NationStates Jolt Archive

The managers of Anheuser Busch InBev will receive a super bonus in a few years when they reach their target.

Carlos Brito, the CEO will receive 80 million euro in 2013.
12 other top dogs will receive 28 million shares.

It seems that we didn’t learn anything from the current financial crisis.

IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF20090427_048

Props to him. I think that's bad ass that he can make that. He's gonna be living it up. Why do you care? Anheuser Busch isn't receiving federal money . . . so how is it anyone's business but theirs how much they make? Don't like it, don't drink their products.

As far as I know, the company isn't receiving any government money, and 80 million Euros isn't that much at all, as far as CEO's of very successful companies go. So what's the problem here?

As far as I know, the company isn't receiving any government money, and 80 million Euros isn't that much at all, as far as CEO's of very successful companies go. So what's the problem here?

This.

What's their goal? Infiltrating the European beer market to the point where 400 year old breweries close down? Hey, if they can manage it.

The managers of Anheuser Busch InBev will receive a super bonus in a few years when they reach their target.

Carlos Brito, the CEO will receive 80 million euro in 2013.
12 other top dogs will receive 28 million shares.

It seems that we didn’t learn anything from the current financial crisis.



Learned that no matter how much you over pay your CEO's the government will bail you out when you make a mistake ?

Props to him. I think that's bad ass that he can make that. He's gonna be living it up. Why do you care? Anheuser Busch isn't receiving federal money . . . so how is it anyone's business but theirs how much they make? Don't like it, don't drink their products.

You are so wrong. You can't be more wrong than this one.

First, the people working for Anheuser Busch received several salary stops in the last years. They suffered from several 'reorganisations' this, while the company was making sky reaching profits.

Secondly, they pushed their employers to go early in retirement. And thus costing the society more money as needed. They earn less money and thus spend less. And are costing the society more money due the early jump out.

So, it is my business. And should be yours as well.

As far as I know, the company isn't receiving any government money, and 80 million Euros isn't that much at all, as far as CEO's of very successful companies go. So what's the problem here?

You will not earn it in your entire lifetime. You may even add the future salaries of your children and your children their children.

So it's a lot of money.

Are we sure that the Beer Bubble will be the next to burst?

You will not earn it in your entire lifetime. You may even add the future salaries of your children and your children their children.

So it's a lot of money.

Yes it's a lot of money, but again, as far as CEO's to major companies like that go, it's not very much. There are loads of CEO's of smaller companies that are earning a lot more then that. I would say that this man may actually be taking quite a small profit margin. That being said, I still don't see what the problem is.

You are so wrong. You can't be more wrong than this one.

First, the people working for Anheuser Busch received several salary stops in the last years. They suffered from several 'reorganisations' this, while the company was making sky reaching profits.

Secondly, they pushed their employers to go early in retirement. And thus costing the society more money as needed. They earn less money and thus spend less. And are costing the society more money due the early jump out.

So, it is my business. And should be yours as well.

nope, you're completely unconvincing. What business is it of ours if their employees accept deals, still it is a contract between two willing people. MYOB...

You are so wrong. You can't be more wrong than this one.

First, the people working for Anheuser Busch received several salary stops in the last years. They suffered from several 'reorganisations' this, while the company was making sky reaching profits. A large part of their profits were from being bought, and a source of reorganization

Secondly, they pushed their employers to go early in retirement. And thus costing the society more money as needed. They earn less money and thus spend less. And are costing the society more money due the early jump out.


They also hire new employees to replace them and they spend money. In a time where their is an over abundance of labor, this is very profitable practice for a company. If GM had done this sooner we might not have had to bail them out.

So, it is my business. And should be yours as well.

The only thing that bothers me is to see American CEO's be given money in EUROs

My only question is why do people buy their shitty beers?

If the CEO can make them even vaguely palatable, then (s)he deserves that much.

nope, you're completely unconvincing. What business is it of ours if their employees accept deals, still it is a contract between two willing people. MYOB...

Due this super bonus system, the unions will strike soon.

If you know it all better, why will they strike?

If people were forced by the management to leave the company and go early in retirement, then the major cost of this retirement is for us. We are talking about people who quit working at ages 50-55.

What do you suggest should be done?

My only question is why do people buy their shitty beers?

If the CEO can make them even vaguely palatable, then (s)he deserves that much.

No ones deserves such bonus anymore. We are in the middle of one of the heaviest financial disasters since ever. Or did you already forgot?

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.

My only question is why do people buy their shitty beers?

If the CEO can make them even vaguely palatable, then (s)he deserves that much.

none of these palatable ?
http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/brands/brand_portfolio/multi_country_brands.cfm

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.

No, not really. But regardless, the beer industry had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis. Their company didn't cause any problems, in fact it seems to be doing pretty well.

What do you suggest should be done?

The bonuses should be brought to an acceptable level.

My only question is why do people buy their shitty beers?

If the CEO can make them even vaguely palatable, then (s)he deserves that much.

I like Becks.

No ones deserves such bonus anymore. We are in the middle of one of the heaviest financial disasters since ever. Or did you already forgot?

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.
But more to do with bad loans and derivatives that were encouraged by said bonus system. Unless you're borrowing money to buy beer, I'm unconvinced that the situation is comparable. That said, large bonuses may be considered bad PR, certainly.

No ones deserves such bonus anymore. We are in the middle of one of the heaviest financial disasters since ever. Or did you already forgot?

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.

So your mad he has more money then you will ever see?

Just because people have more money then you doesn't make them evil, it just makes them smarter.

The bonuses should be brought to an acceptable level.
Who decides?

No, not really. But regardless, the beer industry had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis. Their company didn't cause any problems, in fact it seems to be doing pretty well.

Not the beer industry as a whole, but the top-level management bonuses in general are partly a reason of the current crisis.

Oh my god, you don't read any newspapers and never watch the news?

No ones deserves such bonus anymore. We are in the middle of one of the heaviest financial disasters since ever. Or did you already forgot?

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.

As soon as you have some evidence linking overly large beer companies with the ongoing financial crisis, I'll start listening.

none of these palatable ?
http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/brands/brand_portfolio/multi_country_brands.cfm

No. I have not enjoyed any of those beers. At least, since they were bought by ABI.

Got an English language source for this? Or any source that is in a real language and not fucking Dutch.

From my limited business awareness and lack of information, it sounds like the Super Bonus is a potential, maximum award for the CEO, and the actual bonus will be a percentage of that based upon the actual success the company achieves. So, you're being outraged by his chickens before they've hatched.

Who decides?

The union will strike till the bonuses are lowered. So in this case the employees will decide.

The bonuses should be brought to an acceptable level.

By the Government?

none of these palatable ?
http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/brands/brand_portfolio/multi_country_brands.cfm
Those are all pretty terrible. I'd drink them if the alternative was dying sober, but even Heineken is better than that stuff.

Got an English language source for this? Or any source that is in a real language and not fucking Dutch.

From my limited business awareness and lack of information, it sounds like the Super Bonus is a potential, maximum award for the CEO, and the actual bonus will be a percentage of that based upon the actual success the company achieves. So, you're being outraged by his chickens before they've hatched.

Why don't you use a translator?

http://translate.google.be/translate?prev=hp&hl=nl&js=n&u=http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx%3FartikelId%3DDMF20090427_048&sl=nl&tl=en

Oh my god, you don't read any newspapers and never watch the news?

Better, not only do I read about the economy, I study it in university. I do not see any evidence that the bonuses that the managers of this beer corporation received contributed anything to the recession.

Those are all pretty terrible. I'd drink them if the alternative was dying sober, but even Heineken is better than that stuff.

They have two Brazilian beers that are really good as well.

They make their beers more for get drunkabilty then taste.

Not the beer industry as a whole, but the top-level management bonuses in general are partly a reason of the current crisis.

Oh my god, you don't read any newspapers and never watch the news?

Present some relevant, backing articles then. Right now your argument amounts to you not liking that someone makes more money than you, especially during an economic meltdown that is entirely unrelated to the industry, much less the company, in question so wah wah wah.

Present data, present a coherent and intelligent argument and attempt to present it with some degree of articulation and perhaps people will take this more seriously.

The union will strike till the bonuses are lowered. So in this case the employees will decide.
Or get fired? Which would cost the company more? And, just because they can strike, should they? Should employees determine the boss's bonus?

By the Government?

Could be an option as well. Several European countries are looking how to cut the bonus systems of the CEO's.

Why don't you use a translator?

http://translate.google.be/translate?prev=hp&hl=nl&js=n&u=http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx%3FartikelId%3DDMF20090427_048&sl=nl&tl=en
Because it is still in Dutch. Translated dutch, but I can still smell the legalized marijuana, wooden shoes and acid-washed jeans.

Could be an option as well. Several European countries are looking how to cut the bonus systems of the CEO's.

By forcing the company to alter its policies, or simply raising taxes?

Or get fired? Which would cost the company more? And, just because they can strike, should they? Should employees determine the boss's bonus?

No they should not. and striking employees attempting to affect the bosses pay level should be arrested and executed. Their assets handed to the company.

Because it is still in Dutch. Translated dutch, but I can still smell the legalized marijuana, wooden shoes and acid-washed jeans.You just don't want to pay your half of the tab :tongue:

Or get fired? Which would cost the company more? And, just because they can strike, should they? Should employees determine the boss's bonus?

In this case? Yes. Cause they accepted several salary stops and saw their colleagues leaving the company unnecessarily sooner.

They accepted this and now the top-management tries to enrich themselves from these happenings.

No they should not. and striking employees attempting to affect the bosses pay level should be arrested and executed. Their assets handed to the company.
Vachement? Executed?!? Work much?

They have two Brazilian beers that are really good as well.

They make their beers more for get drunkabilty then taste.
If I wanted to get drunk I'd lay into a bottle of whiskey. Cheaper, easier (no refrigeration necessary) and still better tasting.
But this is getting off topic.

By forcing the company to alter its policies, or simply raising taxes?

Raising taxes will not help and isn't the right thing to do. Forcing the company to lower the salary bonuses of the top management is an option.

Vachement? Executed?!? Work much?

You cant take it easy on Communist. To quote Chiang Kai Shek. Communism is a disease of the heart.

In this case? Yes. Cause they accepted several salary stops and saw their colleagues leaving the company unnecessarily sooner.

They accepted this and now the top-management tries to enrich themselves from these happenings.So, bad PR, and PO'd employees, but then, who decides when employees determine bonuses and when not? I'm not arguing that the bonuses are justified, but you have yet to convince that they are unjustified.

If I wanted to get drunk I'd lay into a bottle of whiskey. Cheaper, easier (no refrigeration necessary) and still better tasting.
But this is getting off topic.

is there a topic outside of crying about people making more then you ?

Raising taxes will not help and isn't the right thing to do. Forcing the company to lower the salary bonuses of the top management is an option.

That's nonsensical. If for some bizarre reason you do decide to limit their pay, taxing it will be beneficial since the government will also receive substantial revenue. And they probably already do receive a fair bit from him.

You cant take it easy on Communist. To quote Chiang Kai Shek. Communism is a disease of the heart.
So cut it out? It seems more apt to apply to your eye, aye?

Present some relevant, backing articles then. Right now your argument amounts to you not liking that someone makes more money than you, especially during an economic meltdown that is entirely unrelated to the industry, much less the company, in question so wah wah wah.

Present data, present a coherent and intelligent argument and attempt to present it with some degree of articulation and perhaps people will take this more seriously.

I did in the original posting.

So, bad PR, and PO'd employees, but then, who decides when employees determine bonuses and when not? I'm not arguing that the bonuses are justified, but you have yet to convince that they are unjustified.

IMHO they are too high and so is their union thinking as well.

So cut it out? It seems more apt to apply to your eye, aye?

yeah, my eye decides who the communist are.

is there a topic outside of crying about people making more then you ?
Yes, the metatopic is "who should determine management bonuses?"

That's nonsensical. If for some bizarre reason you do decide to limit their pay, taxing it will be beneficial since the government will also receive substantial revenue. And they probably already do receive a fair bit from him.

No it's not unlogical. If the government would raise a special tax for these kind of salaries, then the salaries would go up to match the taxes.

I did in the original posting.

No you didn't.

Yes, the metatopic is "who should determine management bonuses?"

Why not the government?

The same government is also pushing minimum salaries, so why can't they handle the maximum?

No it's not unlogical. If the government would raise a special tax for these kind of salaries, then the salaries would go up to match the taxes.

