In light of the demand that CEO's take a limited pay rate for Obama's stimulus package and the fact that the stars of movies are essentially the CEO's of those movies, I propose that the pay scale for stars in movies be limited to no more than $500,000 per movie and the reduction in cost be passed on to paying customers.
Ticket prices have skyrocketed mostly because of the unearthly demands of pampered diva stars hurting the poor customers watching what is generally second rate fair. Since the vast majority of stars promoted the Obama candidacy which is now demanding cuts for business executives, the same should be true of Hollywood executives and stars.
These movie stars and executives have been ripping America off with some of the most inferior movies to hit the silver screen since the "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."
You stars promoted Obama. Now lets see if you have the honesty to do what he's demanding of others. I won't hold my breath.
NG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
LAC,
You’re right. It’s a snowflake piece. But my point is a little different than you might expect. If “Stars” provide us with an inferior product, why don’t they pay the price or return money in the form of lower wages as is being demanded of bank or auto CEOs. I am just attempting to make a point with Hollywood types just to hear them squeal that my proposal is unfair when they want to force their agendas on everybody but themselves.
Secondly, Hollywood, has become what they have always claimed they hate, “McCarthyites” of the most bitter kind. They black list actors, producers and writers who adopt conservative values. Just read some of the comments of conservatives in the industry who say they don’t give their opinions much and keep their heads down. I was born in LA. My cousin played a major role in a top TV show at the time “the Virginian.” She invited me to the set and I happened to have an American Flag on my antenna. She asked me if I was a conservative and I hadn’t even thought of it...but she was making the point that conservatism was not acceptable, even though she was young, she was being indoctrinated already.
I worked in downtown Hollywood for CBS/Columbia records so got a little taste of tinseltown. So yes, the actor-CEO is a tongue-in-cheek bit, but only a little.
RE: CEO jets, cars, and luxury items. Just yesterday, Obama said that “spending” was what the stimulus package was all about. Of course, I wouldn’t believe in the CEO’s putting money into their own bank accounts. But I have a question for you. If a CEO of bank #1 uses his skills to guide his company to a 10-million loss and the board of directors award him a million dollar bonus. You would object to that, right? Now suppose that there are 5 other bank CEOs who run exactly the same sized banks (for the sake of discussion) and directed their banks to losses of $50-MILLION. Which CEO would you rather have running your bank and handling your money? And more importantly, what would you pay to save that $40 million dollars?
What difference does it make what it’s spent on, he said. I make the same point. If a union worker makes a luxury plane, train or car, is it an abuse of the program...if you say yes...WHY? Liberals
can’t stand the concept of wealth, except for themselves. LBJ became a congressmen in his 20's and earned little but managed to amass millions. Where did he get that money? Joe Biden did the same thing. He’s never had a real job yet is worth millions. Where did he get the money. Democrat congressmen are more than 85 per cent to blame for the mortgage crisis but I don’t read you making any criticism of them. Chris Dodd got a special mortgage from Countrywide. I didn’t. Why did he get it? And not me...you know why.
I was the beneficiary of many super wealthy patrons. I found them to be just like most people. Some were jerks, some were exceptionally generous, and some were just people. They had one major difference. They didn’t have the same kinds of limitations, in terms of people like me, if I could produce what they wanted. They’re money gave me lots of jobs because of their wealth.
If a CEO spends money on a luxury doesn’t that provide jobs too? I remember an incident in which the typical “anti-rich” northeast liberal congressman was preaching against luxury yachts and criticizing the rich for wasting money so he pushed through a bill that massively increased the luxury taxes on yachts. So the yacht company in his state simply shut down their operation and moved off shore. The unions, and workers came down on him like a ton of bricks. He suddenly had an epiphany and worked to rescind the tax. His anti-rich stance caused what were to him unexpected consequences, just like this Obama stimulus bill will and it will be mostly bad so I suggest you escape to gold. With the way Congress is printing money, it will cost you ten bucks for a Twinkie.
Please explain why making a luxury item is worse than making Twinkies? Even if the companies are taking government money. Isn’t a job a job? That’s what Obama says. As usual, I think you seem to want to dictate, with government power, what people do with money. That’s typical socialism. I don’t believe the free market can’t operate that way.
I don’t blame you for wanting to get out of Chicago....never really enjoyed my winter business trips there much. During the winter the perpetual wind is like icicle knives cutting through your heart. I loved LA except for the traffic. What I enjoyed most was the food diversity. I could get the best food from every culture in the world from French, Greek at Ports o’ Call to sensational Mexican hot shrimp, to the best steaks anywhere.
NG
LAC,
Actually, I’m surprised that you have time to do much writing of any kind given the time required for law school.
I also appreciate the time you do have. I enjoy our “conversations.” Somewhat like “The Last Samurai.”
Perhaps we can argue about the percentage. But the incentives, read bonuses, of Franklin Raines (got 90-million in bonuses in 6 years even though Freddie Mac was a disaster waiting to happen), Jamie Gorelick (6 million in about 3 years), Daniel Mudd and James Johnson (also got huge bonuses) were all Clinton appointees were based on the value of the holdings of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Thus their incentive was to push the appraised values to heights that caused the problem. Had the Bush’s Mac and Mae regulations proposal passed on restricting inflated evaluations by Raines and Johnson for Mac and Mae, it would have changed the dynamic. And while you have a point on the creation of the mortgage packaging by Wall Street, the fundamental foundation was the value of the real estate.
I believe that we have to re-establish real estate values. Unfortunately, Obama’s stimulus is not allowing that to happen, We have to allow it to find its base, even if it creates problems. I agree with Winston Churchill. You can’t lift a bucket when you’re standing in it no matter how hard you pull on the handle,
The CEO money situation we’ll have to disagree on. Although I agree that the Raines and the Clinton Appointees are examples of what you're railing aobut. If government establishes the right to control wages even if they take federal money is socialism.
You’re a student and there are lots of students who take massive amounts of student loans. By definition, the government should then have control over which schools students attend and what majors they chose. But that’s not being suggested for students, as is suggested for bank execs who are taking the same government funds. Executive pay should be controlled by the boards of directors, and there I would say they're failing their fuduciary responsibilities.
Yes, our comments tend to ramble on, but my defense is that when you propose some interesting questions...I have no discipline in limiting responding. You just have to remember once again, everybody is entitled to my opinion.
NG
Post a Comment