Somebody should've warned Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin about the free stuff.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/justice/louisiana-former-mayor-indicted/index.html?hpt=us_c2

At some point all of the posturing, posing, pontificating, and high-falutin' talk go out the window, and this happens:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/al-gore-nets-another-fortune-164510966.html

Al Gore just jumped on 60,000 shares of Apple for $7.48 per share.

Listen, throughout history, people have always had to negotiate price. This indisputable truth is what makes conservatism strong enough to survive fuckups like the modern Republican party.

If a chef is willing to work for free, he will only do so until his landlord starts knocking, or his baby stays crying. Our culture forbids people to work for free by contact.

Just because you can steal a corpse and stick it in the freezer waiting for a miracle resurrection doesn't mean you should, ya know.

http://www.wthr.com/story/20594213/son-arrested-in-theft-of-dads-body-from-cemetery

Especially if it's your dad and he's already been embalmed ...

Gog,

I'm confused by your second comment.

When did Al Gore "posture", "pose", "pontificate" or have "high-falutin'" talk with respect to people exercising stock options?

Or are you suggesting that once someone "postures" on any subject they are no longer permitted to take part in the financial system?

"You can get chefs for free."

Maybe what was meant that the salary for a chef was next to nothing, depending on the business model; and just really short-handed it.

I worked for free a lot in college, to get experience. I swept a vet clinics floors and wiped down their counters, the vet let me assist in surgery. I scooped goat poo at the Zoo, they let me feed the big cats and get zoo experience on my resume. My life went another way and I didn't go to vet school and work on exotics, but it was still very worth it to me. I don't think anyone else should get to make that decision for me or others.

A lot of people have such an abysmal knowledge of economics, that they think everyone works "for free". That check they magically receive every two weeks is a gift from Uncle Sugardaddy.

> I'm saying it's scummy of people to not
> pay people.

You're being a little presumptuous. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN "FREE." There have always been times when other people, often the wrong ones, paid for things.

But saying "You can get chefs for free" doesn't mean chefs are being screwed, or even that the speaker wants chefs to be screwed. It's basically a colloquialism meaning 'their compensation will come from other sources'.

Yeah, it would be great if everyone chose words that were both interpersonally compassionate and legally binding.

Just kidding! It would be Hell.

——————

Three days ago, you quoted Balko:

We have too many laws.

This way leads to madness. At some point, we are compelled to trust that self-interest and horse sense will protect our idiots chefs, even if they just got here from Jalisco and doesn't know how to read.

Nobody has the right to be stupid. And in a culture of enforceable contracts and general legal order, no ones needs to be stupid... For long.

I agree with you completely: "it's scummy of people to not pay people."

But it's worse to tell them they're not smart enough to negotiate their own deals.

@Orion
"When did Al Gore "posture", "pose", "pontificate" or have "high-falutin'" talk with respect to people exercising stock options?"

I don't know if he ever did. Why?

My reference was to his posturing as Saint Al the Savior of Planet Earth, when in reality he's just another greedy politician.

In this particular case, leveraging his political clout for a $50,000 do-nothing job on their board and tens of thousands of shares of stock with a strike price of less than $8.00 falls, in my opinion, squarely in the camp of "because something is possible does not make it right".

And I don't even hate the guy. But damn. $8 for a $500 share? Dirty business.

> And I don't even hate the guy.

Don't worry, I got it.

Gog Says:
“My reference was to his posturing as Saint Al the Savior of Planet Earth, when in reality he's just another greedy politician.”

Right… but the “evidence” you offer for him being a greedy politician is him choosing to exercise his stock options.

There is nothing even remotely strange, illegal, or deceptive about someone choosing to exercise the stock options that they have been awarded.

My point is that your conclusion and your evidence aren’t related to each other in any coherent way. You might as well be complaining about how he is getting an amazing price for selling his house and using that as evidence for his “greed”.

Just because someone postures as a staunch environmentalist doesn’t mean they should be unable to participate in the financial system. You’d have a much stronger case if the stock options were from an oil company as opposed to apple. Apple has not been identified as a scourge to the environment by those who “pose” as environmentalists.

It is possible for someone to both "posture" as an environmentalist and simultaneously be ridiculously wealthy. There is no inherent inconsistency with those positions. Not all tree huggers need to be poor.

