accurate terms in order to massage your ideology. (hint: all income is not earned unless you believe a welfare recipient is earning their paycheck) Take is a perfectly fine word to use, it is a descriptive term whose definition effectively represents the situation. People acquire income through force, skill, and artifice. I will have to notice you cannot supply a single way in which people in America can acquire income other than by 'taking' it in that way, the very definition you supplied. I'll give you another chance.

Then it gets better!

Now, instead of admitting that you made a mistake, you're claiming that the word the author wrote isn't the actual word that he meant, and he meant something else that makes you right. Please enlighten us on what noun he meant to use instead. Since you have such an excellent grasp on what someone you have never met thinks, this should be easy.

Remember, in order to secure that partisan outrage that you so desperately want to use to dismiss inconvenient facts you need to show that 'take' is somehow an inaccurate term and that he meant some other magical term other than 'national income'.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ahahahahaha. This is getting good. Now you're insisting that we use less accurate terms in order to massage your ideology. (hint: all income is not earned unless you believe a welfare recipient is earning their paycheck) Take is a perfectly fine word to use, it is a descriptive term whose definition effectively represents the situation. People acquire income through force, skill, and artifice. I will have to notice you cannot supply a single way in which people in America can acquire income other than by 'taking' it in that way, the very definition you supplied. I'll give you another chance.

Then it gets better!

Now, instead of admitting that you made a mistake, you're claiming that the word the author wrote isn't the actual word that he meant, and he meant something else that makes you right. Please enlighten us on what noun he meant to use instead. Since you have such an excellent grasp on what someone you have never met thinks, this should be easy.

Remember, in order to secure that partisan outrage that you so desperately want to use to dismiss inconvenient facts you need to show that 'take' is somehow an inaccurate term and that he meant some other magical term other than 'national income'.

"Take" is a word that was specifically selected because of its negative connotation, and because it implies that income was ill-gotten rather than earned in the context of the article. He absolutely did mean to use the words he used - that's the whole point. They were carefully selected to demonize the takers and ensure self-pity from the victims. Only a victim of the zombie apocalypse could possibly misunderstand the intent of the author's carefully-crafted crap in the way you interpret it.

 

[fskimospy]

"Take" is a word that was specifically selected because of its negative connotation, and because it implies that income was ill-gotten rather than earned in the context of the article. He absolutely did mean to use the words he used - that's the whole point. They were carefully selected to demonize the takers and ensure self-pity from the victims. Only a victim of the zombie apocalypse could possibly misunderstand the intent of the author's carefully-crafted crap in the way you interpret it.

How would you even know what the article said? You said yourself that you stopped reading after you read that single phrase, all because the author correctly used a term in a way that made you sad.

Instead, you would prefer he use a term that is less accurate, because that way he's not being mean. There are significant portions of income in the US that are not earned each year, (welfare, inheritance, shady government dealings, fraud, other criminal behavior, etc) there is no income in the US that is not taken each year. I'm not surprised that you would like to sacrifice accuracy for ideological purity, but try not to act all indignant when you get called on it.

Dishonest bastard.

 

[CycloWizard]

How would you even know what the article said? You said yourself that you stopped reading after you read that single phrase, all because the author correctly used a term in a way that made you sad.

Instead, you would prefer he use a term that is less accurate, because that way he's not being mean. There are significant portions of income in the US that are not earned each year, (welfare, inheritance, shady government dealings, fraud, other criminal behavior, etc) there is no income in the US that is not taken each year. I'm not surprised that you would like to sacrifice accuracy for ideological purity, but try not to act all indignant when you get called on it.

Dishonest bastard.

I'm fairly certain everyone here, especially you, knows damn well what the author's meaning was. Why else would you obsequiously change the meaning of the action verb in the sentence?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm fairly certain everyone here, especially you, knows damn well what the author's meaning was. Why else would you obsequiously change the meaning of the action verb in the sentence?

The word was perfectly fine; you flipped out over nothing. Then you tried to take that flip out and somehow use it to tar an entire ideology. You haven't even tried to dispute the fact that the word you wanted to replace it with was LESS ACCURATE.

(there you go mom, a semicolon to make up for it!)

 

[bfdd]

They don't just lease the rig to them. They also provide almost all of the operational manpower for the rig and often provide the support as well (food, fuel, etc.). The company renting the rig does have a "company man" on board who is pretty much the boss. The owner of the rig can technically override any decision by the company man but that almost never happens since the company man represents the people that sign their checks. The other sub-contractors, like Haliburton, are usually hired by the well owner as well.

I have drilled wells in the gulf for BP but not once have I ever received a check from them.

well duh you were working for a contractor. the contractor paid you. i've been sub contracted through a sub contractor who was working for a contractor who was hired by aes. weird stuff.