Have you not thought about the consequences of limiting their pay? Also how much do you want to limit it to?

No you didn't.

Yes, I did. There was an article from the Standaard.

If you are a little smart and not too lazy you can use a translator tool to understand it.

Raising taxes will not help and isn't the right thing to do. Forcing the company to lower the salary bonuses of the top management is an option.

My Government is in the hole 10 trillion bucks, so it would seem silly for it to give financial advice, let alone run companies.

Yes, the metatopic is "who should determine management bonuses?"

The share holders like they already do. No need to involve the grunts or the government.

Why not the government?

The same government is also pushing minimum salaries, so why can't they handle the maximum?
Hmmm . . . well, here in the Etats Unis, we have government by and for the rich, so would there be much difference?

Have you not thought about the consequences of limiting their pay? Also how much do you want to limit it to?

And what is the consequence? That they will not do the job? Come one...

If you are a little smart and not too lazy you can use a translator tool to understand it.

I already did, it didn't say anything about their bonuses contributing to the recession.

Hmmm . . . well, here in the Etats Unis, we have government by and for the rich, so would there be much difference?

Your own president is talking rather a lot about those high salaries. It's clear that he doesn't like it...

The share holders like they already do. No need to involve the grunts or the government.Really? Please provide examples. Boards of directors, perhaps, but the actual shareholders themselves?

Hmmm . . . well, here in the Etats Unis, we have government by and for the rich, so would there be much difference?

I'd like to contribute this and sayings like it, a typical, whining, leftist catchphrase that means nothing, to that thread we have going that says "What offends you?" :rolleyes:

I already did, it didn't say anything about their bonuses contributing to the recession.

The over the top bonus system is one of the sources of the current financial catastrophe.

The top management of several big banks (and other companies) worked on the short term to cash in their nice bonuses. The result is what we can see today.

Your own president is talking rather a lot about those high salaries. It's clear that he doesn't like it...But can he do anything about it, except in the case of companies that have received government money? Don't forget, Obama is rich, too . . .

And what is the consequence? That they will not do the job? Come one...

All sorts of things. They may relocate the base of operations to a country that doesn't cap the wage. They may relocate the profit to an offshore account that the government can't touch. If you really lower their wages to an extent where they are not even 'rich' any more, then that will be a major disincentive towards entrepreneurship and will likely severely reduce the amount of businesses started in that country and may cause a huge amount to relocate.

The over the top bonus system is one of the sources of the current financial catastrophe.

The top management of several big banks (and other companies) worked on the short term to cash in their nice bonuses. The result is what we can see today.But you have yet to show that the same is true with beer companies. Again, I refer to the bursting of the Beer Bubble.

My only question is why do people buy their shitty beers?

If the CEO can make them even vaguely palatable, then (s)he deserves that much.
They make over 300 beers, including Sun Dog, Beach Bum, Jack's Pumpkin Spice, Hoegaarden, Leffe, Franziskaner, Spaten (and the Spaten octoberfest). The ones I listed in particular are delicious.
No ones deserves such bonus anymore. We are in the middle of one of the heaviest financial disasters since ever. Or did you already forgot?

The current crisis has partly its roots in the overpaid bonus systems of the top-level management.
And the best way to end a financial crisis is to stop paying people for successfully running a business?
The current crisis has some roots in poorly performing companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy giving bonuses. Not corporations that are turning profits.

The bonuses should be brought to an acceptable level.
What is acceptable, and who are you to say they should be?
Not the beer industry as a whole, but the top-level management bonuses in general are partly a reason of the current crisis.

Oh my god, you don't read any newspapers and never watch the news?Not the beer industry at all. It is a publicly held corporation...not nationalized. So long as they are generating profits, they are fulfilling their duties to their shareholders. They are accepting no money from any government, and are still turning profits (if anything, they are making more this year than they did last year).

The beer industry has done nothing to drive us into a financial crisis.

Not one of you, including me, will ever enter the inner circle of the top management of a big company. It's a kind of noveau nobility where they care each other ass.

Mister X is CEO of company Y where mister Z is chairman of the board.

This mister Z is CEO of company W where mister X is chairman of the board.

You cover my ass and I'll cover yours.

The over the top bonus system is one of the sources of the current financial catastrophe.


No it isn't. The toxic assets that were being traded at huge volumes whilst nobody could really quantify their value, is the source of the catastrophe. The only thing you could theoretically argue is that the salaries of some of these bankers is what motivated them to take this risk. However, the beer company had nothing to do with the handling of these assets, they didn't contribute to the financial crash. They in fact seem to be doing pretty well.

They make over 300 beers, including Sun Dog, Beach Bum, Jack's Pumpkin Spice, Hoegaarden, Leffe, Franziskaner, Spaten (and the Spaten octoberfest). The ones I listed in particular are delicious.
Franziskaner, Spaten und Hoegaarden are all wonderful and I love you for loving them. :D

Not one of you, including me, will ever enter the inner circle of the top management of a big company.
How the fuck do you know that? Are you Miss Cleo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Cleo)?

They make over 300 beers, including Sun Dog, Beach Bum, Jack's Pumpkin Spice, Hoegaarden, Leffe, Franziskaner, Spaten (and the Spaten octoberfest). The ones I listed in particular are delicious.

And the best way to end a financial crisis is to stop paying people for successfully running a business?
The current crisis has some roots in poorly performing companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy giving bonuses. Not corporations that are turning profits.


What is acceptable, and who are you to say they should be?
Not the beer industry at all. It is a publicly held corporation...not nationalized. So long as they are generating profits, they are fulfilling their duties to their shareholders. They are accepting no money from any government, and are still turning profits (if anything, they are making more this year than they did last year).

The beer industry has done nothing to drive us into a financial crisis.

What is acceptable? I don't know, I would say 1 or 2 million euro would be enough for a nice meal. But let politicians debate about it. It should be possible to calculate a figure.

The beer industry is not responsible for the current crisis, again, partly it’s the bonus system of the top management in general. A system that this beer industry wants to use in the current crisis.

Hoegaarden tastes like whore piss mixed with water from my garden. In that respect, it is aptly named.

If the flavour and lack of decent ingredients of the beers I have sampled is any indication of the rest of them, then I am not missing out on anything.

How do they get that awful chemical smell in each and every bottle?

It should be possible to calculate a figure.


No, actually, not really. It's impossible to 'calculate' how much money somebody deserves to earn.

Not one of you, including me, will ever enter the inner circle of the top management of a big company. It's a kind of noveau nobility where they care each other ass.

Mister X is CEO of company Y where mister Z is chairman of the board.

This mister Z is CEO of company W where mister X is chairman of the board.

You cover my ass and I'll cover yours.
Actually, yes, you can become top management of a publicly held corporation. Check out how Steve Jobs did it. Or any of the huge numbers of people in the tech sector (as well as several other sectors).
And no, I don't particularly want my ass covered by anyone, as there is no need. Their success does not prevent mine.

Franziskaner, Spaten und Hoegaarden are all wonderful and I love you for loving them. :D
Love them. I think I might get some Hoegaarden and get nice and daydrunk tomorrow.

Hoegaarden tastes like whore piss mixed with water from my garden. In that respect, it is aptly named.

If the flavour and lack of decent ingredients of the beers I have sampled is any indication of the rest of them, then I am not missing out on anything.

How do they get that awful chemical smell in each and every bottle?

What beers do you like?

No, actually, not really. It's impossible to 'calculate' how much money somebody deserves to earn.

No it's not. In my country there are minimum wages. So a maximum can be figured out as well. Just label a number on it.

As a matter of fact, pay raises are also regulated by the government.

No it's not. In my country there are minimum wages. So a maximum can be figured out as well. Just label a number on it.

As a matter of fact, pay raises are also regulated by the government.

A minimum wage is calculated by how much you need in order to live (in theory). A maximum wage is calculated by how much somebody 'deserves' to earn. The former can more easily be calculated. The latter is completely a value judgement, that serves little purpose other than to feel good about yourself.

Hoegaarden tastes like whore piss mixed with water from my garden. In that respect, it is aptly named.

If the flavour and lack of decent ingredients of the beers I have sampled is any indication of the rest of them, then I am not missing out on anything.

How do they get that awful chemical smell in each and every bottle?

I'm curious as to how you know this.

Actually, yes, you can become top management of a publicly held corporation. Check out how Steve Jobs did it. Or any of the huge numbers of people in the tech sector (as well as several other sectors).
And no, I don't particularly want my ass covered by anyone, as there is no need. Their success does not prevent mine.


Love them. I think I might get some Hoegaarden and get nice and daydrunk tomorrow.

Sure, the American dream. And how many reach that level, 1 in 1,000,000,000 ?

I don't know for Jobs, but Bill Gates by instance didn't originate from a poor family.

If your father is not a CEO of a big company then odds are low that you'll be a CEO of big one as well.

If your father is not a CEO of a big company then odds are low that you'll be a CEO of big one as well.

Of course it is low. Most people can't create a product that will sell millions.

Hoegaarden tastes like whore piss mixed with water from my garden. In that respect, it is aptly named.

If the flavour and lack of decent ingredients of the beers I have sampled is any indication of the rest of them, then I am not missing out on anything.

How do they get that awful chemical smell in each and every bottle?
You have gone down 230923092 notches in my book. By the way, Franziskaner and Spaten (while not tasting the same) taste different than Hoegaarden. They are all different beers.

Love them. I think I might get some Hoegaarden and get nice and daydrunk tomorrow.
Dude, I'd love to also. Mind if I join in?
:p

A minimum wage is calculated by how much you need in order to live (in theory). A maximum wage is calculated by how much somebody 'deserves' to earn. The former can more easily be calculated. The latter is completely a value judgement, that serves little purpose other than to feel good about yourself.

No one deserves 80 million euro or more. That's the whole point. I don't underestimate the efforts of brilliant CEO's, but that wouldn't say we have to overpay them.

What beers do you like?

I prefer locally made beers, as they are usually made in smaller batches and don,t get shipped across the world. Ignoring the environmental and economic benefits to my community, I selfishly like them because no chemicals are used to hasten the aging process, give it a smoother taste, or keep it from going bad as it gets shipped across the ocean in a tanker.

My mother is actually allergic to these chemicals, and I find they make my hangover alot worse.

I also like beers that taste better as they warm up. Stouts and red ales are usually where I go. AB InBev has yet to make abeer that I find tastier at room temperature.

Of course it is low. Most people can't create a product that will sell millions.

And do you really think that all CEO's are some kind of super beings? Get real.

No one deserves 80 million euro or more.

Prove it.

And do you really think that all CEO's are some kind of super beings? Get real.

Of course not. But I really don't see your point. It is very unlikely that you will get a job that is very difficult to get. Well duh.

I prefer locally made beers, as they are usually made in smaller batches and don,t get shipped across the world. Ignoring the environmental and economic benefits to my community, I selfishly like them because no chemicals are used to hasten the aging process, give it a smoother taste, or keep it from going bad as it gets shipped across the ocean in a tanker.

My mother is actually allergic to these chemicals, and I find they make my hangover alot worse.

I also like beers that taste better as they warm up. Stouts and red ales are usually where I go. AB InBev has yet to make abeer that I find tastier at room temperature.

Have you ever thought that perhaps your standards are a little high?

You have gone down 230923092 notches in my book. By the way, Franziskaner and Spaten (while not tasting the same) taste different than Hoegaarden. They are all different beers.


Dude, I'd love to also. Mind if I join in?
:p

If you want a good Belgian beer, try Duvel, Geuze, Westvleteren or Chimay.

For everyday purposes a regular Jupiler beer will do.

I'm curious as to how you know this.

My ex-wife is too.

What is acceptable? I don't know, I would say 1 or 2 million euro would be enough for a nice meal. But let politicians debate about it. It should be possible to calculate a figure.
Or we could, you know, let the owners of the corporation debate about it. As one of the most held stocks, there are plenty of people with a say in that. If they dislike who is running the corporation or how they are doing it, they are more than welcome to file a vote of no confidence and have him replaced. It's happened before, and will likely happen again.
The beer industry is not responsible for the current crisis, again, partly it’s the bonus system of the top management in general. A system that this beer industry wants to use in the current crisis.
No...the system that aided in the financial crisis was a system in which companies that were hemorhaging money and on poor financial standing proceeded to give massive bonuses to it's employees even as they were about to go into bankruptcy, and even while they were accepting government funding.
AB Inbev is on solid financial footing, is turning massive profits, and is increasing revenue. There is a huge difference between giving a bonus while you lose money and giving a bonus while you make money.
Hoegaarden tastes like whore piss mixed with water from my garden. In that respect, it is aptly named.