“In this particular case, leveraging his political clout for a $50,000 do-nothing job on their board and tens of thousands of shares of stock with a strike price of less than $8.00 falls, in my opinion, squarely in the camp of "because something is possible does not make it right".”

Then I suppose you object to pretty much all board positions and the associated award of stock options… or do you only object to them when the person is Al Gore?

Most board positions are “do-nothing” jobs where people are financially compensated well beyond what they are probably worth. If you want to complain about how company boards work I’d be with you… but your selection of one specific person in this case seems like the incorrect conclusion to draw.

That this is your conclusion seems to say more about your political position than it says about the validity of your argument.

Keep going, Orion… Omit nothing.

I've heard of women who will "buy" an expensive dress just before a function, wear it for that, get it drycleaned, and then return it afterwards, saying it didn't fit right.

Just before the World Cup every 4 years, lots of guys will go out and "buy" a big screen TV. Mysteriously a few days after the final game is over, many of these TVs are returned.

I know lots of people who will go into a camera shop and get a salesperson to spend 30+ minutes with them, helping them narrow down their selection by trying out many models. But then they say they'll "think about", go home, and buy the model of their choice online for a cheaper price.

In all of these examples, the people "CAN", but that doesn't mean they "SHOULD".

When did Al Gore "posture", "pose", "pontificate" or have "high-falutin'" talk with respect to people exercising stock options?

Are you referring to the same Al Gore who lamented that the government is doing nothing about the growing income inequality while cheering on Occupy Wall Street's "populist" screeds against the 1%?

"The message -- and the solutions -- should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the economy went into a recession that continues to sock the middle class while the rich have recovered and prospered. The problem is that no one in Washington has been listening." ~ Al Gore

"At this point, protest is the message: income inequality is grinding down that middle class, increasing the ranks of the poor, and threatening to create a permanent underclass of able, willing but jobless people. On one level, the protesters, most of them young, are giving voice to a generation of lost opportunity." ~ Al Gore

"It is possible for someone to both "posture" as an environmentalist and simultaneously be ridiculously wealthy"

Which is both the point and the title of the thread. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean that you SHOULD do that thing.

"There is no inherent inconsistency with those positions"

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

In an economic system that is predicated on manufacturing goods from raw materials, it is INHERANTLY inconsistant to profit from that system while simultaneously bemoaning that system's existance.

But then Gore's hypocrisy, as in do as I say not as I do, knows no bounds. Examples of which are too numerous to conveniently list, but are well, if not universally, known.

What Coney said. Because it was Orion, I didn't have energy to say it myself.

I'd read things about him for years, but I'll never forget the first time I saw him on television. That schoolboy delivery, checking each syllable to make sure it was the one he had in mind... The graceless, calculating manner everyone had described as "wooden".... This guy was a bullshit artist of Clintonian magnitude, without the sexual component to lead a ticket for an electorate raised on television.

I voted for him anyway. I was young and supremely stupid.

Sorry. No, really, I feel bad and will make it up to you.

> Because something is possible does not make it right.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's how I feel about legislation:

RICHMOND, Va. (WTVR) – A Virginia boy was killed by soccer goal that fell on top of him during a game. Now, more than five years later, local politicians will consider legislation aimed at preventing such tragedies from happening again.

Can you imagine a better definition of a freak event? Can you imagine a prospective liability exposure better formed to encourage sports-equipment manufacturers to strengthen their designs?

It doesn't matter. This woman is going to pout until something is done... Something worthless, probably constrictive, and economically ugly.

“Elias said she will fight for the legislation.

“I promised that I would do something: to do my best to not let this happen again,” she said.

No one can stop her from fucking with people. The politicians will be proud of themselves. The voters too, probably: She's a grieving Mom.

"There is nothing even remotely strange, illegal, or deceptive about someone choosing to exercise the stock options that they have been awarded."

Unless, of course, they were awarded those shares at a ludicrous strike price as a reward for behind-the-scenes quasi-legal assistance.

Imagine if Vinnie 'The Shiv' Stompinontoastinatto, well-known mob boss, received this gift. You'd ask questions.

Dick Cheney's involvement in Halliburton's no-bid contracts were roundly questioned. Al Gore has no more technical assistance to lend to Apple than Cheney had to lend to Halliburton. How did they earn this money, then?