 

[lord_emperor]

Did you pay their bonuses?

I have been buying gasoline and other petroleum products for many years, so in a way yes.

Unless TransOcean is owned by the government, or you have stock in the company, their compensation has literally ZERO impact on you. Hence this argument is not rational, it is emotional.

Actually I imagine a multi-million dollar bonus has some impact on gasoline prices, however small it may be in comparison to other factors.

A disaster happening is certainly something that should make us look at the company though. Even with a major disaster they felt the economic performance was good enough to lay out tons of cash to execs. That may point to the fact that the penalties imposed on the company weren't strict enough to provide economic incentive to prevent further disasters.

I agree with this.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not saying that a private company does have the right to allocate profits as they see fit. I'm saying that a private company and it's officers should not be allowed to kill it's employees through negligence and destroy our environment and not be held accountable. To hell with the money, it's just the icing on the cake. These people should be locked up. Instead, they pay off the government, they pay off the victims and then give themselves bonuses.

This is not an emotional or irrational issue although you seem convinced that's what we're talking about. It's an ethical/moral/legal issue. Let me ask you this, what is the price of a human life? Seems to me like Transocean has established what that cost is and have no problem paying it. It wouldn't surprise me if their financial analysts have done the math to determine savings from their cost cutting measures vs the statistical probability of another Deep Water Horizon. Pretty sickening. You sit there and say prove it or I won't believe it's happening. Well if we could prove it, they'd be behind bars already. I compare people like you to the German's during WWII that refused to believe that the Nazi's were committing mass genocide of the Jews. "It's all just Allied propaganda. Our precious Fuhrer would never allow this."

Wake up and smell the death.

I think it was an airline policy or something I was reading a while back, maybe it was something else so don't quote that, but they had specific prices they would pay you or your family for broken bones, loss of an arm (more for the loss of the arm you write with), loss of a leg, loss of life, etc...

 

[zinfamous]

hardly the worst ecological disaster in US history. not even close. If anything, the cleanup effort did more harm than the spill--and I'm not talking about dispersants.

this is the same case with Exxon Valdez.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/14/110314fa_fact_khatchadourian

 

[RightIsWrong]

They are a private business can pay out bonuses and whatever else as they see fit. It's their money and it's only their (and their shareholdser) business; not ours.

An entirely seperate matter is any regulatory violation. That's the government's (and our's) business. It's up to the government to investigate and fine as appropriate. If they do get fines, as long as they pay I really don't care what they do with the rest of their money. It's their business.

Fern

Since they, and all others are private businesses, can we stop propping them up via tax breaks, credits and other corporate welfare already?

 

[Fern]

Since they, and all others are private businesses, can we stop propping them up via tax breaks, credits and other corporate welfare already?

You list the so-called "tax breaks, credits and other corporate welfare" and I'll be happy to look at them and tell you what I think.

For the most part, I've seen such claims made but have rarely seen any evidence of them. I have, however, seen the subsidies for companies to pay some part of Medicare (or whatever it was) and "green credits" to GE. I don't agree with those, the gov should not be doing that.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I'm not saying that a private company does have the right to allocate profits as they see fit. I'm saying that a private company and it's officers should not be allowed to kill it's employees through negligence and destroy our environment and not be held accountable.
-snip-

It's up to the gov to impose fines and/or sanctions. I want the gov to look at itself too. Even if otherwise good, regulations are useless if not enforced. I think our gov failed here too.

But my point is that I believe the investigation report on the spill is due this Summer. When that's issued we'll see what happens. It may not be that they get away with it.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

You list the so-called "tax breaks, credits and other corporate welfare" and I'll be happy to look at them and tell you what I think.

For the most part, I've seen such claims made but have rarely seen any evidence of them. I have, however, seen the subsidies for companies to pay some part of Medicare (or whatever it was) and "green credits" to GE. I don't agree with those, the gov should not be doing that.

Fern

You have obviously never looked at all for them, let alone very hard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

Here's my favorite part from the article:

Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs.

“These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

So....they can just go and find oil and get the legal rights to drill it anywhere else in the world that they choose if we don't keep giving them welfare?

Of course they used the standard "If you tax us or cut are welfare umbilical cord, it will cost good Americans their jobs" line too.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Speaking of the API, am I the only one extremely put off by these passive aggressive propaganda commercials by them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCBml2AN7E&feature=related
On the surface they're pretty benign, but beneath it they're saying "we employ so many people, own so much of the economy, and are part of so many people's investments and retirements, don't you dare fuck with us." They run constantly during news broadcasts here.