Friday, August 10, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tebowmania = $$$
Amid all the talk of "coincidences" relating Tim Tebow to the Bible verse that he has worn as 
eyeblack, John 3:16 (he threw for 316 yards vs the Steelers, 31.6 yards/completion was the highest in NFL playoff history, Ben Roethlisberger threw the game's lone interception on 3rd and 16), the one number that stands out is the game's TV rating for the final quarter-hour: 31.6.
It was the most watched NFL Wild Card game in almost a quarter-century, drawing 41.9 million viewers. By way of contrast, the record for a NFL Divisional Game is 43.5 million (Jets/Pats last year) and 111 million people watched last year's thrilling Super Bowl game between the Packers and Steelers.
Given that Tebow's 80-yard TD pass in OT on Sunday was the most Twittered, non-Japanese, event in history and Tebowmania is back in full effect, how many people are going to watch this Saturday night's tussle between the Denver Tebows and the Patriots? 50 million? 60 million?
All I know is that CBS executives did not foresee this happening when they ended up re-entering the NFL market in 1998 (after a 4-year hiatus) with the supposedly inferior AFC after losing the NFC to Fox in 1994. But come Saturday night, they sure will be happy they did.
eyeblack, John 3:16 (he threw for 316 yards vs the Steelers, 31.6 yards/completion was the highest in NFL playoff history, Ben Roethlisberger threw the game's lone interception on 3rd and 16), the one number that stands out is the game's TV rating for the final quarter-hour: 31.6.
It was the most watched NFL Wild Card game in almost a quarter-century, drawing 41.9 million viewers. By way of contrast, the record for a NFL Divisional Game is 43.5 million (Jets/Pats last year) and 111 million people watched last year's thrilling Super Bowl game between the Packers and Steelers.
Given that Tebow's 80-yard TD pass in OT on Sunday was the most Twittered, non-Japanese, event in history and Tebowmania is back in full effect, how many people are going to watch this Saturday night's tussle between the Denver Tebows and the Patriots? 50 million? 60 million?
All I know is that CBS executives did not foresee this happening when they ended up re-entering the NFL market in 1998 (after a 4-year hiatus) with the supposedly inferior AFC after losing the NFC to Fox in 1994. But come Saturday night, they sure will be happy they did.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Mitt Romney's View on Corporations
Liberals and Democrats are having a field day with Mitt Romnhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifey's off-the-cuff remarks yesterday (responding to hecklers at the Iowa State Fair) that included this line: "Corporations are people, my friend."
Here's the entire exchange, as per the Washington Post:
At a top level, Romney is right: corporations have been long treated by courts as independent "people", able to enter into contracts, commit torts, and -- perhaps, most important -- shield their investors from personal liability.
That's consistent with the Citizens United court's finding that corporations are entities that are subject to First Amendment protections: to paraphrase Romney's words, "Corps are people, too."(*)
(* - Robert Clark's seminal treatise, Corporate Law, declares that "One of the law's most economically significant contributions to business life, and one often ignored by lawyers because it generally generates less litigation than many other contributions, has been the creation of the fictional but legallly recognized entities or "persons" that are treated as having some of the attributes of normal persons." Sec. 1.2.3)
But read Romney's words again. He's actually not arguing that corporations are people, the way Dean Clark and the Citizens United court does.
Rather, he's arguing that corporations are made up of people. Every dollar that a corporation earns in profit is eventually paid to a real person, who owes taxes on that profit. And accordingly, Romney argues, corporation taxes should be reduced.
(We will put aside the political wisdom of Romney -- who's being painted as Mr. Corporation in the GOP primary, at least by Tim Pawlenty -- defending lower corporate tax rates.)
But under Romney's vision, corporations are little more than unincorporated associations: partnerships, if you will, who just happen to have stock tickers.
But if corporations are just the collection of people whom comprise them (i.e., stockholders), why should we grant them status as "legal persons"?
And why should the corporate shield on liability (the shield that kept Mr. Romney, and the rest of Bain Capital from suffering ill-effects from the bankruptcy of Ampad) be recognized?
To quote a different Supreme Court (albeit minority) opinion: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society"
Here's the entire exchange, as per the Washington Post:
ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!
ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!
ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.
AUDIENCE: [laughs]
ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!
ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That’s not the approach that I would take.
At a top level, Romney is right: corporations have been long treated by courts as independent "people", able to enter into contracts, commit torts, and -- perhaps, most important -- shield their investors from personal liability.
That's consistent with the Citizens United court's finding that corporations are entities that are subject to First Amendment protections: to paraphrase Romney's words, "Corps are people, too."(*)
(* - Robert Clark's seminal treatise, Corporate Law, declares that "One of the law's most economically significant contributions to business life, and one often ignored by lawyers because it generally generates less litigation than many other contributions, has been the creation of the fictional but legallly recognized entities or "persons" that are treated as having some of the attributes of normal persons." Sec. 1.2.3)
But read Romney's words again. He's actually not arguing that corporations are people, the way Dean Clark and the Citizens United court does.
Rather, he's arguing that corporations are made up of people. Every dollar that a corporation earns in profit is eventually paid to a real person, who owes taxes on that profit. And accordingly, Romney argues, corporation taxes should be reduced.
(We will put aside the political wisdom of Romney -- who's being painted as Mr. Corporation in the GOP primary, at least by Tim Pawlenty -- defending lower corporate tax rates.)
But under Romney's vision, corporations are little more than unincorporated associations: partnerships, if you will, who just happen to have stock tickers.
But if corporations are just the collection of people whom comprise them (i.e., stockholders), why should we grant them status as "legal persons"?
And why should the corporate shield on liability (the shield that kept Mr. Romney, and the rest of Bain Capital from suffering ill-effects from the bankruptcy of Ampad) be recognized?
To quote a different Supreme Court (albeit minority) opinion: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)