Probably the crab at the bottom of the bucket?

Limits on compensation are ineffective at achieving their goals under the best of circumstances, and the inevitable "unintended" consequences of further government manipulation in the market place would likely have negative effects.

Crab from the bottom of the bucket here: that's a lot of syllables for ???

Did I say the feds should set the limit? Why can't a respectable board set respectable limits? Cause they don't give a fuck about anything except the stock price EVEN if it means that others suffer in their wake.

That's why. That's the side you're on. Miss me with that libertarian Thiel bullshit.

We set the context in which these forms can operate though. We can decide that forms who pay >10m in comp to individuals are by definition not contributing to social well-being… they must be exploiting some assymetry, rent seeking etc. We don’t have to work out how and why in each case… just that in balance that is almost always the case and so we make that behaviour economically unviable through taxation.

Except that you rested your laurels on the last word: taxation.

Taxation is not and will never be in a place that serves the commonwealth, rather it will always align with those closer to power.

Have you not been paying attention?

In the US this may be true. It’s certainly not in Europe. 80%+ of tax take is spent on health and social benefits here which are broadly approved of by the population…

Nobody gets to decide.

I think we, collectively, as humans well define some vague idea as to what's acceptable and what's not, because no matter how smart you are, the realities that humans in motion provide are a couple more orders of magnitude more complex than your SPA repo. And it should be.

> His club obviously thinks he's worth that…

Between more ticket sales, higher ticket prices, playoff tickets, more merch sales, and possibly better TV revenue, a player that good can absolutely be worth it.