Conan the Grammarian Says:

“Are you referring to the same Al Gore who lamented that the government is doing nothing about the growing income inequality while cheering on Occupy Wall Street's "populist" screeds against the 1%?”

What does this have to do with whether or not it is reasonable for him to exercise stock options which he has been awarded?

I still fail to see the actual logical link here because nothing you’ve quoted talks about stocks, stock options, or any other financial instrument.

What appears to bother you is that a member of the financial elite would criticize the financial elite… but that in and of itself isn’t actually a problem.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have also expressed sentiments similar to those you quote from Al gore… does this mean neither Bill or Warren should be permitted to participate in the financial system?

It sure would seem strange to me if anyone suggested that Bill Gates should be restricted from exercising stock options from Microsoft considering he’s the guy who built the company from the ground up.

That someone levies criticisms against the financial elite while remaining a member of the financial elite doesn’t weaken their argument… it strengthens their position. Just as when a soldier criticizes the military as opposed to a civilian.

Azenogoth Says:

“Which is both the point and the title of the thread. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean that you SHOULD do that thing.”

Right… so your position is that just because Al Gore *can* exercise his stock options… instead he should just let them gather dust in a vault somewhere until they expire worthless?

Why?

Amy’s point is that it is shitty to have people do work for you and not compensate them financially. Her point is that that kind of behavior is inappropriate and hence shouldn’t be done by anyone.

To parallel that position your point would need to be that no one should exercise stock options because there is something inherently shitty about them.

Instead the position is that Al Gore and only Al Gore shouldn’t exercise stock options… because apparently he’s criticized the 1%.

I call BS. There needs to be come kind of coherent universal rule being violated here… instead all I see is a bitch fest about one guy simply because apparently you find him to be unappealing. That doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

If someone can explain to me the ethical problem with exercising a stock option that parallels the ethical wrong with having someone work for you and failing to pay them for their efforts I would most appreciate it.

Gog Says:

"Unless, of course, they were awarded those shares at a ludicrous strike price as a reward for behind-the-scenes quasi-legal assistance."

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

I agree that it is shitty to gain a financial advantage via behind-the-scenes quasi-legal operations... but to quote Hitchens:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

If you can prove your case then I'm with you, otherwise I don't see the problem.

"I still fail to see the actual logical link "

Yup. You have summed it up perfectly. Nothing else for me to add.

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: [aloud] Everybody out at once!

"I don't see the problem."

Agreed.

So let me get this straight.

A completely unsupported claim is made... I ask for evidence to support the claim... no evidence is offered to support the claim... and your response is to agree that "I don't see the problem" as if what I'm supposed to have done is just accept the unsupported claim blindly.

Exercising a stock option is simply not even remotely in the same ball park as failing to pay someone who does work for you.

One is a completely legitimate part of the financial system while the other takes advantage of the efforts of another individual (i.e. it is unethical to have someone work for you and not compensate them for that work)

The second of these is inherently on the wrong side of the ethical tracks while the former isn't unless something criminal or shady has taken place in terms of obtaining or exercising those stock options.

Unless you can back up the contention that Al Gore received or used those stock options in a criminal or shady manner you simply don't have a case... all you've got is an unsupported hunch that something went on. It is a conspiracy theory and nothing more until you present something tangible.

Frankly I'm not comfortable with the idea that people *shouldn't* participate in the financial system if someone else has a hunch that they are being shady.

If that was true we would have no financial system at all because many people speculate based on their own hunches that they entire financial system is rigged and shady... their evidence isn't so great and amounts to a form of a conspiracy theory as well because they apply it too broadly, but they actually have more to go on than you have presented with reference to Al because there is actual evidence that has surfaced where banks and other financial institutions have violated the law to do their business (e.g. the recent HSBC scandal with relation to laundering money for drug cartels).

The burden of proof is on you here. If you fail to make your case it is silly to hold the reader accountable.

What does this have to do with whether or not it is reasonable for him to exercise stock options which he has been awarded?

By exercising those stock options, Al Gore perpetuates a system of crony capitalism in which the connected (the 1%) get rich through deals to which the rest of us (the 99%) have no access - the very system Al Gore claims to be against.