If the flavour and lack of decent ingredients of the beers I have sampled is any indication of the rest of them, then I am not missing out on anything.

How do they get that awful chemical smell in each and every bottle?
I'd suggest Spaten and Franziskaner (particularly the Octoberfest and Weissbier, respectively). And, actually, AB's American Ale is pretty decent.

I've always been impressed by the psychological factor that goes into drinking sometimes...I've seen people who discover a beer they like is made by one of the big brewers, and suddenly, "they must have changed the recipe". Not saying that's what you're necessarily doing...but to unilaterally declare that 300+ beers all suck is along the lines of all the "All American beers suck" claim.

I did in the original posting.

How does an article that is simply reporting a controversial bonus and its resultant pissed off employees in any way support an argument for a government mandated pay cap or that a relatively successful company in a relatively stable industry (which is, relatively, quite a feat right now) is some how representative of the problems that brought about the current crisis? You will have to expand upon this or find data that better supports your premises.

No one deserves 80 million euro or more. That's the whole point. I don't underestimate the efforts of brilliant CEO's, but that wouldn't say we have to overpay them.

Why, exactly, does no one deserve that much? Can you give an approximation of the rules that would place a "correct" monetary value upon an employee's actions? Just an approximation, mind you, nothing specific.

Sure, the American dream. And how many reach that level, 1 in 1,000,000,000 ?

I don't know for Jobs, but Bill Gates by instance didn't originate from a poor family.

If your father is not a CEO of a big company then odds are low that you'll be a CEO of big one as well.Being difficult to achieve is not the same as impossible. Not to mention, that still doesn't justify limiting pay..."Wah! You make more money than I could ever hope to! That isn't fair!". Tough.

You have gone down 230923092 notches in my book. By the way, Franziskaner and Spaten (while not tasting the same) taste different than Hoegaarden. They are all different beers.


Dude, I'd love to also. Mind if I join in?
:p
I'm down...I finally have a day off, and it's supposed to be 85 here. I plan on chilling on the porch, drinking, grilling, and reading all day. More than welcome to drag up a chair.

Have you ever thought that perhaps your standards are a little high?

Yes, but then I drank a good beer and actually enjoyed it, and I realised why I have these standards.

...
I'd suggest Spaten and Franziskaner (particularly the Octoberfest and Weissbier, respectively). And, actually, AB's American Ale is pretty decent.

I've always been impressed by the psychological factor that goes into drinking sometimes...I've seen people who discover a beer they like is made by one of the big brewers, and suddenly, "they must have changed the recipe"

It could be psychological. I used to like Stella Artois.

But I think it has more to do with me getting more finicky as I get older. I think when I was younger, the crap they put in as additives didn't bother me as much, but now it has far more adverse effects, and so my body really tastes them.

I have the same problem with Labatt's and Molson's, but don't tell the other Canadians.

Of course not. But I really don't see your point. It is very unlikely that you will get a job that is very difficult to get. Well duh.

I followed 5 years of computer science at an university with a good reputation (UFSIA).
Followed by 2 years of midsize company management at one of the best management post-university schools (Vlerick) of the country.

I’ll attend KUL in September for a one year post university course on usability.

I’m working for 15 years in the software development business in al kind of roles, but most of the time as requirement, functional or usability annalist. It’s a very difficult job. My pay is well, but not 80 million a year.

And what's your background?

I've always been impressed by the psychological factor that goes into drinking sometimes...I've seen people who discover a beer they like is made by one of the big brewers, and suddenly, "they must have changed the recipe". Not saying that's what you're necessarily doing...but to unilaterally declare that 300+ beers all suck is along the lines of all the "All American beers suck" claim.

That's because in most cases beer snobbery is as bad, if not worse, than wine snobbery. Personally, I enjoy a Bud Light the way I enjoy a Pepsi or Coke. Are there better beers? Assuredly. Do I know this one is mildly refreshing, tastes fine, is inexpensive and easy to find almost anywhere? Also assuredly true.

I followed 5 years of computer science at an university with a good reputation (UFSIA).
Followed by 2 years of midsize company management at one of the best management post-university schools (Vlerick) of the country.

I’ll attend KUL in September for a one year post university course on usability.

I’m working for 15 years in the software development business in al kind of roles, but most of the time as requirement, functional or usability annalist. It’s a very difficult job. My pay is well, but not 80 million a year.

And what's your background?

Where are you going with this?

Where are you going with this?

Judging by previous posts, nowhere relevant but most definitely angsty.

Yes, but then I drank a good beer and actually enjoyed it, and I realised why I have these standards.


Do you drink cider by any chance?

Or we could, you know, let the owners of the corporation debate about it. As one of the most held stocks, there are plenty of people with a say in that. If they dislike who is running the corporation or how they are doing it, they are more than welcome to file a vote of no confidence and have him replaced. It's happened before, and will likely happen again.

No, cause they interfere society sooner or later. When the top management is weeding the old (expensive) employees the major cost is for the society. So society has the right to be on table.


No...the system that aided in the financial crisis was a system in which companies that were hemorhaging money and on poor financial standing proceeded to give massive bonuses to it's employees even as they were about to go into bankruptcy, and even while they were accepting government funding.
AB Inbev is on solid financial footing, is turning massive profits, and is increasing revenue. There is a huge difference between giving a bonus while you lose money and giving a bonus while you make money.

Most of the banks were making profits for decades. Some did this for 50 years or more. And suddenly it was al over.

Where are you going with this?

Your words of wisdom:

"... It is very unlikely that you will get a job that is very difficult to get..."

So what's your background and what's your age?

Your words of wisdom:

"... It is very unlikely that you will get a job that is very difficult to get..."


Right. So was it incredibly unlikely that you got that job. As unlikely as it was for you to be a CEO?


So what's your background and what's your age?

Why do you need to know?

Right. So was it incredibly unlikely that you got that job. As unlikely as it was for you to be a CEO?

You were not talking about a CEO job but a job.

A decent amount of the people here followed university or college. It's not such a big deal. Becoming CEO of a Sony is another animal.

You are comparing things which are not comparable.


Why do you need to know?

And why not?

Do you drink cider by any chance?

Every now and then.

Quebec has a very good cider industry. Usually apple or pear cider. I like it as a sort of summer breakfast drink.

Why do you need to know?
He wants to use his commie mind tricks on you, duh.
I'm down...I finally have a day off, and it's supposed to be 85 here. I plan on chilling on the porch, drinking, grilling, and reading all day. More than welcome to drag up a chair.
Honestly, that sounds amazing. I'd kill for that right now.

He wants to use his commie mind tricks on you, duh.



One is not a communist when you like to regulate the top salaries of the top management. What is a communist according you, boy?

"In a meeting, that was clearly not a social event, Bankers and CEO's tried to explain to the President about their need for high salaries. The President made it very clear to the powerhouses of finance, that their explanations were not acceptable and then proceeded to tell them, what he expected of them. "

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mobs-and-pitchforks-obama-lays-down-law-bank-ceos

So Obama is a communist as well? Ridiculous

No, cause they interfere society sooner or later. When the top management is weeding the old (expensive) employees the major cost is for the society. So society has the right to be on table.Those employees can sue if they are fired only because they are older. Shareholders can vote to prevent such practices. That doesn't give society in general the right to dictate CEO pay.



Most of the banks were making profits for decades. Some did this for 50 years or more. And suddenly it was al over.
And yet, when the good times ended, the banks kept giving bonuses.
AB Inbev is making money right now. They are still in good times. There is no reason for them to act like they aren't.
Honestly, that sounds amazing. I'd kill for that right now.Fly into Logan Itl and I'm more than happy to have you...haha

"In a meeting, that was clearly not a social event, Bankers and CEO's tried to explain to the President about their need for high salaries. The President made it very clear to the powerhouses of finance, that their explanations were not acceptable and then proceeded to tell them, what he expected of them. "

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mobs-and-pitchforks-obama-lays-down-law-bank-ceos

So Obama is a communist as well? Ridiculous

that is directed at banks that have taken federal funds. Huge ammounts of them, in fact. And yet, were still giving huge bonuses. That is unrelated to the situation at AB InBev

"In a meeting, that was clearly not a social event, Bankers and CEO's tried to explain to the President about their need for high salaries. The President made it very clear to the powerhouses of finance, that their explanations were not acceptable and then proceeded to tell them, what he expected of them. "

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mobs-and-pitchforks-obama-lays-down-law-bank-ceos

So Obama is a communist as well? Ridiculous

What Obama says and what Obama does are two different things.
For instance the AIG bonus issue. As soon as the media got tired of running a circus with that the government stopped trying to get back the money.

It could be psychological. I used to like Stella Artois.

But I think it has more to do with me getting more finicky as I get older. I think when I was younger, the crap they put in as additives didn't bother me as much, but now it has far more adverse effects, and so my body really tastes them.

I have the same problem with Labatt's and Molson's, but don't tell the other Canadians.
I've never liked Labatt or Molson, but then, I'm not Canadian. I'm not supposed to ;)

I know many of the beers are produced under German purity rules, but not sure exactly which of the 300 are and are not. I still love me some good Bud Light in some days, but wouldn't touch the stuff other days. All depends on what mood I'm in. I'd never drink anything heavier than Moosehead on a beach, but would rarely touch the stuff in October.

Belgian minister wants to address the top incomes

http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article541100.ece/Belgische_minister_wil_topinkomens_aanpakken

Dutch Minister Bos wants to address the top salaries

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article466925.ece/Bos_gaat_topinkomens_aanpakken

Top Salary again under fire

http://www.depers.nl/economie/187247/Toploon-weer-onder-vuur.html


But be blind for the reality.

One is not a communist when you like to regulate the top salaries of the top management. What is a communist according you, boy?
Someone who wants a government so powerful that it can supress the freedom of private citizens to earn whatever they can with private (read: non public) money.

Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you? What right do you have?

Belgian minister wants to address the top incomes

http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article541100.ece/Belgische_minister_wil_topinkomens_aanpakken

Dutch Minister Bos wants to address the top salaries

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article466925.ece/Bos_gaat_topinkomens_aanpakken

Top Salary again under fire

http://www.depers.nl/economie/187247/Toploon-weer-onder-vuur.html


But be blind for the reality.

They can want to. They can debate to. That doesn't make it justified, and in no way supports your argument aside from basically saying "See? Other people agree with me!".

And if you are going to continue to use only non-English sources, it is generally considered good etiquette to translate them, considering this is an English speaking forum

Someone who wants a government so powerful that it can supress the freedom of private citizens to earn whatever they can with private (read: non public) money.

Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you? What right do you have?

Fuck fuck? Are you caravan trash or something? Why are you using such language?

Listen wannabe Scareface, YOU will never make 80 million Euros a year. YOU will even not make it in your entire lifetime. So you are not personally involved.

Secondly, I will not waste more time on you. Because you're not capable to formulate the rather easy definition of communism.

You have no clue, why should I waste time on you?

Fuck fuck? Are you caravan trash or something? Why are you using such language?

Listen wannabe Scareface, YOU will never make 80 million Euros a year. YOU will even not make it in your entire lifetime. So you are not personally involved.

Secondly, I will not waste more time on you. Because you're not capable to formulate the rather easy definition of communism.

You have no clue, why should I waste time on you?

By your own logic, he IS involved, even if he will never come near 80 million euros a year.
Not to mention that he did, in fact, provide you with his definition of communism as to how it relates to this thread.

They can want to. They can debate to. That doesn't make it justified, and in no way supports your argument aside from basically saying "See? Other people agree with me!".

And if you are going to continue to use only non-English sources, it is generally considered good etiquette to translate them, considering this is an English speaking forum

I translated the titles for you and they were speaking for themselves.

It are not just 'other' people that agree with me. But top ministers, unions, economic experts....

Btw, I read French and German papers as well. The same sounds are heard overthere too.

By your own logic, he IS involved, even if he will never come near 80 million euros a year.
Not to mention that he did, in fact, provide you with his definition of communism as to how it relates to this thread.

He was suggesting he did or could:

'Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you?'

Raising taxes will not help and isn't the right thing to do. Forcing the company to lower the salary bonuses of the top management is an option.

