Crony Socialism
From the WSJ, Costco president Jim Sinegal found a way to support Obama and keep the money:
When President Obama needed a business executive to come to his campaign defense, Jim Sinegal was there. The Costco COST +2.00% co-founder, director and former CEO even made a prime-time speech at the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte. So what a surprise this week to see that Mr. Sinegal and the rest of the Costco board voted to give themselves a special dividend to avoid Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. Is this what the President means by "tax fairness"?Specifically, the giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%--an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge.
More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so.
Shareholders were happy as they bid up shares by more than 5% in two days. But the rating agencies were less thrilled, as Fitch downgraded Costco's credit to A+ from AA-. Standard & Poor's had been watching the company for a potential upgrade but pulled the watch on the borrowing news.
We think companies can do what they want with their cash, but it's certainly rare to see a public corporation weaken its balance sheet not for investment in the future but to make a one-time equity payout. It's a good illustration of the way that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's near-zero interest rates are combining with federal tax policy to distort business decisions.
One of the biggest dividend winners will be none other than Mr. Sinegal, who owns about two million shares, while his wife owns another 84,669. At $7 a share, the former CEO will take home roughly $14 million. At a 15% tax rate he'll get to keep nearly $12 million of that windfall, while at next year's rate of 43.4% he'd take home only about $8 million. That's a lot of extra cannoli.
This isn't exactly the tone of, er, shared sacrifice that Mr. Sinegal struck on stage in Charlotte. He described Mr. Obama as "a President making an economy built to last," adding that "for companies like Costco to invest, grow, hire and flourish, the conditions have to be right. That requires something from all of us." But apparently $4 million less from Mr. Sinegal.
The best is the end of the piece:
To sum up: Here we have people at the very top of the top 1% who preach about tax fairness voting to write themselves a huge dividend check to avoid the Obama tax increase they claim it is a public service to impose on middle-class Americans who work for 30 years and finally make $250,000 for a brief window in time.If they had any shame, they'd send their entire windfall to the Treasury.
Matthew Willis comments on Sinegal's actions on the WSJ's site:
It's not that the guy is cashing out, before more confiscatory taxes come in; nor is it his groveling to a fool who has never expressed an original thought in his life. No, it's the fact that he stood up and lectured to the rest of us how we should live, and then ducked the consequences of his actions. This is typical of what I call the New Left Aristocrats who behave as if they live in 18th Century France.
Boy is the WSJ butthurt over Costco.
Love to see them attack other businesses and fat cats that behave this way, I mean legally and with shareholder approval.
I think what really grinds the WSJ gears are the way above average salaries that Costco pays to its employees, the excellent benefits, and the love of Costco by its customers, all weird enough to love Costco enough to pay $40 to $100 a year for the privilege of shopping at Costco.
Costco, when will they do something right?
In the meantime, it will be nice to see the WSJ attacking companies and businesses that provide tons of value to the US.
jerry at December 1, 2012 1:36 AM
"That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%--an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge."
I'm sure glad that the WSJ took the time to compose a lengthy article about a situation that may or may not bare any resemblance to reality.
Something tells me that we aren't going to see a dividend tax increase from 15% to 43.4% (I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about this, but shouldn't we wait and see how things develop before jumping to wild conclusions so early?).
It is much easier to manufacture outrage about a situation that hasn't played out yet and assume a worst case scenario than it is to be agitated about a more realistic appraisal as the events unfold.
The entire article is written from the perspective that this company is doing this specifically to avoid a 30% tax increase (a conclusion for which the author offers zero evidence, it is all just theory crafting that considers only one possible future). However, what if we see an 8% dividend tax increase instead? Or what if dividend tax rates are more or less left alone and other sources of income are made to shoulder the tax increase?
The bottom line is that the author is clearly looking for a reason to be pissed at Jim Sinegal and is willing prematurely go to extremes to drum up that angry sentiment.
Orion at December 1, 2012 2:18 AM
'Hawk: 1 & 2.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 2:40 AM
I kinda wonder if Jerry & Orion are the same guy. Such similar voices, those voices, for a fresh topic, that topic, in the 3rd hour of the day on this blog is, like, rilly improbable.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 2:43 AM
Crid,
It seems the author of the above article isn't the only person who enjoys theory crafting based upon zero evidence.