Look at that, look at that

I should have learned to french the ribs

I should have learned to mince the onions

Look at that hostess, she got it sticking in the camera

Man we can have some fun

And he's up there, what's that? Hawaiian pizza?

Tossing the pie like a chimpanzee

Oh, that ain't working, that's the way you do it

Get your VC money for nothing, get your chefs for free

Conan the Grammarian Says:

"By exercising those stock options, Al Gore perpetuates a system of crony capitalism in which the connected (the 1%) get rich through deals to which the rest of us (the 99%) have no access - the very system Al Gore claims to be against."

Right... so your proposed solution is that if someone is not fully enamored with the financial system as it currently exists, the appropriate course of action is for them disengage from that financial system completely and let any money they might earn go down the drain while the people they might oppose continue to work within the system they see as predatory.

In otherwords... if someone doesn't fully agree with how our financial system works, they should live a life of poverty because that would be more convincing?

Except there are people who live lives of poverty who object to the way the financial system currently works and they are shouted down precisely because they aren't financially successful.

To put it bluntly, you can't have it both ways.

On the one hand, if you are phenomenally wealthy and criticize the the current state of affairs within the financial system... then you're a hypocrite of some kind.

On the other hand, if you aren't phenomenally wealthy and criticize the current state of affairs within the financial system... well then you're just jealous and trying to be a socialist who desires to redistribute wealth from the rich to you.

At least one of these positions needs to be a valid platform from which to criticize the financial system. Both could be valid too... but there is something logically incoherent about a position that suggests that one is either too rich or too poor to criticize the financial system. Can you describe for me the proper amount of wealth someone is allowed to have in order to have a valid position that opposes the current financial system?

If your description is too narrow that should suggest a problem with your line of reasoning.

Furthermore, I suspect that you won't find that same line of reasoning appealing when it comes to something like gun control.

Would it be valid to argue for example that if someone claims to be against violence and wants to live in a more peaceful society... that if they own a gun they aren't serious about the first claim?

Because that is what you are essentially arguing here. That if someone doesn't like the current state of affairs within our financial structures they should set themselves up to be as poor as possible. Just like if someone wants to live in a peaceful society they should set themselves up to be without any form of defense.

We know as a nation that the best way to promote peace within our boarders is to have a standing military. Similarly, it might be true that the best way to improve the financial system is to have very wealthy individuals push for those improvements (particularly because they won't be viewed as doing it for their own personal benefit).

The point being that exercising ones legally obtained stock options is not necessarily mutually exclusive with the position that a system of crony capitalism needs to be eliminated in favor of a system with fewer insiders.

Since these positions aren't mutually exclusive, the argument you are trying to make isn't valid.

Onion, you keep trying to make Al Gore out to be just an ordinary guy who dabbled in the market and got rich. Apparently, you actually have the ability to create your own little world and live in it.

Al Gore isn't getting rich using an e-Trade account and investing his grocery money in financial instruments in which the rest of us could also invest.

Al Gore is getting rich because he has personal and political connections to people who get him into deals the average person will never see.

Al Gore made a big deal as a public figure raging against exactly this kind of cronyism and old boy networks for the rich and powerful.

He also made a big deal about global warming and made a bundle from his books and movies castigating oil companies and Americans for the country's "oil addiction" ... and then sold his television network to the oil interests and retired back to his 28,000 foot mansion (1 of 7 that he owns) in Nashville that uses more electricity in one month than the average American household uses in an entire year.

Al Gore is a hypocrite.

[As was Carl Rowan when he advocated for a law that says, "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail — period" - yet fired his own (unregistered, and thus illegal) handgun wildly into his backyard one night and shot an unarmed trespasser skinny dipping in his pool.]

Conan the Grammarian Says:

“Al Gore is getting rich because he has personal and political connections to people who get him into deals the average person will never see.”

While I agree that he probably has “personal and policital connections” given that he is a former vice president, what you have failed to demonstrate is that it is by virtue of those connections alone that he was placed onto the board of a company as opposed to him having valid qualifications to serve in that capacity.

Without having any “personal and political connections” it certainly doesn’t hurt ones resume to have “Vice President of the United States” listed as one of their former jobs. That kind of a position would certainly entail all sorts of administrating and executive experience which I presume is relevant to making decisions on a companies board.