As a resident of a third world nation who currently earns a dollar a day*, I demand that you have your undeserved first world income capped to $22 per day.

*speaking hypothetically, I'm not really from a third world country

IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.


I cant make any Euros, :(



lol

I translated the titles for you and they were speaking for themselves.

It are not just 'other' people that agree with me. But top ministers, unions, economic experts....

Btw, I read French and German papers as well. The same sounds are heard overthere too.

Ah....so we're arguing from authority, now? A well-known person saying something that is wrong does not make it less wrong.

I translated the titles for you and they were speaking for themselves.Um...no. Just translating the titles of articles is not enough, as it provides absolutly no context, support, etc. Try translating at the very least a relevant excerpt.

It are not just 'other' people that agree with me. But top ministers, unions, economic experts....Appeal to authority. Yes, politicians (who are not businessmen), unions (who are not businessmen) and some economic experts (I have no idea who they are, as the articles aren't translated, so I can't even make out their arguments) agree with you. Two of those are not relevant at all. One of them, I can't say how valid it is. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say there are plenty of economic experts who argue that cutting bonuses while a company is performing well is a bad idea.

Btw, I read French and German papers as well. The same sounds are heard overthere tooI couldn't care less what language the articles are written in. You are debating on an English forum, and as such, providing English translations of all or part of an article (and yes, more than just the headline) is considered polite.

He was suggesting he did or could:

'Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you?'

Uh huh. Expand it out. If you are not in a place to dictate how much he can make, then who are you to dictate what any other individual can make? He has every right to bust his ass and make however much he can. Unless you are employing him (be it directly as his employer or indirectly as a shareholder in the company that employes him), you are in no position to decide that.

Ah....so we're arguing from authority, now? A well-known person saying something that is wrong does not make it less wrong.

You are mistaken. It's not about one or a few guys that are thinking about the idea. No, it's currently a hot topic in the media. We are rather good informed by the ideas of the politicians, SME's, unions and other stakeholders.

As far as I can see, is it not only a topic in 1 or 2 European countries, but at least in 5 or 6 (and probably even more).

In the link of the initial post, the news was about the unions going mad due the high salaries.

Are they all mistaken? Just because some boys here stay at their mantra that it isn't possible, wouldn't say that a solution isn't available.

Uh huh. Expand it out. If you are not in a place to dictate how much he can make, then who are you to dictate what any other individual can make? He has every right to bust his ass and make however much he can. Unless you are employing him (be it directly as his employer or indirectly as a shareholder in the company that employes him), you are in no position to decide that.


Or the government rules that all companies can't pay salaries and bonuses higher than a specific amount.

Fuck fuck? Are you caravan trash or something? Why are you using such language?
If you liked that, you'll love some of this:

Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana,
and codeine and goddamit, you little motherfucker
If you aint got nothin' nice to say then don't say nothin'
uh..
Fuck that shit, bitch, eat a motherfuckin' dick
Chew on a prick, and lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfucking gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch, eat pussy
And have pussy-lips glued to my face with a clit-ring in my nose
Then quit bringin my flows, quit giving me my ammo
Can't you see why i'm so mean? if y'all leave me alone, this wouldn't be my
m.o.
I wouldn't have to go eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a homo by his toe, man i don't know no more
Am i the only fuckin one who's normal any more?

Bad words scare you?

Listen wannabe Scareface, YOU will never make 80 million Euros a year.You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.
YOU will even not make it in your entire lifetime. So you are not personally involved.
Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.

Because you're not capable to formulate the rather easy definition of communism.
It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.

You have no clue, why should I waste time on you?
You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.
He was suggesting he did or could:

'Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you?'
I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.
Or the government rules that all companies can't pay salaries and bonuses higher than a specific amount.
You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

You are mistaken. It's not about one or a few guys that are thinking about the idea. No, it's currently a hot topic in the media. We are rather good informed by the ideas of the politicians, SME's, unions and other stakeholders.

As far as I can see, is it not only a topic in 1 or 2 European countries, but at least in 5 or 6 (and probably even more).

In the link of the initial post, the news was about the unions going mad due the high salaries.

Are they all mistaken? Just because some boys here stay at their mantra that it isn't possible, wouldn't say that a solution isn't available.

I am wrong, but not for the reasons you seem to believe. It's an appeal to authority, not argument from authority. I'm tired and mis-labeled the fallacy you are repeatedly falling victim to within this thread.

Like you said, the link of the initial post is reporting on angry unions because of a prospective bonus. Populist outrage, in any of its forms, does not constitute a valid argument.

I agree, though. It is worth our while to stay informed of politicians' ideas and rhetoric--I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. However, that neither constitutes a valid argument nor does it even lay a firm foundation for one.

I sincerely hope you were lying about being an analyst as, at least from this thread, your powers of analysis and report are....nothing to speak of. Useful analysis requires an indifferent and critical eye that can logically extrapolate and explain from a given or attained set of data. You have not done this to any degree in this thread.

You are mistaken. It's not about one or a few guys that are thinking about the idea. No, it's currently a hot topic in the media. We are rather good informed by the ideas of the politicians, SME's, unions and other stakeholders.

As far as I can see, is it not only a topic in 1 or 2 European countries, but at least in 5 or 6 (and probably even more).

In the link of the initial post, the news was about the unions going mad due the high salaries.

Are they all mistaken? Just because some boys here stay at their mantra that it isn't possible, wouldn't say that a solution isn't available.
Uh huh. And on the other side of this debate are several economists, politicians, and other random assorted people who are against governments dictating a maximum wage. None of us said it isn't possible. We said it is wrong to do. It isn't justified. It can be done, it just shouldn't be.
Or the government rules that all companies can't pay salaries and bonuses higher than a specific amount.
Yes. We know that the government CAN do this. Our argument is that they are unjustified and going beyond the bounds of their jurisdiction to do so.

It seems that we didn’t learn anything from the current financial crisis.

And what lesson was this that breweries shouldn't make loans of beer to people who can't afford to repay it?

No. I have not enjoyed any of those beers. At least, since they were bought by ABI.

You don't enjoy Leffe or Hoegaarden?

Franciskaner? :confused:

How about Sparten? Or St. Pauli Girl?

Becks is alright but not that great, same goes for Lowenbrau.

Have you had every single one of their beers?

You don't enjoy Leffe or Hoegaarden?

Franciskaner? :confused:

How about Sparten? Or St. Pauli Girl?

Becks is alright but not that great, same goes for Lowenbrau.

Have you had every single one of their beers?

St. Pauli Girl: Beer for people who like to piss a lot, without that pesky inebriation.

(oops...looks like they make several types...St. Pauli NA is the only one available around here)

St. Pauli Girl: Beer for people who like to piss a lot, without that pesky inebriation.

(oops...looks like they make several types...St. Pauli NA is the only one available around here)

True but I know you aren't going to tell me off for liking Hoegaarden, Sparten, or Franciskaner.

True but I know you aren't going to tell me off for liking Hoegaarden, Sparten, or Franciskaner.

love those. mmmmmm...

The managers of Anheuser Busch InBev will receive a super bonus in a few years when they reach their target.

Carlos Brito, the CEO will receive 80 million euro in 2013.
12 other top dogs will receive 28 million shares.

It seems that we didn’t learn anything from the current financial crisis.

IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF20090427_048

Fail.

I don't really care what Budweiser/Inbev does. None of my business. I don't work for them or buy their products. Yes, it's a lot of money. Yes, the general economy is struggling. So what? Maybe he'll decide to build a mansion here in the NW USA, and I'll be able to get a job as a draftsman again. One way or another, it will be distributed into the general economy.

love those. mmmmmm...

Indeed I can't wait for the soccer game this Saturday, we finish at 12:30 we are away at the main German settlement and I will be in their pub drinking litre steins of Sparten for lunch and maybe a Franciskaner as well.

Thinking about it makes me want to drive up to the hills now and drink some.

Personally I agree that 80M to a CEO is immoral, in many ways, but I can't justify a law against it either so while I'd prefer to see greater equality in pay across the spectrum, I can't see a reasonable means of enforcing it in a way that doesn't screw things up.

I've never liked Labatt or Molson, but then, I'm not Canadian. I'm not supposed to ;)

I know many of the beers are produced under German purity rules, but not sure exactly which of the 300 are and are not. I still love me some good Bud Light in some days, but wouldn't touch the stuff other days. All depends on what mood I'm in. I'd never drink anything heavier than Moosehead on a beach, but would rarely touch the stuff in October.

I wonder if the beers made for export have to follow the purity laws?

Local beer is always the best.

You don't enjoy Leffe or Hoegaarden?

Franciskaner? :confused:

How about Sparten? Or St. Pauli Girl?

Becks is alright but not that great, same goes for Lowenbrau.

Have you had every single one of their beers?

No. Leffe and Hoegaarden suck. Sorry, it's true. Beck's and Lowenbrau are also bad. Haven't tried the others.

Local beer is always the best.

Why?

Almost smells like nationalism.

No. Leffe and Hoegaarden suck. Sorry, it's true.

This belongs in the "Shit I can't back up thread". :p

Haven't tried the others.

Well you should.

I wonder if the beers made for export have to follow the purity laws?

Local beer is always the best.Oh, I'll agree that local beers are usually better...it's a rare trip to the bar that I don't go with a Magic Hat or Harpoon or Sam Adams. But it isn't so much only because they are local. And the macros can still make a good brew.

So far as I know, the beers don't have to comply with purity laws, but it is a selling point. If they advertise that they comply, then they must.

Why?

Almost smells like nationalism.

See my reasons upthread. Mostly chemicals used in transcontinental shipping.

This belongs in the "Shit I can't back up thread". :p

No! I can back up my opinion! Somehow....

Well you should.

Why? I already don't like everything else I've tried.

See my reasons upthread. Mostly chemicals used in transcontinental shipping.

I did see them but local beers aren't always the best I have had beer from many microbreweries and some were good very good but some were quite bad. In fact the the two larger local brewers in my home state and our local beers are absolute shite. I would rather drink Fosters than either of these beers.

No! I can back up my opinion! Somehow....

:)

Why? I already don't like everything else I've tried.

Because they are good beers, and are different beers with different tastes. Considering the amount of beers they sell it would be foolish to say I have had one of their beers before so I hate all of their beers.

Why? I already don't like everything else I've tried.

The strongest argument against this line of thought is because of the nature of a corporation such as AB InBev. These corporations purchase successful rivals, taking over the finances, but leaving the basic operations the same (including recipies and brewing practices). For example, Spaten and Franziskaner are actually brewed by Spaten-Franziskaner-Brau. This is a part of the AB ImBev empire, but still has some independence. While you may detest everything produced by it's Anheuser Bush segment, you may love those produced by the Spaten-Franziskaner-Brau segment.

Similarly, while you may hate the Molson products from the Molson Coors Brewing Company, you might love the products from their Blue Moon division.

Even more importantly, you may love one product (say, the Honey Moon release from Blue Moon), but hate another (say, the Harvest Moon release from Blue Moon). While one brewery or division of a brewery may tend to make either good or bad beers, each beer can really only be rated on its own merit...not that of the brewer.

If you liked that, you'll love some of this:

Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana,
and codeine and goddamit, you little motherfucker
If you aint got nothin' nice to say then don't say nothin'
uh..
Fuck that shit, bitch, eat a motherfuckin' dick
Chew on a prick, and lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfucking gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch, eat pussy
And have pussy-lips glued to my face with a clit-ring in my nose
Then quit bringin my flows, quit giving me my ammo
Can't you see why i'm so mean? if y'all leave me alone, this wouldn't be my
m.o.
I wouldn't have to go eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a homo by his toe, man i don't know no more
Am i the only fuckin one who's normal any more?

Bad words scare you?

You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.

Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.


It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.


You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.

I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.

You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

You're certainly not an adult.

Go back to school and come back when you have a clue.

Fail.

And why?

Oh no, leave it. You have no arguments.

Personally I agree that 80M to a CEO is immoral, in many ways, but I can't justify a law against it either so while I'd prefer to see greater equality in pay across the spectrum, I can't see a reasonable means of enforcing it in a way that doesn't screw things up.

I am not a fan of a strong government. I believe they should only interfere when things are going wrong as hell.

I don't think we screw things up when a salary cap is installed.

In many American sports, the athletes have a salary cap and are still making very good money. And the sport itself is not screwed up as well.

