Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

They "deserve" the money (or part thereof) because they "earned" it. As I said, it's a bit like a movie star. If the star can say "My name on the top of the rolling credit will add $50mil to your take", he/she can subsequently say "... and I want $40 mil out of these", that's fair enough.

Well I'm glad you;ve at aleast put "earned" in inverted commas. I agree they are the same issue, but of course that just means this example is just as invalid. In all these cases, the recompense that the person claims is totally uncoupled from the degree of contribution they make.

Quote:

It's not about making anything. It's about controlling the income generated.

Which is whats's wrong with it.

Quote:

No one is forced to work for Microsoft and no one stops you from leaving them - even if there are a few clauses related to your departure...

No-one but the Second Horseman, Famine.

Quote:

But that's still not coherent. How do you compare a guy singing in bars and pubs and a rock star? They 'do' the same thing. How do you compare Bill Gates back in 1975 and an executive from IBM or Xerox at the same time? They 'did' the same kind of thing. One just turned out widly more popular than the others.

But you're trying to draw comparisons in a systems that is completely bvroken and dishonest. Yes, a guy singing in pubs and a rockstar do the same thing and deserve the same income. And Bill Gates and a notional Xerox executive do things that for the most part are equivalent to many other roles, like secretary or accountant, and should be paid accordingly.

Quote:

I just don't understand how your system could possibly lead to anyone ever bothering with entrepreneuring anything...

Well I should hope not! Of course, "entrepreneur" is not the same as "inventor", which issue I have already explained at some length in the context of labourt value system.

Quote:

As long as banks make that much money (and I agree that they haven't, far from it, in recent times and thus....), people involved will fight to get a slice of it. Whether it is the employees, the top managers or the shareholders who get the most is not written in stone - Although the present set-up (no unions & no committed shareholder) does favour top managers immensely in that struggle.

Well of course thats true. But I see no reason that I should accept it is just and fair and proper and legitimate.