This is precisely the problem with jumping to conclusions like this, more often than not you end up being wrong.
Thanks for helping me to demonstrate my point.
Orion at December 1, 2012 4:05 AM
Warren Buffet is the same:
- He paid $6 million in taxes which equates to about $40 million that was earned somewhere. Yet, he has over tens of billions of unrealized capital gains.
- Bulk of his wealth has been transferred to his sons and daughters trusts and Bill Gate's Foundation shielded from federal tax.
- He is fighting the IRS on back taxes since 2002 for Berkshire Hathaway
- He never pays a stock dividend so it can't be taxed
- He structures his salary so almost none of it is paid as ordinary wages & almost all of it comes in the form of capital gains
... and much more.
Despite all this, he goes on the news circuit to advocate the raising of taxes on the rich.
Snoopy at December 1, 2012 5:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/01/crony_socialism.html#comment-3496507">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Jerry and Orion are two different guys!
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2012 5:15 AM
We're doing the same thing at my (publicly-traded) company: an extra cash dividend (from profits, not borrowing) in advance of a possible change in tax rates. My boss, of course, owns many more shares than I do, and sees this as pure pragmatism and good anticipatory tax planning.
I'll let the petulant fellows at the WSJ whine about Costco being too smart to not get ahead of a potential hit. Regardless of whether you're for it or against it, it ain't cronyism if it applies equally to every shareholder on the same date.
Note carefully the WSJ's spin directed at tax illiterates who don't understand marginal tax rates. There's a reason I love the WSJ.
Andre Friedmann at December 1, 2012 6:11 AM
> Jerry and Orion are two different guys!
And yet they share a beating heart!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 9:57 AM
Besides,
> Thanks for helping me to demonstrate my point.
I don't see how noting the similarity of your comment to another demonstrates dick, but that you're in a hurry to be all rudely squirty about something.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 10:02 AM
Reviewing now –but only casually, because who gives a fuck– I see that Jerry and Orion are fucking strange.
Jerry's first line (of the first comment in the stack) includes the word "butthurt." The second line is sardonic and distracted, tu quoque. The third is unreservedly sarcastic. The fourth is repetition, with more teenage sarcasm and more whining that other companies sin, too.
Orion begins in his second line, which is similarly sarcastic and schoolgirl-resentful; "a situation that may or may not bare any resemblance to reality" is not exactly a penetrating factual critique. And on it goes, chattering about the unknowable future, clear through his preposterous comment to me....
What's up with that? Stockholders? Henpecked joes for whom a weekend hour 'mongst the shelves of Costco, obliviously comparing prices on elastomeric paint, is the only sanctuary from a nagging wife?
How does that much juvenile defensiveness come out, at two o'clock on a weekend morning, on such a distinctly feminine blog? You puppies are so very ready to be angry about something... Yet your choice is obscure, mundane, niggling and (I'd wager based solely on Amy's & Iowahawk's casual judgment) probably groundless.
Whutup, boys?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 10:50 AM
Crid, when I want to alt or sockpuppet, I'll be sure to inform you. But since I have no history of that, and since having two posts saying how dumbassed the WSJ is really not that improbable nor is it that beneficial to anyone, well, I'll just suggest you drink some more coffee.
Crid at December 1, 2012 10:51 AM
I will admit that Orion is my favorite constellation, mostly because of the red star in his right shoulder (we see it on the left.)
Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse.
jerry at December 1, 2012 10:55 AM
That's not crony socialism. That's smart, realistic profit taking when it is advantageous to do so.
Of course, he voted for higher taxes, so he should man up and pay his fair share.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 1, 2012 12:17 PM
This isn't about who legally pays more or less taxes.
This is about hypocrisy, doing one thing while saying another.
I believe hypocrisy, of both the left, the right,the green, the libertarian, and the middle needs to be exposed and ridiculed.
Isab at December 1, 2012 12:52 PM
> I'll be sure to inform you. But since I have
> no history…
"Butthurt."
> two posts saying how dumbassed the WSJ is
> really not that improbable
Here? Then?
Listen, it's not that there's necessarily a conspiracy, it's just that every now and then you come across a vein of fascination in the public heart that's inexplicably freakazoid. Remember how you felt that time you figured out that millions of people like to give a half-hour of their lives to Kardashian every week, and then say nasty things about her for the next six days? Whack... Right?