Like said before, in many countries, the government installed minimum wages. So it isn't that hard to install maximum ones.

It can't be workout locally, but should be ruled out worldwide.

This debate is not only going on in Europe, but also in USA. So I think they will find a reasonable solution.

And what lesson was this that breweries shouldn't make loans of beer to people who can't afford to repay it?

And who installed the easy loans? The CEO's and CIO's that were looking for a quick buck and thus influencing their personal bonus...

I am wrong, but not for the reasons you seem to believe. It's an appeal to authority, not argument from authority. I'm tired and mis-labeled the fallacy you are repeatedly falling victim to within this thread.

Like you said, the link of the initial post is reporting on angry unions because of a prospective bonus. Populist outrage, in any of its forms, does not constitute a valid argument.

I agree, though. It is worth our while to stay informed of politicians' ideas and rhetoric--I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. However, that neither constitutes a valid argument nor does it even lay a firm foundation for one.

I sincerely hope you were lying about being an analyst as, at least from this thread, your powers of analysis and report are....nothing to speak of. Useful analysis requires an indifferent and critical eye that can logically extrapolate and explain from a given or attained set of data. You have not done this to any degree in this thread.

When I see a source in a language I do not speak, I use something as Google translator. The translation will not be perfect, but most of the time I am able to understand about what they are talking.

Why is this not possible for you?

Besides, the salary thing is not only an issue in Europe, a little research gave me zillion results:

AirBaltic CEO’s salary under fire
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/22631/

CEO Salaries Under Fire As Stocks Dive
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200103/28_catlinb_ceo/

Bonuses To New York Times Execs Under Fire
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/bonuses-to-new-york-times_n_189909.html

Executive Compensation Under Fire
http://www.resumebear.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/20/executive-compensation-under-fire/


Why were you silent about these ones?

One way or another, it will be distributed into the general economy.
I'd leave general economy out of it.

I'm pretty sure its invested in funds, stocks, etc... so big portion of the money will never benefit the "common man".

The problem with rich getting more money is the fact that the money is then out of normal circulation - stagnant money won't help at obtaining resources, unless you actually buy tanglible goods or services with it - and has to be compensated by "printing" more money, leading to inflation an' all.


However, 80 million is jackshit compared to average economy, OTOH with that money you could buy most of Zimbabwe....

...or better yet, all the cows in Zimbabwe and let poor Zimbabweans die in hunger :p

And who installed the easy loans? The CEO's and CIO's that were looking for a quick buck and thus influencing their personal bonus...

What the CEO's and CIO's of brewing companies?

none of these palatable ?
http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/brands/brand_portfolio/multi_country_brands.cfm

WTF?!?!?! STAROPRAMEN?!?!? :eek:

I'd leave general economy out of it.

I'm pretty sure its invested in funds, stocks, etc... so big portion of the money will never benefit the "common man".

The problem with rich getting more money is the fact that the money is then out of normal circulation - stagnant money won't help at obtaining resources, unless you actually buy tanglible goods or services with it - and has to be compensated by "printing" more money, leading to inflation an' all.


However, 80 million is jackshit compared to average economy, OTOH with that money you could buy most of Zimbabwe....

...or better yet, all the cows in Zimbabwe and let poor Zimbabweans die in hunger :p

Just as aside if the money is invested then they are going to want a return on that investment. So if they go and buy stocks it means that this money goes off to other people who will have to spend it if it is investing in new shares on offer than it means that these companies will be receiving the money and they will be spending it on projects. If the CEO just did a very simple investment and placed it into the bank, then the bank is going to have to pay out interest to the CEO and is going to want to make a profit themselves therefore the bank is going to need to lend it out which means this money will be spent in the economy as well.

The only way that this money will be taken out of circulation and become stagnant is if the CEO takes his 80 million and shoves it in his mattress. And that requires a large mattress.

When I see a source in a language I do not speak, I use something as Google translator. The translation will not be perfect, but most of the time I am able to understand about what they are talking.

Why is this not possible for you?

Besides, the salary thing is not only an issue in Europe, a little research gave me zillion results:

AirBaltic CEO’s salary under fire
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/22631/

CEO Salaries Under Fire As Stocks Dive
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200103/28_catlinb_ceo/

Bonuses To New York Times Execs Under Fire
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/bonuses-to-new-york-times_n_189909.html

Executive Compensation Under Fire
http://www.resumebear.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/20/executive-compensation-under-fire/


Why were you silent about these ones?
What is there to say about them? They're no different than the OP. Great, some people are pissed, why do you not understand that that means diddly in terms of supporting your claims that a pay ceiling is necessary and the lack of it bore responsibility for the economic crisis?

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that some of these bonuses are not absurd or not worthy of outrage. That does not justify legislating pay ceilings.

And I used Google Translator. Translating documents that don't support your stance in any way does not suddenly make them do so. Also, this is really just a point of etiquette more than anything else, it has been pointed out to you that this is an English speaking forum. If you are trying to convince the "average poster" here, it behooves you to translate your sources just as a courtesy, especially if you consistently provide non-English ones. It has nothing to do with the soundness of your argument, it's simply a matter of politeness. If I were on a Dutch forum and I only provided English sources without translating them, I'd expect posters on that forum to be equally annoyed.
I'd leave general economy out of it.

I'm pretty sure its invested in funds, stocks, etc... so big portion of the money will never benefit the "common man".

The problem with rich getting more money is the fact that the money is then out of normal circulation - stagnant money won't help at obtaining resources, unless you actually buy tanglible goods or services with it - and has to be compensated by "printing" more money, leading to inflation an' all.

This would be something that would support your argument it. It is neither an appeal to authority nor is it coverage of some people being angry about something. The argument here would boil down to an economy requires a certain velocity of money to be functional, large payouts to CEOs reduce this velocity to a point so low it might as well be zero for the money concerned, thereby removing it from the economy. This hurts the overall system and should therefor be legislated against in order to maintain health.

However, I'm not sure why the money being invested equates to removing it from the economy. Invested money is still going to the company, roundabout, and fueling entrepreneurship so it isn't stagnant and maintains a velocity. An investment is a service, more or less.

Provide arguments at least approaching something like the above, Hairless Kitten, and you'll be taken seriously. Until then, you're nothing more than a toy for stronger intellects. Though, the constant "child" comments do nothing to help your case.

I did see them but local beers aren't always the best I have had beer from many microbreweries and some were good very good but some were quite bad. In fact the the two larger local brewers in my home state and our local beers are absolute shite. I would rather drink Fosters than either of these beers.

...

Because they are good beers, and are different beers with different tastes. Considering the amount of beers they sell it would be foolish to say I have had one of their beers before so I hate all of their beers.

You are correct in that there is probably one out of the many that is not bad. Then the question is which ones are palatable. Now, the ones that are probably the tastiest are those made in small batches, i.e. the most expensive. Not to mention the fact that I would have to pay a premium for transporting bottles of beer from afar. While this may be a fun task for those with lots of money and time, I find it far easier to go to the corner store, where i have a choice of several award winning beers made in my city, or even my neighbourhood.

So, the question becomes: why would I spend more money on a beer I probably won't like?

The strongest argument against this line of thought is because of the nature of a corporation such as AB InBev. These corporations purchase successful rivals, taking over the finances, but leaving the basic operations the same (including recipies and brewing practices). For example, Spaten and Franziskaner are actually brewed by Spaten-Franziskaner-Brau. This is a part of the AB ImBev empire, but still has some independence. While you may detest everything produced by it's Anheuser Bush segment, you may love those produced by the Spaten-Franziskaner-Brau segment.

Similarly, while you may hate the Molson products from the Molson Coors Brewing Company, you might love the products from their Blue Moon division.

Even more importantly, you may love one product (say, the Honey Moon release from Blue Moon), but hate another (say, the Harvest Moon release from Blue Moon). While one brewery or division of a brewery may tend to make either good or bad beers, each beer can really only be rated on its own merit...not that of the brewer.

I think you can also judge on the brewer as well. A brewer that makes a quality beer will invest the same amount of time and quality into their other beers, so all the beers from that brewer are of a similar level of purity and tastiness despite being different beers.

WTF?!?!?! STAROPRAMEN?!?!? :eek:

the lesbian beer from prauge.

Fuck fuck? Are you caravan trash or something? Why are you using such language?

Madam, we deeply value our obscenities, here. The proper use of such words can convey an emotion far more profoundly and succinctly than a smiley can.

When I see a source in a language I do not speak, I use something as Google translator. The translation will not be perfect, but most of the time I am able to understand about what they are talking.

Why is this not possible for you?It is possible. It is also quite rude for you to post a thread and then demand that every single other reader translate it for themselves, rather than just doing it yourself. Considering you know that every person here speaks English to some degree, and very few speak Dutch, it is considered the polite thing to do.

Besides, the salary thing is not only an issue in Europe, a little research gave me zillion results:Your thread, therefore your job to do the research.

AirBaltic CEO’s salary under fire
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/22631/
Registration needed, so I can't read the article. Though, I'm pretty sure Riga is in Europe.
CEO Salaries Under Fire As Stocks Dive
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200103/28_catlinb_ceo/Okay....I'll say this again. We know there is a debate about CEO salaries. We know. We've all heard it. That doesn't support your argument that governments are justified in setting a maximum wage. Actually, this article says nothing about government intervention: it discusses shareholder moves to tie pay more closely to performance.

So again, I'll ask: What gives the government justification to limit CEO pay?

Bonuses To New York Times Execs Under Fire
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/bonuses-to-new-york-times_n_189909.html
According to the article, the New York Times Co lost 74 million dollars in one quarter. The stock price fell 50%, and circulation of the owned papers has collapsed. In response, the NYT has demanded employees take a pay cut of 5%, and stronger demands from the Boston Globe division, while exectutives still take bonuses.

How is this at all similar or related to AB InBev, which is currently turning a profit, increasing share price, and increasing market capitalization?

And yet again, no talk from the government to put in a maximum wage. Only from pissed off employees and shareholders.

Executive Compensation Under Fire
http://www.resumebear.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/20/executive-compensation-under-fire/
Again, discussion about poorly run companies having shareholders that are pissed because their CEO's are still taking bonuses, even when the stock price erodes. Not at all similar to the situation at AB InBev.

Why were you silent about these ones?
Because you just posted them?

You are correct in that there is probably one out of the many that is not bad. Then the question is which ones are palatable. Now, the ones that are probably the tastiest are those made in small batches, i.e. the most expensive. Not to mention the fact that I would have to pay a premium for transporting bottles of beer from afar. While this may be a fun task for those with lots of money and time, I find it far easier to go to the corner store, where i have a choice of several award winning beers made in my city, or even my neighbourhood.

So, the question becomes: why would I spend more money on a beer I probably won't like?Because one isn't going to kill you and trying new things is fun? And you just might like it?



I think you can also judge on the brewer as well. A brewer that makes a quality beer will invest the same amount of time and quality into their other beers, so all the beers from that brewer are of a similar level of purity and tastiness despite being different beers.You can on the micro and craft level. Small brewers will usually have consistant beers company wide. At the macro level, there is huge variation between all of the seperate brewing arms.

It is, however, an old advertising trick to pull the "If you loved out ____, you're sure to love our _____!". They are two seperate products, and love of one does not inherently mean love of the other. Conversely, hatred of one does not imply hatred of the other.

Because one isn't going to kill you and trying new things is fun? And you just might like it?



You can on the micro and craft level. Small brewers will usually have consistant beers company wide. At the macro level, there is huge variation between all of the seperate brewing arms.

It is, however, an old advertising trick to pull the "If you loved out ____, you're sure to love our _____!". They are two seperate products, and love of one does not inherently mean love of the other. Conversely, hatred of one does not imply hatred of the other.

I try new beers all the time. New local inexpensive beers. Why should I spend more to try AB InBev's beers which I haven't tasted?

So, which brewing arm of AB InBev consistently puts out good product and is near Montreal? I might try that one.

The managers of Anheuser Busch InBev will receive a super bonus in a few years when they reach their target.
Carlos Brito, the CEO will receive 80 million euro in 2013.
12 other top dogs will receive 28 million shares.

As long as their target is high enough to justify such megabonus, well, why not?
I would like to see the wage workers getting a bonus, too, directly proportional to the rise in mr.Brito's yearly pay. That would be fair, don't you think so? After all, if InBev does well, it's because both management and labourers worked well.

[quote]
IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.
[quote]

It's called capitalism. That's the way it is, love it or leave it.

