Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRyan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Message
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 19:31
I think to deny that part of human nature is naive, in fact most realize it...thus all this demand they "need" to pay more.

But what's ironic is since people do want money and things and are selfish, by putting people in charge of taking money and redistributing it....it's bound to get f**ked up. That's why there's so much waste and fraud with these things.

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 19:39
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Epig: I honestly believe I would turn $15 million down. I would be ecstatic to to earn one or half a million a year. I would feel extremely uncomfortable with more, especially for hosting a TV show.


Not even to take the $15 million and give it to charity?  You'd just turn it down?  Confused  You liberal atheists and your "morals" are strange to me.  Unless you all can't cut grass.  LOL Wink

Being on TV (or hosting / performing) is much harder than cutting grass by the way.  I've done both.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:06
I didn't say cutting the grass was the same as hosting TV so I don't get what that was about.
 
As for the first point, I was, obviously I thought, looking at this from the POV of how much money I feel comfortable putting in my pocket. Obviously I would have no problem with using 14 of my 15 mill to found a charitable institute BUT where is that 14 mill coming from...
 
You know the John Carter film made headlines the other day because it cost about $300 million to make and about about $184 million. (The loss is much more than the remaining $126 million because the producer splits box office with theatres of course, usually about 50/50.)
 
But what got me going wasn't the box office loss. What got me going is that $300 million was being used to make asinine films in the first place, when most of us can't find $100 between us to give to charity.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:33
Well that $14 mill is coming from the people...who watch/give/support or do whatever they do that gets their money to you. You know this man.

What you seem to be saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): Is it ok to use that $14 million however you see fit?

The answer is yes. It's long and could go on and on pages and get into all kinds of philosophical/political debate so simply: yes.
If you get $15 million from the people for whatever you do, you can do with it as you want.



Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 20:34
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:40
Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system.

Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:48
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

I didn't say cutting the grass was the same as hosting TV so I don't get what that was about.
 
As for the first point, I was, obviously I thought, looking at this from the POV of how much money I feel comfortable putting in my pocket. Obviously I would have no problem with using 14 of my 15 mill to found a charitable institute BUT where is that 14 mill coming from...
 
You know the John Carter film made headlines the other day because it cost about $300 million to make and about about $184 million. (The loss is much more than the remaining $126 million because the producer splits box office with theatres of course, usually about 50/50.)
 
But what got me going wasn't the box office loss. What got me going is that $300 million was being used to make asinine films in the first place, when most of us can't find $100 between us to give to charity.


Money doesn't just magically appear for anyone.  You need to learn how money moves.  It moves from those who want to those who have what one wants.  No exception- even the lottery.

In case you don't know, the head guy in charge of John Carver resigned.  And is your artistic discretion worthy for comments like "asinine?"  What credentials do you have other than the fact the film sold poorly?"  Wink
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:57
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system.

Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.


Define "society."  Society isn't suffering.  Relatively speaking, the US is doing far better than literally half the planet.  Also, learn the difference between "you're" and "your."  I am, by the way, well under the average (I make less than $2000 monthly with a soon to be family of five), and guess what?  I love capitalism!

Ryan is in the entertainment business- almost everyone else isn't.  He makes what he makes because he reaches more people than others.  Good for Ryan Seacrest for working hard in the entertainment business and making what he got.  I don't frown because of his success. 

You do.  How sad.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 20:58
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system.

Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.


I used to be a socialist, and "social democrat" in the Scandinavian Model until quite recently, so trust me...I know every line by heart.

That's not the point. What I kept saying is you need to look at reality. How do you expect this to be done? You're right, it's not really possible in a capitalist society but what do you want, Socialism? That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.
Back to reality: Did you read what I said earlier?
We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. I realized that so many lefties (myself one) thought people were naturally greedy, selfish and want money...but then we want to redistribute it? Unless you find magic fairies the only way to do that is by having people...doing it.

This is why our tax code is a mess, we spend $1 trillion on welfare with few good results.
It's naturally ripe for abuse and waste. Besides the human factor, by having government do such things...people can then petition government to benefit them.
Like subsidies for businesses/sectors that drive the cost of everything up, hurting regular people like us.

So yeah, it's not philosophical, just realistic. Putting people in positions to redistribute is dumb, because people are selfish and self interested, and it leads to other people (generally more powerful than us) to petition those in power.





Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 20:59
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:02
As for families losing money, I know. Wanna hear a real gut puncher? We just fall inside the "upper middle class" bracket.

First, like anything uniform...this is flawed because we live in NJ which is expensive as hell. Both my parents work and we lived paycheck to paycheck for large stretches of time.
The reason is government actually. We're choked with taxes, the price of everything going up (which can be dealt with) subsidies and trade barriers that make things more expensive than they should be.
A lot of the things we pay for via taxes are wasteful (for reasons I stated in the last post) or just not necessary.


Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:02
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system.

Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.


I used to be a socialist, and "social democrat" in the Scandinavian Model until quite recently, so trust me...I know every line by heart.