This is like that. There are these two guys who are up late on a Friday, ready to knock out a couple hundred words of sarcastic tu quoque on behalf of (freaking) Costco when an advice columnist (!) cites the WSJ, and then ruthlessly mock any stranger who asks what's up... There's no room for discussion. They're at Defcon 2, and they want us to know they're really, really certain about this.
Who knew?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 1:07 PM
Kim Kardashian's father re-activated his dormant license to practice law in order to assist a double-murderer seeking acquittal, yet later expressed doubts about the client's innocence: Some thought this was garish.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 1:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/01/crony_socialism.html#comment-3497263">comment from IsabIsab gets it: "This is about hypocrisy, doing one thing while saying another. I believe hypocrisy, of both the left, the right,the green, the libertarian, and the middle needs to be exposed and ridiculed."
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2012 1:34 PM
Crid Says:
"I don't see how noting the similarity of your comment to another demonstrates dick, but that you're in a hurry to be all rudely squirty about something."
Wow, you sure back peddle quickly once it comes to light that all of your theory crafting was utterly unfounded.
You didn't simply "note" the "similarity" between Jerry's position and my own. You came out and asserted without any reasonable evidence whatsoever that in all likelihood he and I were one and the same person.
If that wasn't the implication of what you wrote Amy wouldn't have bothered wasting her time to debunk it.
The reason your behavior proves my earlier point about the WSJ article jumping to conclusions prematurely is that just like you, the author of that article has no concrete evidence to go on when it comes to everything they imply in the article. The whole argument they put forth is therefore without much merit. They didn't do the work to actually demonstrate they were correct.
It is pure speculative drivel, and like most pure speculative drivel the odds aren't very high that the details of their argument are going to end up baring a significant resemblance to reality (just like your purely speculative assertion ended up being completely wrong... not just slightly wrong).
The entire premise of the WSJ article is that Jim Sinegal is somehow trying to sidestep a series of tax increases that he advocated for because Costco (a company he is now retired from by the way) instituted a large dividend.
Alright, let's list the problems with their argument here:
1 - We don't know if Sinegal proposed the dividend or if perhaps the new CEO or other members of the board did.
2 - We don't know if Sinegal supported or even voted in favor of the dividend.
3 - We don't know if Sinegal was ever specifically in favor of dividend tax increases, or if he was in favor of some other plan (such as increasing income tax or capital gains tax while leaving dividend tax where it currently stands)
4 - We don't know for certain yet whether any tax increases are actually going to take place or what form they will be in if they do. The articles statement of "rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%" is therefore misleading because there is no reason to be confident that we're just going to revert to 43.4%. The author is simply speculating on that as well and then weaving together a story from whole cloth from there.
These pesky details aren't just fluff that can be disregarded like the author does. When little things like facts and evidence are ignored in favor of putting together a story, you get things like people on the internet declaring that two distinct individuals are one and the same person.
My point, which you helped demonstrate, is that when one jumps to wild conclusions without collecting all the relevant data they tend to get things very wrong.
In other words, it isn't exactly fair to assert that Jim Sinegal is doing something hypocritical without knowing the answers to all of the questions I've listed first. If you have evidence which addresses my concerns I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise this whole narrative is just an unfounded conspiracy theory.
I'll admit though that it is much easier to just make up stories without any hard evidence to back up your position.
Orion at December 1, 2012 2:02 PM
Bunny———
> you sure back peddle quickly once it comes
> to light that all of your theory crafting
> was utterly unfounded.
1. I retract nothing, having meant every word.
2. You've brought nothing "to light."
3. My only "theory" is that your pugilism (and that of your dark-of-night brother Jerry) is weird and inappropriate.
> your theory crafting was utterly unfounded.
Nope, evidence collects, and all too quickly:
> You came out and asserted without any
> reasonable evidence whatsoever that in all
> likelihood he and I were one and the same
> person.
1. I didn't "come out" (though if I had, it would have been totes fabulous!!!, and everyone would remember, because I'm a very graceful and stylish and impactful man, even as an aging heterosexual).
2. Nor did I "assert" things "without any reasonable evidence." What I said was:
You can find those words above, on this selfsame computer-internet 'web page'.> the author of that article has no
> concrete evidence to go on
Kitten, it ain't a court of law. It's an opinion column.
> It is pure speculative drivel
You're very angry.
