Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not that I care about celebrities, but in economics terms, those two revenue methods really aren't the same.
For example - let's say I make videos of myself doing wacky things, and they somehow catch on. I sell DVDs and videos of myself doing these things, and end up with several million dollars of profit.
Economically, my income derives from a direct reimbursement from sales for an individually-crafted product.
Now, though, let's say I was hired as a corporate CEO by a board of directors. Furthermore, let's say I run a public, share-issuing company. My reimbursement is set by contract; not by any particular "thing" that I make. That raises the question of whether or not the value of my contract is commensurate with the "value" that I, above any other person in the company, actually provide.
That's an open question. Let's say there is evidence that boards of directors tend to be stocked with self-dealing, self-promoting agents who tacitly agree to keep CEO salaries higher than their "actual" worth. Economically, we are dealing with a potential inefficiency that is passed on to shareholders, something that really didn't arise when I was selling my individual services on those DVDs.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,842,951 times
Reputation: 670
Moderator cut: No flaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults
The generalizations on this board are getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm a liberal who thinks Hollywood is VASTLY overpaid, and many people will agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative for many of the issues on this board,
Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults
and a bad guess at that. if we don't like oil, then why use it? we obviously like that destruction. oh, and if you think that hollywood has never contributed to the destruction of the environment, you have got to be kidding. exxon provides us with a service, and hollywood provides us with perez hilton.
Moderator cut: No personal attacks, insults, or flaming
You ask a question, expect different answers.
Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults
I don't really understand why we consider the CEO of exxon evil for making $20 million a year, yet we admire will smith and tom cruise for making $50 million a film. I wonder if hollywood would be so liberal if we demonized them and went after their money. hmmmmmmmmmm.
The CEO of exon also helped in putting alot of employees out of work because of his greediness.
no, the question was, why do we demonize exxon, and praise liberal hollywood. exxon already pays enough in taxes to fund the failed department of education, yet it's never enough for the ignorant masses of sheep.
Did I say I think Tom Cruise, Will Smith and others deserve to make millions? No, I didn't. I said I won't support them either by paying for movie tickets. However, I believe I did address the OP which asked why people often criticize CEOs of major corporations, but not Hollywood celebrities. My point was that paying $9 for a movie ticket is a choice, but putting gas in your car isn't. The bank CEOs and the Automobile CEOs are getting paid millions when their stocks plummeted and they asked for government money. Actors in Hollywood, to the best of my knowledge, aren't getting taxpayer dollars.
Why not bring up Rush Limbaugh who makes over $50 million a year? Is he a Hollywood Liberal? In 2001 he signed a contract for just under $300 million. When I wrote in another thread that he lives in a gigantic mansion valued at more than $25 million, I was told he's a private citizen so it's none of my business.
I'm trying to figure out why this thread singles out Tom Cruise and Will Smith. Chuck Norris is very wealthy and he campaigned for John McCain. John Rich is very wealthy and he sang at the Tea Party in Atlanta.
Last edited by justNancy; 04-21-2009 at 12:07 PM..
People don't have to go to the movies. I don't, although sometimes I rent a movie. However, I need gas to get to work. Many people need home heating fuel to survive in the winter.
Also, your statement is ludicrous. Obama's tax plan IS
going after these people.
If they make over $250,000 a year net income, they will pay more taxes.
By the way, I don't admire either of these gentlemen. However, I do enjoy their movies (on TV or DVD)
Comparing an individual actor with the CEO of a corporation doesn't make sense. Tom Cruise has no obligation to his stockholders or the American people. He doesn't drill for oil and hurt the environment. Anyway, many of Hollywood's actors are very generous. Will Smith & Tom Cruise have been honored for their charitable projects. Brad Pitt donated about $6 million of his own money to help rebuild New Orleans.
wow...i am conservative and agree with one of your points. this is strange. we have a choice on whether or not to watch someone's movie yet we do not have a choice on gas and oil. we need them. if the oil executives have anything to do with raising prices so they can make their pocketbooks thicker i would love to meet them face to face.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,842,951 times
Reputation: 670
nope, but for some reason, his wealth is demonized as well. I also think he gives a great deal to charity. didn't he auction off something on ebay and match it for the children of soldiers killed in iraq. after which, harry reid tried to take credit for it.
so the reason rush limbaugh didn't come up, is because he is demonized for greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Did I say I think Tom Cruise should get paid millions? No, I didn't. I said I won't support them either. I was only addressing the OP which was why people often criticize CEOs but not Hollywood celebrities.
Why not bring up Rush Limbaugh who makes over $50 million a year? Is he a Hollywood Liberal?
I don't really understand why we consider the CEO of exxon evil for making $20 million a year, yet we admire will smith and tom cruise for making $50 million a film. I wonder if hollywood would be so liberal if we demonized them and went after their money. hmmmmmmmmmm.
Right wing created hypocracy,
I've never heard of rightwingers supporting P2P sharing, which hurts Hollywood's profits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
