|
Re: An interesting issue
de Mark Carter 05/08/2006 07:12
lugnut wrote:
> Excess remuneration or profits are terms that defy any
> logical definition for those who understand supply and
> demand in even it's most elementary forms.
Now you're annoying me.
I used the term "excessive remuneration", not "excess remuneration". And
I didn't even mention profits. By excessive remuneration I meant that
some charities rake in a lot of money. There is little accountability to
any particular body of people, so the directors of the charity are in a
strong position to set their own remuneration levels. In sham charities,
this will be excessive.
Furthermore, I meant the word "excessive" to be interpreted in a
common-sense way, not from an economist's viewpoint. But, if we have to
be pedantic (and it sadly looks like we do have to), then the term
"excessive profit" can be interpreted as "supernormal profits", which
you can find out more about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_profit
BTW, I qualified as a chartered accountant, so let's not get into a
pecker contest about who does and doesn't understand supply and demand.
| An interesting issue | Rednax | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Derald | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Anonymous | |
| Re: An interesting issue | POKO | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Anonymous | |
| Re: An interesting issue | POKO | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Mark Carter | |
| Re: An interesting issue | POKO | |
| Re: An interesting issue | lugnut | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Mark Carter | |
| Re: An interesting issue | lugnut | |
| | Re: An interesting issue | Mark Carter | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Craig | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Hansen | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Mark Carter | |
| Re: An interesting issue | Mark Carter | |
| Re: An interesting issue | »Q« |