> We don't know if Sinegal proposed the
> dividend or if perhaps the new CEO or
> other members of the board did.
Duzzenmadder; if he's the head honcho, the top dog, the big cheese, then he will and should be held to account for the behavior of his team.
> We don't know if Sinegal supported or
> even voted in favor of the dividend.
Again, duzzenmadder.
> We don't know if Sinegal was ever
> specifically in favor of
Yes yes yes... His heart is a precious, singular snowflake, new to all of us and never to be seen again, but that doesn't make me love it especially much.
> We don't know for certain yet whether
> any tax increases are actually
> going to take place
Verily, the future is cloudy! But we're free to judge people on their posture as this apocalypse roars onward... Even from the pages of the Wall Street Journal. You get to have your opinion, too. (And we get to make fun of it.)
> These pesky details aren't just fluff
> that can be disregarded like
> the author does.
Again, you (and perhaps the other guy) seem really, REALLY eager to slam the door on this, as if it were a court of law and a bloody body had been found, as if the top dogs of motherfucking Costco had no opportunity to revise or explain their conduct.
That's nutty. Amy's, Hawk's, and the WSJ's conclusions are anything but "wild"; they cohere neatly to the facts in evidence. Nobody's making up stories, and we have no "position"... You and Jerry are just in a terrible hurry to be pissed off. You haven't told us why.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 7:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/01/crony_socialism.html#comment-3497563">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]But, we'd still really like to know.
(The night is youngish! Should we tickle you?)
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2012 7:14 PM
I'm going to spend Amy's $20 on steak bowls from Chipotle.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 7:37 PM
In other irrelevant matters, Kim's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard... With nightsticks.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 7:39 PM
Carney on the Global Subsidies Race
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 8:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/01/crony_socialism.html#comment-3497622">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]But, really?
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2012 8:14 PM
It's hillbilly, Amy. Not even JuCo.
Meanwhile, let's say you wanted subsidies for a rail project... in Central Asia. Hooya Gonnacall?
That's right.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 8:23 PM
Crid Says:
“1. I retract nothing, having meant every word.”
It’s great that you haven’t retracted, but there is that nagging little thing called integrity. Integrity is demonstrated by showing a little humility when you jump off the deep end with a completely unsupported assertion.
You haven’t demonstrated that you’ve learned anything from the fact that your abundant confidence about your opinion seems to bare zero resemblance to factual reality. Your arrogant attitude seems entirely resistant to the demonstrable fact that you got everything wrong about the situation.
When someone asserts things as fact with extreme confidence and then ends up being completely and utterly wrong, we call that talking out of your ass.
When one has spoken out of their ass it is usually wise for them to lower their aggression level in the conversation, not ramp it up as you have. So kindly cut the shit and stop talking out of your ass.
“2. Nor did I "assert" things "without any reasonable evidence." What I said was:
"I kinda wonder if Jerry & Orion are the same guy." “
You had zero evidence that would lead any reasonable or logical individual to conclude that two people were one and the same. Furthermore, your above quote isn’t all you said, there was an entire stream of irrational drivel which followed. You concluded by saying that the chances of two people with superficially similar points of view posting on the same thread was “like, rilly improbable.”. That kind of thinking amounts to stupidity of the highest order.
I mean really, in your mind it is incredibly more probable for one person to post twice on the same thread under entirely different names when no one else has said anything than it is for two different people to hold similar opinions on a topic? If that is how you think then you have very serious issues when it comes to forming well reasoned conclusions. That you ended up being wrong should encourage you to reconsider how you formulate opinions, but you’ve instead chosen to be utterly resistant to learning anything from your logical failure.
“Kitten, it ain't a court of law. It's an opinion column.”
Bingo. The authors opinion in this piece is not backed up by anything that even remotely approximates evidence. The author, like you, expresses extreme confidence in their opinion despite the fact that they haven’t bothered to justify anything they are saying with that pesky little thing called evidence.
The author is simply talking out of their ass at the moment. When the facts are in I will be happy to form my own opinion on this subject. See how that works? Evidence first, opinion second.
Until then I see no reason to put any faith in the opinion of someone who speaks with absolute conviction about an issue they haven’t bothered to properly evaluate. People who think that way are usually wrong.
“Duzzenmadder; if he's the head honcho, the top dog, the big cheese, then he will and should be held to account for the behavior of his team.”