That's not the point. What I kept saying is you need to look at reality. How do you expect this to be done? You're right, it's not really possible in a capitalist society but what do you want, Socialism? That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.
Back to reality: Did you read what I said earlier?
We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. I realized that so many lefties (myself one) thought people were naturally greedy, selfish and want money...but then we want to redistribute it? Unless you find magic fairies the only way to do that is by having people...doing it.

This is why our tax code is a mess, we spend $1 trillion on welfare with few good results.
It's naturally ripe for abuse and waste. Besides the human factor, by having government do such things...people can then petition government to benefit them.
Like subsidies for businesses/sectors that drive the cost of everything up, hurting regular people like us.

So yeah, it's not philosophical, just realistic. Putting people in positions to redistribute is dumb, because people are selfish and self interested, and it leads to other people (generally more powerful than us) to petition those in power.





JJ gets some of these:

ClapClapClap


Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:15
Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32468
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:17
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


In other words, you made up a pissing match between the Soviet Union and the USA.

I pick the USA.  Big smile
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:24
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

 That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.

I think this is false and probably could look up some science to prove that but I'm too lazy tonight.



We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. 

This is probably true.



I think this battle between top-down and bottom-up organization is a waste of time because no matter what we want, both processes will happen. We can make policies to try to make both processes work better, and if they are in line with current culture, that can help.

But current culture is the problem and that is very very difficult to purposely change. 
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:26
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


In other words, you made up a pissing match between the Soviet Union and the USA.

I pick the USA.  Big smile


Disapprove

You know that's not what I said. But the myth that non-capitalism would make the world explode is belied by the fact that half the world was able to survive without it for decades, in strenuous circumstances. The Soviet Union had problems, but they aren't directly related to its being a non-capitalist country. The United States in a similar situation would be fallen apart far quicker. 

But I can see this is not going to be productive because it is a rather abstruse historical argument and we are dealing with simple statements (being on a web forum as we are).




Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:34
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

Ermm

Bad historical understanding of the 20th century. The Soviet Economy was actually relatively competitive with the US, despite being based on a ruined 3rd world country and being completely isolated from the world economy.

The whole thing about "what would we do if we took away the profit motive?" is kind of a moot point after 70 years of Soviet economic growth.

You could argue that the problems it experienced were the result of its non-capitalism, or that its problems were the result of its isolation, poor condition going in and the Stalinist coup-de-tat. History bears out the later interpretation. No one who is sane denies the Soviet Union functioned at a high level, however, with a higher standard of living than many large capitalist countries and nearly all third world capitalist countries. On the basis of America and the world, the Soviet System would have inevitably even been more productive, even if you were to say its problems were a product of some intrinsic boogeyman preventing countries from being non-capitalist.


First, I would say I'm going back farther than the 20th century. Like it or not capitalism has been the greatest thing for "regular" people. This you can't deny, surely?

It's also not capitalism that's the problem...it's corporatism.
Some brief examples: Our banking system: There are laws restricting what they can do. Good right?
Well...Canada had a freer banking system and they have avoided the panics and bank runs that plague or system.

Our healthcare is insanely expensive and puts a drag on regular people, right? Yes, but there are laws that inhibit competition, and we can't buy from other countries. This is why senior sneak into Mexico and Canada, because they can't buy it here.

There are subsidies that make products more expensive than they should be, products we buy.
Programs we pay for, even if well intended, are plagued with issues and may not be necessary.

What about our current crisis? For decades all these successful companies were, well successful. Why did they suddenly become so crazy greedy and irresponsible? Well...the government encouraged them to make more loans even if people couldn't really afford it. Normally this would be risky, but thanks to history they were assured of a bailout, and they got it. You can see how this would lead to stupid ass risk?
In a free market they would be less inclined to be dumb, and if they did it anyway well, there'd be no bailout...funded by people like us.

If you don't wanna accept it that's fine, but what I'm saying is capitalism is not the problem, but government interfering with it...
Notice we never had another "New Deal" Think it could be the only time it was done turned an already bad depression into one that lasted 10+ years?

If you want communism, that's fine but realize we don't really have free markets, so that can't be blamed.





Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 21:36
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 21:45
I don't really wanna get into that because I choose to live in reality.
We can debate Capitalism vs Communism till the animals come back to the farm, the fact is I argue for the situation we live in, not "what maybe could should be"

I still believe Ryan Seacrast should pay more in taxes than my father.
Instead of trying to jack him up to maybe 50%  we should lower our taxes...



Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:10

Too much for me there to comment on but in line with JJ's last post, I would be a lot less upset about incomes like Seacrest's if they were taxed more.



Edited by Textbook - May 02 2012 at 23:12
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:34
^Which in the end is what this thread and most forms of socialism come down to: ENVY, social resentment. 

And no Roy, I wasn't born a capitalist whore. I had a few years of believing marxist-leninist-maoist bullsh*t too. And just until less than two years ago I was still defending government control of many aspect of people's economic lifes. 


Edited by The T - May 02 2012 at 23:35
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 02 2012 at 23:54
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Socalism, class warfare, death panels, war on Christmas
 
j/k ;)
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 03 2012 at 00:04
^You forgot baby killers, nuculear terrorists. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.