This sounds unbelievably risky. I would be very careful if i were you

If you have use the one in windows 10/11 its a bit of a nightmare. You have to manually change the default browser for all file types from edge to your new browser. And there are about 20 options you have to manually change over.

Is it the violence or is it the extreme competitiveness and pre existing toxicity that links verbal aggression. You can find people throwing slurs and insults at others in competitive roblox or minecraft game modes.

Also because valve is private, they don’t have any legal obligations to return maximise profit. They can purposefully lose money if they want and it’s not illegal. (At least to my knowledge)

Hi, I don’t want to butt in on your comment here, but I’m pretty sure Robinhood couldn’t follow the financial regulations and still have the button available at the time because it didn’t have the reserves to be able to fulfil the expected requests. It was a legal issue that caused them to disable trading not malicious intent. Robinhood would have made a fortune on fees so I can’t see why they would have wanted to purposely shoot their own foot on that ground.

But then again, I’m stupid and know nothing so disregard my comment if you so please. Thanks.

I’m not saying they are at the mercy of their job, how can you be when you have a hundred million dollars. My argument is that CEOs aren’t payed on the same principal that a regular employee is paid, they are paid like a business tool rather than an employee, as if they are some object that generates profit. And I’m sure it helps to be on good terms with powerful people, and being the CEO of a fortune 500 company would make you a powerful person too. But ultimately a CEO is paid according to the value they bring to the company and for that reason alone.

You know income from stocks is still taxed as income. Everything you said in the first paragraph is still taxed as income.

You may be right in your second paragraph, but in the capitalist economy these companies operate in, that won’t happen, because like I’ve said before, a CEO is paid according to how much additional profit and growth they can bring to the table. At that level it’s not about technical skill but about leadership and forward thinking.

And I do think that a CEO can justifiably earn a lot more than an average worker, especially at a large company because of the personal risk and responsibility that comes with the job role. But only in some cases. Obviously the CEO of shell is not putting themself under more personal risk than the high pressure underwater welder, not by a long shot. And they are probably still paid 50x their salary at least. In a capitalist system, the ones who bring the most value and take the most risk are rewarded the most, that’s just how it is. Is it just? That’s for the individual to decide, but that’s just how it is.

CEOs of large companies have power because large companies have power, but ultimately the people with the most power are the controlling board members of a company. The board chooses a C level executive’s salary based in what they think that person brings to the table in terms of monetary value, obviously they don’t know for certain, they don’t have a specific number, but for large companies like the ones on this list, it must work pretty well for most of them, or they wouldn’t use this method. Ultimately, the board cares about profit and growth, and they treat the people at the C suite as tools to get that profit. Companies pay a lot of money for something that will make them more money, and so when you think of a CEO as a person you will never be able to justify their compensation, but when you think of them as an object for making profit, you can see how it becomes more justifiable.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are different to people like Tim Cook and Satya Nadella. Bezos took a relatively low salary when he was CEO of Amazon, and Musk takes supposedly no salary, because they don’t earn their wealth from a salary. Tim Cook doesn’t need to be more productive than some factory worker in China making 50 iPhones a day, because if paying him $100mn a year makes Apple $110mn a year vs someone else who takes $50k a year and brings Apple $2mn. They still take Cook because the profit is $10mn vs $1.95mn. Like I said, it’s about who can make the most money for the company.

I am very very sceptical about your claim that most businesses thrive without CEOs. Every medium to large company has a CEO, unless it’s a cooperative in which case they have a chair (and in large cooperatives, these chairs still command high salaries). John Lewis, the largest cooperative in the UK, has a chair who earns a salary of £990k.

And finally some people do dodge tax, not everyone does. In 2016, Tim Cook was awarded a $135mn salary, on which he paid $70mn in taxes. What am I supposed to say to this point really? Some people commit tax fraud, it’s still a crime. Maybe it’s not followed as much as it should be, but it’s still illegal.

What does this mean? Is it not fact that in the capitalist system of the US, the market is a real thing. It’s not just something people say, it is the economy, and economics is based in mathematics (at least they try to base it in mathematics).

Threy are paid wages like everybody else. And a CEO of a fortune 500 company will have special skills that nobody else has. The skills can be learnt mostly. But at companies this big, a CEO is an asset, a good CEO that can provide more growth and profit than anyone else will command a salary, and the market forces ensure that the salary they earn is inline with how much value they bring to the company.

And these people still pay tax, and a lot of it. It’s not possible to argue that a CEO is overpaid because CEO pay at this level is defined by the Market.

I’m gonna say my top non fiction books are:

The Narnia series, who knew that lions could be found in seemingly ordinary closets! Wow!

Harry Potter series, if I had known about hogwarts before i went to college I would definitely have applied there.

And then probably Wikipedia, man there is a lot of info on that book

I don’t understand what your ultimate point is? Is it not common knowledge that major powers spy and sabotage each other? And would that not make this news uninteresting?

And you bring up my other comments, but are you trying to argue that Americans are bad at capitalism with my first comment? Americans are undoubtedly the best at capitalism, name one other country that really takes capitalism and sticks to it like it’s the only thing they know how.

You are furious at me and all I have said is that this is not new news to anyone with common sense.

I’m no yank, and is it really news that major country spies on other major country? Allies spy on allies, why would enemies not also spy and sabotage each other?

Should they do this? Probably not. Is it surprising that they do? Not at all.

Wow, what news. US spies on China, China spies on US. I can’t wait to find out if Russia and the US spy on each other, or if North Korea and China spy on each other. Or if (country) spies on (other country).

I can easily undercut their price by predicting every young male in all the poor neighbourhoods.

Intel arc yeee

If a full scale war broke out that involved the US taking part, it would be WW3. It seems likely that China would lose at the moment as nothing can compare to the military strength of the US. But it would probably be a tough war that would leave China in a really bad state and the US in a pretty bad state. But then again I know nothing.

Potentially big if true

I like your idea, but my opinion is that people hear a lot about capitalism in the news (it feels like it has been showing up more and more in mainstream discussion), and simultaneously feel like their own quality of life has been dropping recently, equate the two and reject the faux capitalism they think is ruining their lives.

It could very well be that capitalism is ruining their life, it could be that the governments in power do not do enough to regulate for their best interests. It could be that they don’t do enough physical activity and so they feel worse.

I would bet that most of those polled chose socialism because it’s not capitalism (which shares a name with an idea they think they dislike) but it’s not as “extreme” as communism (because that’s the bad evil thing!!!).

It could create potential for positive socialist change like you say, but I fear that when people don’t know what they are voting for, they won’t know if it’s being implemented effectively.