But that is exactly the point, Jim Sinegal is no longer “the head honcho”. He hasn’t been “the head honcho” for almost a year now. The current CEO of Costco is W. Craig Jelinek.
Jim Sinegal has retired, he doesn’t exactly call the shots anymore, if you bothered to look into this issue in any detail at all you would know that. Furthermore, just to cut you off at the pass, Jim Sinegal also doesn’t own anything remotely approximating a controlling stake in the company. Approximately 80% of the outstanding shares of Costco are owned by institutional investors. Jim Sinegal’s personal stake amounts to slightly less than one million shares which accounts for significantly less than 1% of the total shares. Just for comparison, the largest institutional investor holds close to 28 million shares.
As a result I suppose each and every one of my objections does in fact matter because Jim Sinegal isn’t "the big cheese" anymore and hasn’t been for almost one year. Hence the person you and the article should be holding accountable is W. Craig Jelinek, but you can’t because that guy didn’t make any speeches at the DNC or publically support the tax issues that are central to the argument.
If the CEO is the one accountable for the actions of “the team” then you and the author are pointing your fingers at the wrong guy. It must suck to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory though.
Please learn from your earlier mistake. Collect the facts first, this way you will avoid talking out of your ass.
Orion at December 2, 2012 7:02 AM
Way, way back in the 1950s we used to make fun of liberals, tarring them with phrases invoking their automatic, reflexive thoughtlessness. Half a century later I get a kick out of knee-jerk libertarianism. The WSJ plays 'em like violins.
Andre Friedmann at December 2, 2012 7:17 AM
Sure, we can do a few more laps of this one if you want... On Friday night, you decided you were going to have the fight you wanted to have, whether or not anyone else on the internet wanted to bring it to you, and you're not going to be stopped now!
This is strange behavior on your part.
Well, I love it when people get strange! Let's do this!
> a completely unsupported assertion.
"I kinda wonder if Jerry & Orion are the same guy" is an "assertion"?
> You had zero evidence
Evidence is in the first two comments to this thread. They're essentially identical in tone, posture, and (fallacious) argument. (We've covered this. You can ignore it yet again if you want.)
> The authors opinion in this piece is
> not backed up by anything that even
> remotely approximates evidence.
Three billion is a lotta evidence.
> I see no reason to put any faith in the
> opinion of someone who speaks with
> absolute conviction about an issue they
> haven’t bothered to properly evaluate.
Your regrettable mischaracterization exemplifies and extends the pattern of the weirdness under discussion. But if you choose to disregard my every word from this moment until the day you die... Well, Pilgrim, my heart will go on.
> Jim Sinegal is no longer “the head honcho”.
You could, if you wanted, affirm that his personal interest in and influence upon Costco vanished with a change in his title twenty-nine years after he created the company, despite his continuing presence on the Board of Directors.
But it would be cock-suckingly ludicrous.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 2, 2012 7:37 AM
Big Mac
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 2, 2012 6:35 PM
Crid Says:
“On Friday night, you decided you were going to have the fight you wanted to have, whether or not anyone else on the internet wanted to bring it to you, and you're not going to be stopped now!”
Once again it seems you aren’t going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a baseless and unfounded assertion.
Let’s rehash the events shall we?
On Friday I commented on a thread where the only other commenter before me had said things that were apparently so similar in sentiment to my own statement that you couldn’t figure out that we were two distinct people. I stated my piece and left it at that. Who exactly was I looking to have a fight with? Was it Jerry?... because that would seem odd since you acknowledge that he and I are more or less in agreement.
The person who jumped into the conversation guns blazing and tossing around illogical and unsupported accusations was you. If you desired a reasonable conversation with either Jerry or myself you would have addressed one of our points instead of poisoning the well with accusatory language that suggested we were sock puppets trying to create the illusion of support for a position you apparently deemed too stupid to bother addressing directly.
I didn’t comment here looking for a fight, but if you’re inclined to be an insufferable arrogant prick I’m happy to call you on it when you end up being factually wrong on every single point you’ve made.
Look, what you keep doing is making enormous logical leaps that are not even remotely justified by the “evidence” you claim to have collected. That is why I called it theory crafting and described it as being similar to the generation of a conspiracy theory.
You can’t simply take a hunch, jump to the conclusion that most appeals to you at the moment, and then toss out weak sauce “evidence” as justification for that irrational behavior.