Because you just posted them?

You obviously have no faith in my precognitive abilities--or at least less faith than HK.

Anyway, addressing the beer tangent part of this thread has gone on. Anyone tried Three Floyd's Dark Lord here? I know there are a few posters from the Indiana-Illinois area. I'm contemplating just buying a bottle off ebay since it's apparently sex in a stout, dressed in Russian imperial garb and hard as fuck to get one's hands on.

I try new beers all the time. New local inexpensive beers. Why should I spend more to try AB InBev's beers which I haven't tasted?I tend to ignore price if I'm trying a new beer...but I also tend to buy singles when I'm doing that, or a 6 pack if all else fails. There's no logic behind what you should or shouldn't try...just always nice to keep up on both the small and big brewers, as both are having big influences on modern brewing trends.

So, which brewing arm of AB InBev consistently puts out good product and is near Montreal? I might try that one.
I'm not sure what is distributed around Montreal, but any medium or large liquor store should carry Spaten and Franziskaner. I lean more towards Spaten, but then, it all depends what style of beer you lean towards...Franziskaner has a good dopplebock, but I like their weissbier more (dopplebocks are too filling for my taste). Spaten, if you hold off for their Ocktoberfest, I would. Their standard brew is quite good too, however. If you're looking for purity, both are good choices...Spaten is the oldest brewery in Munich and has followed German Purity Laws since 1516.

As long as their target is high enough to justify such megabonus, well, why not?
I would like to see the wage workers getting a bonus, too, directly proportional to the rise in mr.Brito's yearly pay. That would be fair, don't you think so? After all, if InBev does well, it's because both management and labourers worked well.

[quote]
IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.
[quote]

It's called capitalism. That's the way it is, love it or leave it.

No, that's greed.

IMHO, it’s really sick that a single guy can make 80 million euros.

You didn't respond earlier, so I'll try again. Your first world income might seem sick to the world's poorest - are you going to agree to an income cap for yourself?

You didn't respond earlier, so I'll try again. Your first world income might seem sick to the world's poorest - are you going to agree to an income cap for yourself?

Yes, sure. At a micro level, I already do by donating money.

At a macro level: We (Europe & USA) only have to raise our agricultural protection barriers and stop subsidising our farmers.

Btw, my income isn't over the top, it's rather regular.

Yes, sure. At a micro level, I already do by donating money.

At a macro level: We (Europe & USA) only have to raise our agricultural protection barriers and stop subsidising our farmers.

Btw, my income isn't over the top, it's rather regular.

And what if I, or the government, decides that your income is over the top? After all, I'm sure that it is hundreds of times more than what most people in the world earn. Would you accept a salary cap of $22 per day (a very average amount, in a global sense)?

And what if I, or the government, decides that your income is over the top? After all, I'm sure that it is hundreds of times more than what most people in the world earn. Would you accept a salary cap of $22 per day (a very average amount, in a global sense)?

No, because with $22 I can't live in this country. I have my life here, not in Africa.

The CEO doesn't need a 80 million Euro bonus to have a comfortable life. Suppose he would receive 2 million Euro as bonus, then he's still able to have a more comfortable life as probably you and me.

You are comparing oranges with lemons and are silent about the context.

Yes, sure. At a micro level, I already do by donating money.

At a macro level: We (Europe & USA) only have to raise our agricultural protection barriers and stop subsidising our farmers.

Btw, my income isn't over the top, it's rather regular.

You also still haven't answered: how is the government justified in stopping a private business from giving bonuses, particularly when that business is generating profits?

You also still haven't answered: how is the government justified in stopping a private business from giving bonuses, particularly when that business is generating profits?

Because in the case of Inbev the top management pushed their employees to go early in retirement. That way the company is having the benefits and the state is having the costs.

And now those boozoos want some extra cash above their already over the top salary.

In short this is what the unions at Inbev will not accept, they'll strike.

No, because with $22 I can't live in this country. I have my life here, not in Africa.

The CEO doesn't need a 80 million Euro bonus to have a comfortable life. Suppose he would receive 2 million Euro as bonus, then he's still able to have a more comfortable life as probably you and me.

You are comparing oranges with lemons and are silent about the context.

Sure. How about you just live on minimum wage for the rest of your life? After all, your government has already designated that as sufficient to survive on. You don't need any more than that.

Sure. How about you just live on minimum wage for the rest of your life? After all, your government has already designated that as sufficient to survive on. You don't need any more than that.

Why are you protecting a very small elite that is, partly, using our tax money to give themselves over the top bonuses and this in a critical time?

Because in the case of Inbev the top management pushed their employees to go early in retirement. That way the company is having the benefits and the state is having the costs.

And now those boozoos want some extra cash above their already over the top salary.

In short this is what the unions at Inbev will not accept, they'll strike.
And that is the right of the unions staffing AB InBev. However, that does not answer the question: Given that the lower tier employees already have a means of recourse, what justification does the government have to dictate private business practices? The state (at least in the US, your country may differ, which would be helpful to your case to mention) provides only pay-as-you-go money: that is, you give the money while you work, and get it back after retirement. It doesn't directly cost the state any tax money. Early retirement can only be taken at the age of 62, and then, only partial benefits may be taken.

Additionally, encouraging early retirement does not break the law. It is illegal the moment someone is fired only because of their age. Unless AB InBev is doing this, they have done nothing wrong. Employees may be pressured to retire early, but do not have to do this.

And, of course, the short term profit yeild of replacing older employess with younger ones would not even come close to explaining the profits of AB InBev.

Why are you protecting a very small elite that is, partly, using our tax money to give themselves over the top bonuses and this in a critical time?

AB InBev is receiving no public funds from any government. At all.

Why are you protecting a very small elite that is, partly, using our tax money to give themselves over the top bonuses and this in a critical time?

Why do you persist in engaging in strawmen, non sequitur, and bandwagon arguments with hints of appeals to authority, all the while ignoring valid counters to your "points" while refusing to expand your statements into actual arguments? And this on a debate forum.

My translation from the French:

The trade unions of brewer AB Inbev announced their dissatisfaction with the proposed bonus which will be subjected to the approval at the general meeting of the shareholders this Tuesday. They will organize a specific action on this occasion.

According to one of the proposals which will be submitted to the assembly, Carlos Brito, the managing director of the group, could count on a bonus, in 2013, of 3.2 million shares (I'm not sure about this word. The french word is 'actions'), which represents some 80 million euros at the current rate.

In addition, 12 other persons in charge could share 28 million shares if the debt accumulated during the recovery of Anheuser Busch manages to be paid off.

" We've had enough of being squeezed like lemons. Before, it was to enrich the shareholders. Now, it's to finance the bonuses of the management" , denounced the trade unions who also said that the management had been imposing more and more austerity measuresover the last years, in particular by forcing the oldest workers into retirement.

The article in French from a Belgian news source. (http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/economie/des-bonus-aux-cadres-dab-inbev-les-syndicats-en-colere-102971)

And that is the right of the unions staffing AB InBev. However, that does not answer the question: Given that the lower tier employees already have a means of recourse, what justification does the government have to dictate private business practices? The state (at least in the US, your country may differ, which would be helpful to your case to mention) provides only pay-as-you-go money: that is, you give the money while you work, and get it back after retirement. It doesn't directly cost the state any tax money. Early retirement can only be taken at the age of 62, and then, only partial benefits may be taken.

Additionally, encouraging early retirement does not break the law. It is illegal the moment someone is fired only because of their age. Unless AB InBev is doing this, they have done nothing wrong. Employees may be pressured to retire early, but do not have to do this.

And, of course, the short term profit yeild of replacing older employess with younger ones would not even come close to explaining the profits of AB InBev.

In this country you can go earlier on retirement (55 and in some case even at 50). By going earlier it is costing the state more cash. Btw, not only directly but also indirectly. A salary is higher as the retirement fee. Thus their spendings will drop as well.

They were not fired, but pushed to go. Also Inbev is recently using structures as temporarly unemployment, which is again a cost for the society.

The employees also accepted reorganisation after reorganisation, always combined with a drop in employees. In return the work push is harder.

I'm even silent about salary stops they had to accept.

AB InBev is receiving no public funds from any government. At all.

I already explained this dozen times. It seems that you want to be ignorant just to keep your position.

Why do you persist in engaging in strawmen, non sequitur, and bandwagon arguments with hints of appeals to authority, all the while ignoring valid counters to your "points" while refusing to expand your statements into actual arguments? And this on a debate forum.

That's your opinion, I'll take note of it.

In this country you can go earlier on retirement (55 and in some case even at 50). By going earlier it is costing the state more cash. Btw, not only directly but also indirectly. A salary is higher as the retirement fee. Thus their spendings will drop as well.

They were not fired, but pushed to go. Also Inbev is recently using structures as temporarly unemployment, which is again a cost for the society.

That sounds like a problem about law in your country.
Perhaps a change of retirement law, and temporary unemployment law.
Business make money that's their goal. If the law lets them do that easily, then you should not be surprised when business does something like this.


The employees also accepted reorganisation after reorganisation, always combined with a drop in employees. In return the work push is harder.

I'm even silent about salary stops they had to accept.

As opposed to loss of profit and possible bankruptcy resulting in everyone being fired??

That's your opinion, I'll take note of it.

I'm sure you will. I'd rather you address the gaps in your train of thought. An opinion is a thing that states whether or not a piece of music is pleasing. What I posted was more along the lines of seeing two islands, observing no bridge between them while someone incessantly shouts that we all need to walk from one island to the next--that is, an observation of certain...procedural failures in thought.

No, that's greed.

"SELFISH, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others."

-The Devil's Dictionary.

I'm sure you will. I'd rather you address the gaps in your train of thought. An opinion is a thing that states whether or not a piece of music is pleasing. What I posted was more along the lines of seeing two islands, observing no bridge between them while someone incessantly shouts that we all need to walk from one island to the next--that is, an observation of certain...procedural failures in thought.

I have the same ideas as the unions of Inbev about this stuff. And I am expressing their idea.

The unions represent the people that work for Inbev, I'm sure they can judge the situation better than you or me.

The gap isn't on my train. It's just your personal hallucination.

In this country you can go earlier on retirement (55 and in some case even at 50). By going earlier it is costing the state more cash. Btw, not only directly but also indirectly. A salary is higher as the retirement fee. Thus their spendings will drop as well.That seems to be an issue of the state...retirement at 50 is incredibly low, given that life expectancy is in the 70's. I also assume that it is a pay as you go system, in which case, it only costs the government administrative fees which do not change based on age of retirement. In a pay as you go system, the government takes money from the paycheck earned today and pays it out later.

They were not fired, but pushed to go. Also Inbev is recently using structures as temporarly unemployment, which is again a cost for the society.That is their right as a private business. The employees can either a) not retire or b) find employment elsewhere.

The employees also accepted reorganisation after reorganisation, always combined with a drop in employees. In return the work push is harder.
They willingly accepted the reorganizations, and willingly continue to work. I have no sympathy.


I already explained this dozen times. It seems that you want to be ignorant just to keep your position.
Where have you demonstrated that AB InBev is taking government funding? In what form is it? Has the government provided loans? Bailouts? Purchased shares of stock? No? Then it isn't public money, even if it impacts society at large.

That sounds like a problem about law in your country.
Perhaps a change of retirement law, and temporary unemployment law.
Business make money that's their goal. If the law lets them do that easily, then you should not be surprised when business does something like this.


As opposed to loss of profit and possible bankruptcy resulting in everyone being fired??

It is indeed a problem and our government is aware about. I forgot the reason when and why they created this early retirement laws. Probably they were acceptable (and payable) at that time.

The loss of profit and stuff is the common excuse as usual.

That seems to be an issue of the state...retirement at 50 is incredibly low, given that life expectancy is in the 70's. I also assume that it is a pay as you go system, in which case, it only costs the government administrative fees which do not change based on age of retirement. In a pay as you go system, the government takes money from the paycheck earned today and pays it out later.

That is their right as a private business. The employees can either a) not retire or b) find employment elsewhere.


They willingly accepted the reorganizations, and willingly continue to work. I have no sympathy.



Where have you demonstrated that AB InBev is taking government funding? In what form is it? Has the government provided loans? Bailouts? Purchased shares of stock? No? Then it isn't public money, even if it impacts society at large.

By the push for going early in retirement and the temporarily unemployment stuff. Btw, the union of Inbev is saying the same things as I do.