If extensive administrating and executorial qualifications don’t warrant consideration for being on a board of directors for a company then exactly what skill set is useful?

You are allowing your own political bias to distort your sense of logic here. Just because you happen not to like someone doesn’t instantaneously imply that they are unqualified for a particular job. It is merely your presumption that it was *only* obtained due to personal and political connections… but you haven’t even bothered to prove this point because you cannot possibly have any evidence to support it beyond your own theory crafting.

That doesn’t mean you are wrong… it simply means you have no justified logical connection between your premises and your conclusion.

Look, there are people who still believe Elvis is alive somewhere… the problem with that type of reasoning isn’t that they are necessarily wrong (i.e. it is technically possible for Elvis to be alive somewhere)… the problem is that they have zero credible evidence to support that position and hence they have failed in supplying their burden of proof.

That is what you are failing to do here. You are making bold claims for which you have presented zero evidence and then expecting me to accept those claims at face value.

“Al Gore made a big deal as a public figure raging against exactly this kind of cronyism and old boy networks for the rich and powerful.”

First of all, none of the quotes you have supplied actually support this claim. You have extended your interpretation of the quotes by a significant margin. For example, this statement here:

"The message -- and the solutions -- should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the economy went into a recession that continues to sock the middle class while the rich have recovered and prospered. The problem is that no one in Washington has been listening."

Doesn’t say anything about “cyonyism” or “old boy networks”. It is specifically talking about laws in Washington not adequately reflecting the how the recession affects individuals from disparate economic groups.

In the context of “occupy wall street” which you claim this quote came from the more reasonable interpretation would be that it is talking about tax structure and government bails outs and probably not “cronyism” specifically.

That being said, one would think that you would give Al some credit for exercising those stock options AFTER his personal taxes on that profit increased for the 2013 tax year as opposed to exercising them in December 2012 when he would pay less to the government for them. But apparently that part doesn’t fit your narrative so I guess it can just be ignored.

“He also made a big deal about global warming and made a bundle from his books and movies castigating oil companies and Americans for the country's "oil addiction" ... and then sold his television network to the oil interests and retired back to his 28,000 foot mansion (1 of 7 that he owns) in Nashville that uses more electricity in one month than the average American household uses in an entire year.”

Non-sequitur… this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the point about exercising stock options that one legally owns. If you honestly cannot see how this statement has zero to do with whether or not it is legitimate for someone to legally exercise a stock option I'm not sure how I can help you. I will try this example though:

It isn't a valid line of reasoning to assert that just because Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face while they were out sport hunting that it is unethical for him to attend a baseball game. See how that argument doesn't work?

That is what you are now trying to do when you say that because Al Gore dealt with a business he claims is unethical that is is now unethical for him to use other legal financial instruments. The part you seem to have missed is that these things are as distinct as sport hunting and baseball.

Now if this had been the original position as opposed to one dealing with a completely legitimate use of a financial instrument then I’d have been inclined to agree. It is shitty to do business with a company that you believe is unethical.

Too bad no one started at that point and instead tossed out an argument about stock options that was and is a complete dud.

Keep shoveling, Orion, there's a pony in there somewhere.

Gog,

I am continually amazed how many people toss logic and reason out the window when politics is involved.

Look, I'm not saying Al Gore is some sort of saint or anything. I'd be happy to criticize him or anyone else if the grounds are legitimate.

The problem I am trying to address here is that when criticizing someone who may not appeal to you, one still needs to make a valid argument with evidence to support the claim.

Without the evidence the statement amounts to little more than the gossip and drama one might expect from adolescents.

Adults should be able to do better than that. It doesn't do you any good to get in a huff because I expect someone to present evidence when they contend that someone else involved in some sort of insider financial conspiracy.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't... but your hunches and suspicions do not amount to evidence and they don't make for a good argument.

Based upon the events of today I'm actually more inclined to believe something is odd about the apple stock options. However that is because some circumstantial evidence has come to light. That circumstantial evidence doesn't make someone guilty, but it might warrant further investigation.

See how that works?... I wait for evidence before forming an opinion and continually reevaluate my opinion as new evidence emerges.

Doing otherwise amounts to little more than jumping to conclusions.