For example, when you say the following:
“Evidence is in the first two comments to this thread. They're essentially identical in tone, posture, and (fallacious) argument.”
This is structurally the same logic a child might use when they walk down the street and see an old jolly man with a fluffy white beard and a big belly to conclude that based upon this “evidence” that he must surely be santa clause.
The problem you have run into here is that the standard of evidence you are using to draw conclusions is abysmally poor (just like the above child’s standard in the above example is way too low).
When you use an inappropriate evidentiary standard, you tend to get things wrong (which is why you got things wrong in this discussion right out of the gate). The bar I am using is much higher which is probably why I see serious problems with the WSJ article that are apparently invisible to you.
“You could, if you wanted, affirm that his personal interest in and influence upon Costco vanished with a change in his title twenty-nine years after he created the company, despite his continuing presence on the Board of Directors.”
Right… so according to you he remains “the head honcho” of the company despite the fact that he is retired, despite the fact that someone else is the CEO, and despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that he holds nothing even close to a majority stake in the company. To put it bluntly, that he retains some influence over Costco as a member of the board of directors “duzzenmadder” because as you asserted:
“if he's the head honcho, the top dog, the big cheese, then he will and should be held to account for the behavior of his team.”
The part in bold is particularly relevant here by the way. Since he’s demonstrably not the “top dog” anymore, he shouldn’t be held to account for the behavior of the team. According to your own words the person you should be holding to account is W. Craig Jelinek because that is the guy who is the CEO, he's "the head honcho, the top dog, the big cheese". Or was your above statement only applicable when you mistakenly thought Jim Sinegal was still in charge?
My opinions on issues are constrained by things like facts and evidence. I hold these things in high regard. I'm simply not as comfortable as you seem to be calling people hypocrites based upon nothing more than a hunch.
Orion at December 2, 2012 9:17 PM
> you couldn’t figure out that we were
> two distinct people.
No, I couldn't see why two so like-minded people would appear, on this blog, with identical postures — awkward, off-putting ones — within one swing of the little hand for an entirely unexceptional post in the middle of the night.
(No offense inteneded, Amybug... I've been coming here for those for years. You the entire Advice Goddess Blog team are doing fine work.)
I mean, if Amy's post had been made for some similarly muck-rakey newspaper article about family law, and two lady commenters had appeared like that, ding-dong, with similarly congestive, eye-scratching bitterness, I'd be writing this comment to them.
> Who exactly was I looking to have a fight with?
Well, I got here first, and don't mind taking the rubber bullet for the rest of Amy's Comment Army... Or perhaps for the rest of the world. I mean, you've got things to prove to people, right? Your first words were sarcasm: "I'm sure glad that the WSJ took the time...." And you've waving your dukes ever since. You're right, everyone else is wrong, and you'll brook no discussion; "theory crafting based upon zero evidence." You're not just in a hurry to be right, you want everyone else to stop communicating until they agree with you 100%.
> unsupported accusations
I "kinda wondered" whether you and Jerry were the same guy. And still do; your menses are perfectly phased. No swimming until Thursday, right? Maybe Sunday.
> an inappropriate evidentiary standard
Buttercup, it's a BLOG. I keep an "inappropriate evidentiary standard" in my pants. Who exactly do you think you're talking to? Who do you think is reading this stuff? Some busty professor's associate from your old college business class (for non-majors) who might be impressed?... Even though she gave your paper a B- in 1982?
> he shouldn’t be held to account
> for the behavior of the team.
Go out and sell that to people; let us know how it works, whether or not they think his responsibility is profound if not pivotal. It ain't a court of law or nuthin', but I have doubts. I'm not 100% certain you're wrong and don't much care; this is the kind of story for which I'll pretty much follow Amy's lead, or that of a similar (internet/media) 'acquaintance'.
Just like two days ago, your motives are the point of interest. I mean, it's not like you're a deep thinker about all this, right? To come to a non-business site with a fifty-pound chip on your shoulder for Costco is, well...
> there is that nagging little thing
> called integrity.
Hen-like! Schoolmarm-y! You aren't getting the respect you want in more appropriate fora. You've got a bee in your bonnet, you got ants in yer pants.