By the push for going early in retirement and the temporarily unemployment stuff. Btw, the union of Inbev is saying the same things as I do.

The push for going into early retirement does not constitute the private business using public funds.

And yes, I would suspect that a union that is created to act in the best interests of its constituents would be against the actions. That doesn't make AB InBevs actions wrong, nor does it justify governmental intereferance.

The push for going into early retirement does not constitute the private business using public funds.

And yes, I would suspect that a union that is created to act in the best interests of its constituents would be against the actions. That doesn't make AB InBevs actions wrong, nor does it justify governmental intereferance.

I could be wrong but it seems that you don't know how retirment is working.

It's not that you pay while you work, that the government act as a kind of bank and give a return when you reach the right age.

You aren't paying for you alone but you are paying for all and this with all working people together.

When you leave the workzone earlier, you stop paying for yourself and the others and instead you are funded by the state.

If you would have worked 10 or 15 years longer, the state would earn more cash from you and as bonus the state can start returning funds later.

Going early in retirement is costing the society, and thus the state, money.

Do you really want to fight this obvious clear concept?

Why are you protecting a very small elite that is, partly, using our tax money to give themselves over the top bonuses and this in a critical time?

That question has nothing to do with what I asked you and is nothing more than a poor attempt to dodge a question you can't answer. Why shouldn't everyone's wage be capped at the minimum wage? Why is that arbitrary level any better than the arbitrary level you propose?

That question has nothing to do with what I asked you and is nothing more than a poor attempt to dodge a question you can't answer. Why shouldn't everyone's wage be capped at the minimum wage? Why is that arbitrary level any better than the arbitrary level you propose?

First of all, the issue is not the demand for a maximum salary at a minimum level for CEO's or everyone.

I didn't ask for that one. What I want and with me the unions, is a bonus for the CEO's at an acceptable level.

I assume if everyone would earn the same then motivation to do better, to grow would decrease.

And why?

Oh no, leave it. You have no arguments.

Your post failed because that company received no bailout money.

Your post failed because that company received no bailout money.

They did. Indirectly. I explained (pushing retirement, putting people in temporally unemployment) it a dozen times already.

I give up.

Call that union and say they are all wrong and should follow your path of wisdom.

You're certainly not an adult.

Go back to school and come back when you have a clue.
You're not getting off that easy. You totally ignored the context of my post because you couldn't answer my points:

Listen wannabe Scareface, YOU will never make 80 million Euros a year.You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.
YOU will even not make it in your entire lifetime. So you are not personally involved.
Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.

Because you're not capable to formulate the rather easy definition of communism.
It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.

You have no clue, why should I waste time on you?
You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.
He was suggesting he did or could:

'Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you?'
I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.
Or the government rules that all companies can't pay salaries and bonuses higher than a specific amount.
You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

You're not getting off that easy. You totally ignored the context of my post because you couldn't answer my points:

You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.

Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.


It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.


You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.

I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.

You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

Do it, but not on the back of society. If you first need the evil state to save your position and later enrich yourself, then this is ethically and morally wrong.

It's due your kind of attitude that we are in the biggest financial catastrophe since ever. The attitude of 'I do and take what I want and I certainly do not care what you think'.

What do you think, those unions at Inbev are just a bunch of nitwits? Do you really think they have not one single valuable argument?

Do it, but not on the back of society. If you first need the evil state to save your position and later enrich yourself, then this is ethically and morally wrong.

It's due your kind of attitude that we are in the biggest financial catastrophe since ever. The attitude of 'I do and take what I want and I certainly do not care what you think'.

What do you think, those unions at Inbev are just a bunch of nitwits? Do you really think they have not one single valuable argument?
Your making a false argument, because this beer company did not need the state to save its position and did not exist on he back of society. How are you not seeing that? Stop being obtuse. The rest of your argument fails because it is based off that.

Now, you still didn't answer my other points:

You're certainly not an adult.

Go back to school and come back when you have a clue.
You're not getting off that easy. You totally ignored the context of my post because you couldn't answer my points:

Listen wannabe Scareface, YOU will never make 80 million Euros a year.You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.
YOU will even not make it in your entire lifetime. So you are not personally involved.
Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.

Because you're not capable to formulate the rather easy definition of communism.
It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.

You have no clue, why should I waste time on you?
You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.
He was suggesting he did or could:

'Who the fuck are you to tell me how much I can make with money that has nothing to do with you?'
I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.
Or the government rules that all companies can't pay salaries and bonuses higher than a specific amount.
You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

Your making a false argument, because this beer company did not need the state to save its position and did not exist on he back of society. How are you not seeing that? Stop being obtuse. The rest of your argument fails because it is based off that.

Now, you still didn't answer my other points:


You're not getting off that easy. You totally ignored the context of my post because you couldn't answer my points:

You don't even know who I am. For all you know, I could have millions of Euros or could one day make them. Why do you truley beleive you can tell the future. Also, I fail to see how the possibility of me making money equates me to a Cuban drug lord.

Putting your ridiculous fortune tellings aside, if I will never make that much in my lifetime, by your own logic I am involved, because I'm being exploited or whatever other left-populist crap you want to yell.


It was a defintion in relation to the topic at hand, and works.


You haven't actually debated anything I've said, just tried to predict my future.

I am involved as a free citizen who deserves his right to make as much money as other private citizens are willing to pay me without people like you thinking they know best and wanting to micromanage my life. Your views are anti-freedom.

You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

If you receive money from the state, doesn't matter in which way, then you shouldn't enrich yourself at an outraged level.

BTW, many companies in my country are responding at the public feelings and are cutting in the salaries and bonuses of their CEO's.

By instance, the CEO of Omega Pharma is making 'only' around 750,000 Euro each year. This is peanuts for most CEO's of simular sized companies, but still a very decent salary, he will not be hungry.

If you receive money from the state, doesn't matter in which way, then you shouldn't enrich yourself at an outraged level.

BTW, many companies in my country are responding at the public feelings and are cutting in the salaries and bonuses of their CEO's.

By instance, the CEO of Omega Pharma is making 'only' around 750,000 Euro each year. This is peanuts for most CEO's of simular sized companies, but still a very decent salary, he will not be hungry.

Stop. Avoiding. My. Points. Stop. Changing. The. Subject.

We are not talking about Omega Pharama. We are not talking about corporations that receive state aid in order to survive.

Are your debating skills really at this low of a level?

Stop. Avoiding. My. Points. Stop. Changing. The. Subject.

We are not talking about Omega Pharama. We are not talking about corporations that receive state aid in order to survive.

Are your debating skills really at this low of a level?

Yes. I am not gifted with your talent of personal insults.

Bye bye.

It seems that we didn’t learn anything from the current financial crisis.


What, in the name of the sacred Jesus of the Grilled Cheese, does providing incentive bonuses to executives of a company that makes a tangible product if they meet their targets a few years down the line have to do with the financial crisis, or are you just whining? I mean, for god's sakes, Anheuser-Busch has been having financial and market growth problems for years. If they're able to turn it around, then that means tens of thousands of jobs around the world. I'm fine and dandy with a CEO getting that kind of bonus.

What, in the name of the sacred Jesus of the Grilled Cheese, does providing incentive bonuses to executives of a company that makes a tangible product if they meet their targets a few years down the line have to do with the financial crisis, or are you just whining? I mean, for god's sakes, Anheuser-Busch has been having financial and market growth problems for years. If they're able to turn it around, then that means tens of thousands of jobs around the world. I'm fine and dandy with a CEO getting that kind of bonus.

80 million Euros, is ok for you? Even if he needed the government to put the company in safe waters?

Morality is gone on this planet. That's for sure.

So why do the unions do not accept this one? Are they stupid?

Have you not thought about the consequences of limiting their pay? Also how much do you want to limit it to?

If, let's say, we're in the US, we limit their pay to a nice, toasty 800k. My employer will slug off roughly a good 350-400k, paying my salary for the next four-six years. Let's say he pulls down a cool hundred million, then my employer were to slug off a good fifty million, paying me for my entire career, plus my retirement, plus all the benefits that we government employees consume AND build three interstate overpasses.

80 million Euros, is ok for you? Even if he needed the government to put the company in safe waters?

Morality is gone on this planet. That's for sure.

So why do the unions do not accept this one? Are they stupid?

ABI didn't take a wooden nickel from the government as far as I know.

If, let's say, we're in the US, we limit their pay to a nice, toasty 800k. My employer will slug off roughly a good 350-400k, paying my salary for the next four-six years. Let's say he pulls down a cool hundred million, then my employer were to slug off a good fifty million, paying me for my entire career, plus my retirement, plus all the benefits that we government employees consume AND build three interstate overpasses.

I am not sure if I understand you well.

I am not sure if I understand you well.

Income. Tax. Revenues.

You cap incomes, you limit tax revenues. It's that simple.

And I'm not talking about the Laffer Curve either. That only works at extremely high tax rates. Somewhere in the vicinity of 80-90%.

Income. Tax. Revenues.

You cap incomes, you limit tax revenues. It's that simple.

He/she doesn't understand business. All he/she understands is anti-capitalist populism. And I really mean that, after reading all of Hairless Kitten's posts throughout this thread.

He/she doesn't understand business. All he/she understands is anti-capitalist populism. And I really mean that, after reading all of Hairless Kitten's posts throughout this thread.

I mean, this is basic intro-level public finance. You don't even have to be in grad school to take this class at a university.

Salary caps make the taxman sad. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzLry3ABpV0

TAXMAN!

*Enjoy your Beatles, :)

Props to him. I think that's bad ass that he can make that. He's gonna be living it up. Why do you care? Anheuser Busch isn't receiving federal money . . . so how is it anyone's business but theirs how much they make? Don't like it, don't drink their products.

Or, if you do drink their products anyway, you won't be as upset! (Disclaimer: You m,ay actually be more upset.)

The bonus was paid in stocks wasn't it ?? That means the CEO has incentive to continue making profit.

Income. Tax. Revenues.

You cap incomes, you limit tax revenues. It's that simple.

No, that's not true. Companies pay taxes as well.

So, it's not that simple.

The bonus was paid in stocks wasn't it ?? That means the CEO has incentive to continue making profit.

Do you really assume that he would not work hard for a lower bonus???

Then we all need a 80 million bonus, even if it was in stocks.

That's one of the sick parts of the system, the stock thing. The danger with such a system is that CEO's are heading for the shortterm. They earn their bonus and they move on.

Do you really assume that he would not work hard for a lower bonus???

Then we all need a 80 million bonus, even if it was in stocks.

That's one of the sick parts of the system, the stock thing. The danger with such a system is that CEO's are heading for the shortterm. They earn their bonus and they move on.

the problem is if he manages the company poorly the stocks can go form 80 million to nothing.

I mean, this is basic intro-level public finance. You don't even have to be in grad school to take this class at a university.

But some seem to have problems by understanding that pushing your employees to go on retirement and using temporarily unemployment systems, that this is a cost for the society. Yes, this is fairly simple and the same people are fighting this over and over again. Which is saying a lot about their graduation levels.

He/she doesn't understand business. All he/she understands is anti-capitalist populism. And I really mean that, after reading all of Hairless Kitten's posts throughout this thread.

Can you stop your silly personal attacks?

First of all, you don't even know what communism is about, so...I would be silent to judge other people their capacities when your knowledge is limited. My opinion is the same as the unions at Inbev.

They don't understand business either and they are also anti-capitalists? Installing a salary cap has nothing to do with communism.

The NBA is a communist society? They have salary caps too for their players...

Can you stop your silly personal attacks?
I work with what you give me. You have demonstrated 0 understanding of business throughout this thread, therefore my accusation is grounded in the evidence you've given me.

First of all, you don't even know what communism is about
I do, and I've shown you why what I said was relevant. It was in my post[s] that you ignored, remember? ;)

I work with what you give me. You have demonstrated 0 understanding of business throughout this thread, therefore my accusation is grounded in the evidence you've given me.


And so are the unions at Inbev? Because they think alike...

And so are the unions at Inbev? Because they think alike...
Look, stop pointing out what others think and defend your position.

You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

Anheuser Busch's CEOs deserve jack shit in bonus because they make shit beer.

Look, stop pointing out what others think and defend your position.

You still haven't answered me. What gives you or any other official the right to decide how much I can make with money that doesn't concern the public taxpayer? I don't want appeals to authority or left-populist slogans. I want a reason.