Stockholder? Friend of the family? What's up, Niblets?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 2, 2012 10:03 PM
Crid Says:
“No, I couldn't see why two so like-minded people would appear, on this blog, with identical postures — awkward, off-putting ones — within one swing of the little hand for an entirely unexceptional post in the middle of the night.”
Right… so because you find yourself incapable of understanding how something might occur you feel fully justified to make it a conspiracy?
That right there is the problem. There are probably several million things in this world that you do not understand. There are probably several million things in this world that I do not understand.
The crucial difference between you and I though, is that when I don’t understand something, I don’t let my imagination run away with itself and craft all sorts of conclusions out of thin air.
Unlike you, when I find myself unable to fully understand something, I don’t go off all half cocked and state with utter conviction and confidence that due to my lack of understanding I now know exactly what is going on and that it must be some sort of conspiracy.
This is where both you and the author of the WSJ article have something in common. That is what I objected to in my original post and what I continue to object to now.
The proper way to form an opinion is to gather the evidence first and then draw conclusions that can be properly justified by that evidence.
“Well, I got here first, and don't mind taking the rubber bullet for the rest of Amy's Comment Army... Or perhaps for the rest of the world. I mean, you've got things to prove to people, right?”
So you are now accusing me of crafting a post designed to create a fight with people who hadn’t even showed up yet? And that instead of you then showing up and initiating a stupid argument about sock puppets, you were “taking a rubber bullet” for the rest of the people who apparently haven’t bothered to even show up?
This is what I mean by conspiracy theories. Every one of your arguments hinges upon your clearly unreliable ability to look into the hearts and minds of people over the internet, to ascribe to them the thoughts and emotions with absolute conviction and then declare that you were right all along because… well just because.
I have nothing to prove to anyone. I’ve been the one asking for proof when people make outrageous claims for which they have not presented one ounce of credible evidence.
Idle speculation doesn’t make for a well supported argument, and to be blunt, idle speculation is all you have to go on with pretty much everything you’ve said since you jumped in to this thread. You didn’t take a “rubber bullet” for anyone because no one else was shooting, instead you jumped in blasting away with a revolver full of blanks.
If you desired a real conversation pertaining to the issues you could have done so. That wasn’t the choice you made, so quit trying to make a martyr out of yourself.
“You're right, everyone else is wrong, and you'll brook no discussion; "theory crafting based upon zero evidence." You're not just in a hurry to be right, you want everyone else to stop communicating until they agree with you 100%.”
Again, you have ignored actual evidence in favor of your unfounded conspiracy theory. You seem to have completely glossed over this part of my original comment:
“I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about this, but shouldn't we wait and see how things develop before jumping to wild conclusions so early?”
My position has NEVER been that I’m right and everyone else is wrong. My position has ONLY been that it makes no sense to draw conclusions without evidence to support those conclusions.
If you disagree with that proposition that explains a lot when it comes to our continued discussion.
I’m perfectly willing to admit being wrong on any issue provided someone has the evidence to support their case. Furthermore, how on earth do you conclude that Iam “in a hurry to be right” when I explicitly stated that we should “wait and see how things develop before” we draw any conclusions?
Being in a hurry and waiting are mutually exclusive propositions. But again, why should you bother to let little things like facts get in the way of your unsupported narrative?
“Just like two days ago, your motives are the point of interest.”
No, actually they aren’t a point of interest. Motives only become a point of interest to someone in a debate when the facts and evidence aren’t on their side. This is why you keep focusing on motivation instead of bringing facts and logical arguments to the table. Every post you have made here is all smoke and no fire.
If you had the facts you wouldn’t keep harping on stupid things like the motivations of people you talk to on the internet. People have a hard enough time understanding the true motives of people they know in day to day life, yet for some reason this is all you seem to want to talk about. For you it is all about Jerry’s motivation, my motivation, and the motivation of the likes of Jim Senigal and the rest of the Costco board.
Facts be damned because apparently you know what resides in everyone else’s heart… even if you’ve never met them, even if you know nothing about them, even when it has already been demonstrated to you in this very thread that your insight into people you’ve never met is tragically flawed.
Let’s be frank, if you had any evidence at all to support your position you would be using it to mop the floor with me, you’d lay out the argument in detail and make me look like I didn’t know what I was talking about. Instead I’m the one pointing out the structure of the Costco board, I’m the one pointing out who is actually in charge and who isn’t, I’m the one detailing the stock holdings of the company and hence where the financial interests predominantly reside.