If no government money is involved (which is rather difficult) then for me personaly it's ok. In such case it are the members of the board, the shareholders and the employees that should handle it.

But now another power is influencing the benefit systems of CEO's: the public opinion.

In these times of crisises, the public opinion doesn't eat the over the top salaries anymore.

It is surely unethical that 1 person is earning sometimes hundreds of million euros. No one is worth that price.

If no government money is involved (which is rather difficult) then for me personaly it's ok. In such case it are the members of the board, the shareholders and the employees that should handle it.
There we go. FINALLY. So Anheuser Busch InBev is not being propped up by government money, thus for you it's personally ok for him to make that much.

Case. Closed. Fin.



But now another power is influencing the benefit systems of CEO's: the public opinion.
Irrelevant.
In these times of crisises, the public opinion doesn't eat the over the top salaries anymore.
Irrelevant. During these times of crises, public opinion on Jews tends to becoming lower too. Does that actually mean we should act on what some of the public decides to vent on?

It is surely unethical that 1 person is earning sometimes hundreds of million euros. No one is worth that price.
And that's your opinion. But I, and others have showed you that you, nor the government has any right to impose that opinion onto reality.

There we go. FINALLY. So Anheuser Busch InBev is not being propped up by government money, thus for you it's personally ok for him to make that much.

Case. Closed. Fin.




Irrelevant.

Irrelevant. During these times of crises, public opinion on Jews tends to becoming lower too. Does that actually mean we should act on what some of the public decides to vent on?


And that's your opinion. But I, and others have showed you that you, nor the government has any right to impose that opinion onto reality.


Doh....

It's not because you are saying that it is irrelevant that it actually is.

I'll do you a favor and I'll translate a few lines of the link from my original post.

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF20090427_048

"According to the unions, enriched the AB InBev top not only on the hood of the workers, but also on the community. Although the volume loss in AB InBev was not as bad as in other economic sectors, it also introduced economic unemployment. This means wage loss for those involved and it is also shoving the cost of labour to the community"

But hey, a kid like you, who doesn't know the basics of communism knows it better than the actual people involved.

Time to say: give me a break. :)

"According to the unions, enriched the AB InBev top not only on the hood of the workers, but also on the community. Although the volume loss in AB InBev was not as bad as in other economic sectors, it also introduced economic unemployment. This means wage loss for those involved and it is also shoving the cost of labour to the community"
That's a pretty dodgy argument. At best the company stopped to pay for the costs of unemployment. It didn't introduce it. So if the company or its management is now supposed to be liable for this, then that implies that they are somehow ethically or otherwise obliged to "provide jobs".

Which is bullshit, and part of the reason I stopped reading German newspapers. Across continental Europe you get things being phrased in the media in ways like this one, with all sorts of underlying assumptions and implications which either don't hold water or quite literally see every private venture as nothing but a means to the end of some collective.

No, that's not true. Companies pay taxes as well.

So, it's not that simple.

Actually it is that simple.

Corporate tax rates are at substantially lower rates than personal income tax rates, with the top level being achieved well after the personal top level is achieved..

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF20090427_048

"According to the unions, enriched the AB InBev top not only on the hood of the workers, but also on the community. Although the volume loss in AB InBev was not as bad as in other economic sectors, it also introduced economic unemployment. This means wage loss for those involved and it is also shoving the cost of labour to the community"


Where's the government money, again?

That's a pretty dodgy argument. At best the company stopped to pay for the costs of unemployment. It didn't introduce it. So if the company or its management is now supposed to be liable for this, then that implies that they are somehow ethically or otherwise obliged to "provide jobs".

Which is bullshit, and part of the reason I stopped reading German newspapers. Across continental Europe you get things being phrased in the media in ways like this one, with all sorts of underlying assumptions and implications which either don't hold water or quite literally see every private venture as nothing but a means to the end of some collective.

This is not German, but Belgian. And to go on, I find easily similar stuff in American news sources. Maybe you should quit reading now?

And the company isn't liable for the economical unemployment, but they did use it (while it was not really needed) and now they give themselves an over the top bonus. Nobody wants to stop with capitalism, but there's indeed a climate now, to stop the extreme greed culture of a few overrated CEO's and similar species.

Actually it is that simple.

Corporate tax rates are at substantially lower rates than personal income tax rates, with the top level being achieved well after the personal top level is achieved..

Sure. I think that most CEO's use offshore constructions to pay not a dime on taxes. They have the money, the knowledge and the connections to perform it.

Where's the government money, again?

It's explained a dozen times before.

Those unions are all liars. And so are the media and all politicians. They all lie.

It's explained a dozen times before.

It really wansn't though. Where is the government money?

It really wansn't though. Where is the government money?

Who's paying the retirement and unemployment fees? The government.

If no government money is involved (which is rather difficult) then for me personaly it's ok. In such case it are the members of the board, the shareholders and the employees that should handle it.

Granted in a brewery this wont come up but remember CEOs at Citibank and AIG were reaping huge bonuses on the private dime too and look who really ended up paying ultimately. The taxpayer. So you have to say this with a huge caveat.

Who's paying the retirement and unemployment fees? The government.

Dude. . . . come on. Is this really your best?

Belgium's welfare state unemployment policies do not mean that all Belgian companies are funded and propped up by government money, which is what we are trying to explain to you.

Now explain to us, clearly, which part of that you misunderstand?

Sure. I think that most CEO's use offshore constructions to pay not a dime on taxes. They have the money, the knowledge and the connections to perform it.

Then they'll just do everything in Trinidad and the US and EU salary caps be damned.

In b4 "We need special tax because these bonuses are extravagant!" ?

You are correct in that there is probably one out of the many that is not bad. Then the question is which ones are palatable. Now, the ones that are probably the tastiest are those made in small batches, i.e. the most expensive. Not to mention the fact that I would have to pay a premium for transporting bottles of beer from afar. While this may be a fun task for those with lots of money and time, I find it far easier to go to the corner store, where i have a choice of several award winning beers made in my city, or even my neighbourhood.

So, the question becomes: why would I spend more money on a beer I probably won't like?

That is a good point and if you do get the chance to try others then I would recommend so. All I was saying is don't say all their beers are shit when you have only had a few of them.

I think you can also judge on the brewer as well. A brewer that makes a quality beer will invest the same amount of time and quality into their other beers, so all the beers from that brewer are of a similar level of purity and tastiness despite being different beers.

But they are different brewers, AIB is simply just one big company that has brought a lot of different brewers and they make their own beer.

If you're looking for purity, both are good choices...Spaten is the oldest brewery in Munich and has followed German Purity Laws since 1516.

All breweris in Barvaria have folled the Purity law sine 1516. :tongue:

Anheuser Busch's CEOs deserve jack shit in bonus because they make shit beer.

And yet people keep buying them.

Have you tried every single on of their beers?

And yet people keep buying them.

Have you tried every single on of their beers?

The InBev challenge: Drink all of these in their home countries within a single month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InBev_brands

The InBev challenge: Drink all of these in their home countries within a single month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InBev_brands

Sounds good might just hop on board with that one.

Dude. . . . come on. Is this really your best?

Belgium's welfare state unemployment policies do not mean that all Belgian companies are funded and propped up by government money, which is what we are trying to explain to you.

Now explain to us, clearly, which part of that you misunderstand?

Eh? I never said that. Show me where.

But I go on anyway. Now that you understand that unemployment checks and retirement fees are paid by the government, we can continue.

The unions at Inbev complain about several things:

* They had to accept salary-raise stops for years
* They had to accept several reorganisations, the outcome is more work push
* The management used the system of temporarily unemployment for their employees.
* The older people were pushed to go earlier in retirement.

Now, those last two are actions where the society is paying the costs and where the company is making the benefits. Suddenly the CEO says 'mmm, money, I need money, I need 80 million Euro for myself'

And it's for this that the unions will strike. First they used money, indirectly, of the society to keep the ship in safe waters and now the greed culture is back.

The question is one of morality and quite frankly I don't think it is the role of the government to try and legislate how much a single person can earn. If you find the amount he earns repulsive (and I do consider 80 million repulsive) then you should use the pressure of society and shareholders to change the the company policies. When companies realise that large compensations can result in their brand being tarnished and hurt profits - they will change their ways, and without the need for government interference.

The question is one of morality and quite frankly I don't think it is the role of the government to try and legislate how much a single person can earn. If you find the amount he earns repulsive (and I do consider 80 million repulsive) then you should use the pressure of society and shareholders to change the the company policies. When companies realise that large compensations can result in their brand being tarnished and hurt profits - they will change their ways, and without the need for government interference.

I don't see any problem with a salary cap for CEO's.

Yes there are companies who volunteer in cutting the CEO salaries. Omega Pharma is an example. The CEO is earning around 750,000 Euros a year, still good money, but a bargain for a CEO working at a company at the size of Omega Pharma. And in my opinion a reasonable ammount.

But I don't think that many companies will follow this, I don't believe in self regulation.

Supose there was no speed limit on the highways, do you really think that most people would drive at a safe speed? I don't think so.

In such cases, government interference is needed. As a matter of fact, several governments in Europe are studying this matter but they also understand it isn't easy to solve.

By instance, most CEO's are not on the payroll of the company they manage, they have their own little company. The big companies hire the CEO from his little company. And here's the problem. You could do a salary cap on any employee, but not a profit cap on a company...

Some European countries are also afraid that the most talented CEO's would flee to USA, Asia or whatever.

But the atmosphere for a change is here and I see the same stuff happening in USA.

I don't bother that some people make good money, but some amounts are really over the top.

I don't see any problem with a salary cap for CEO's.


Im guessing the somewhere in your location is Russia?

I don't see any problem with a salary cap for CEO's.

Yes there are companies who volunteer in cutting the CEO salaries. Omega Pharma is an example. The CEO is earning around 750,000 Euros a year, still good money, but a bargain for a CEO working at a company at the size of Omega Pharma. And in my opinion a reasonable ammount.

But I don't think that many companies will follow this, I don't believe in self regulation.

Supose there was no speed limit on the highways, do you really think that most people would drive at a safe speed? I don't think so.

In such cases, government interference is needed. As a matter of fact, several governments in Europe are studying this matter but they also understand it isn't easy to solve.

By instance, most CEO's are not on the payroll of the company they manage, they have their own little company. The big companies hire the CEO from his little company. And here's the problem. You could do a salary cap on any employee, but not a profit cap on a company...

Some European countries are also afraid that the most talented CEO's would flee to USA, Asia or whatever.

But the atmosphere for a change is here and I see the same stuff happening in USA.

I don't bother that some people make good money, but some amounts are really over the top.

The reason why I don't say to cap it is because of this; imagine Bob is a CEO, he is paid $30million per year, out of that he has a charity which helps helps the poor and homeless and he donates $29.5 million of his salary to this foundation - leaving him with a salary of $500,000 (which is pretty damn good imho). If a person chooses to do something good with his pay and the government comes in and tries to cap the pay and the money never goes to help people - has the government really helped the situation?

Im guessing the somewhere in your location is Russia?

No.

We'll do a little test, to determine if I understood you well.

Did you mean by your question that I am a communist?

If that was your intention, I have 3 things to say...

* Russia isn't a communist state, au contraire.
* Defending a salary cap has nothing to do with communism.
* Why do you think I'm a communist?

Have you noticed that Bud is running a new spate of ads about their history as a leader of American brewing?

They don't bother to mention that they are no longer American.

*enjoys a Labatt's*

The reason why I don't say to cap it is because of this; imagine Bob is a CEO, he is paid $30million per year, out of that he has a charity which helps helps the poor and homeless and he donates $29.5 million of his salary to this foundation - leaving him with a salary of $500,000 (which is pretty damn good imho). If a person chooses to do something good with his pay and the government comes in and tries to cap the pay and the money never goes to help people - has the government really helped the situation?


Ok, let's rob a bank, we give 90% of the loot to charity. Do you think that the state would accept this?

We can't be sure that most CEO's would give away 95% of their income and that's not needed or their role either.

Having two individuals agreeing on providing a service for an amount of money strikes me as the sort of thing the State doesnt need to get involved in unless under extraordinary and temporary emergency situations. (except taxes and legality of contract etc)

Having two individuals agreeing on providing a service for an amount of money strikes me as the sort of thing the State doesnt need to get involved in unless under extraordinary and temporary emergency situations. (except taxes and legality of contract etc)

Well I do not agree. By instance, I think it's good that there are minimum wages.