You on the other hand just want to keep talking about feelings… good luck with that.
Intelligent people learn form their mistakes. You should have learned in this thread that just because you feel something is true doesn’t mean you’ve constructed a convincing argument.
Orion at December 3, 2012 11:27 AM
> so because you find yourself incapable of
> understanding how something might occur
> you feel fully justified to make it a
> conspiracy?
That's all 6th-grade theatrical and wounded, but I suppose the most literal answer is 'yes'. I "made it a conspiracy." (!)
(!!)
Other adults — wage-earners, licensed to drive, that sort of thing — will wonder why you're such a screaming Mimi about it, as if you were an 18th-century fop with a powdered wig and lace cuffs, compelled to defend your 'honor' with pistols a dawn, anonymously, in front of perhaps half-a-dozen semi-sober blog readers who don't give a fuck, and wouldn't even if they knew who you were.
(Also, you look fat in those pants! You have manboobs and a receding hairline!)
Listen, this is the fight you're looking for, right? I hope you're enjoying it! Feel the burn, O-man!
> when I don’t understand something, I don’t
> let my imagination run away with itself
Dude, I've been pissing rhetoric at this group for years... If you think they're entranced by transparent, tepid pomposity, your delusion is severe.
> The proper way to form an opinion is to...
Really? You say things like that to people? Do you get a lot of black eyes? Can you hold down a job? Ever kiss a girl?
> So you are now accusing me of
Call the ACLU. Reputations are in mortal jeopardy!
> hinges upon your clearly unreliable ability
> to look into the hearts and minds of people
> over the internet
It's not that I can't, it's that I don't wanna. People's hearts and minds, especially as they'd want to describe them aforethought to crisis or confrontation, are almost never the most admirable parts of them.
> how on earth do you conclude that Iam
> “in a hurry to be right” when I explicitly
> stated that we should “wait and see how
> things develop before” we draw
> any conclusions?
Because you want other people stop talking. I think those people should tell you to go fuck your shushing self. These events are in motion, with consequences for all players, including, presumably, taxpayers who might be expected (by Obama) to make up shortfalls from corporate shennanigans. Saturday-night reports on golf championships must leave you shivering in a pool of your own saline sorrow... How dare they report on the putts & bogies before the Green Jacket is awarded, right?
> Motives only become a point of interest
> to someone in a debate when
...Similarly, you shouldn't try to make up new rules.
I'll ask for, like, the fifth time, if you want: Why do your panties so tightly wad for Costco?
A lot of shitty things happened to people late last week, in the United States and elsewhere. How has this story brought you to your chattering condition of grievance, pique and self-righteousness? I mean, you certainly talk as if this exchange is tut-tuttingly beneath you, the kind of thing you've never had to make time for... So why are you such a dick about it?
That'll be the last ask... If you can't say why Costco specifically, well... We'll just have to guess.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 3, 2012 7:11 PM
"That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%"
That's a no-brainer. The bad part is they hypocricy.
"it's certainly rare to see a public corporation weaken its balance sheet not for investment in the future but to make a one-time equity payout"
It's not rare at all, companies regularly have to do things like this that don't strictly make investment sense just because of the whole rotten theft-based taxation system we have, and all its ever-changing complexities.
"Despite all this, he goes on the news circuit to advocate the raising of taxes on the rich."
Buffett is a snake of the worst kind, an utter hypocrit, going around patronizingly pretending to be coming from a position of moral legitimacy when he pays as little tax as possible himself, and his goal in raising taxes on "the rich" is purely because a lot of his corporate investments and customers "need" to be "bailed out" and someone needs to pay for it. It's all about squeezing every last bit of blood from this stone for his crony buddies and crony customers. Buffett would be just another ordinary Joe on the street today if it weren't for all the crony bailouts of the last several years.
Lobster at December 3, 2012 9:28 PM
"However, what if we see an 8% dividend tax increase instead? Or what if dividend tax rates are more or less left alone and other sources of income are made to shoulder the tax increase?"
All this 'what if, what if' is part of the problem with the whole system. Business owners have to continually plan their investments and expenditure based not on market conditions, but on arbitrary unpredictable "what if" situations on exactly how much is going to be stolen from them and when.
Lobster at December 3, 2012 9:31 PM
Leave a comment