奶男的草莓酱拌饭组旁听作业

dairymanUID：2683905

今天刚到家……回来养病一下，现在咳嗽加重了，身体虚弱，真不撑
不过回来是需要看看aw的，看debate，试着再发个debate的帖子，感觉一下

dairymanUID：2683905

今天白天网页打不开，于是看了debate，先贴上来一点吧，还没有搞定，分部吧

The moderator's opening remarks
Oct 20th 2009 |Adrian Wooldridge
ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Management Editor and Schumpeter columnist, The Economist


Adrian Wooldridge is the Economist's Management Editor and writes the Wilson Column. He was previously based in Washington DC as the Washington Bureau Chief where he also wrote the Lex Column. He covers politics, social policy, and social and political events. Previously he has been The Economist's West Coast Correspondent（通讯记者这个很常见）, Management Correspondent and Britain Correspondent. He is the co-author of "The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea", "A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization", "Witch Doctors" a critical examination of management theory and "The Right Nation", a study of conservatism in America.
One of the few things that anti-globalization campaigners and stock market investors agree upon is that executive pay is out of control. It is not hard to understand this shared outrage: executive pay has exploded since the 1980s. For most of the postwar era executives earned a few multiples of the median（数学中会用到，中位数） pay. But thereafter, starting in America and slowly spreading to the rest of the world, the multiples increased exponentially（指数，幂指数，数学用语）. Today many American workers earn in a year what their boss takes home in an evening. Isn't this a disgrace? Critics of executive pay worry that even mediocre bosses are given outsized rewards. Robert Nardelli received a $20m pay-off when he left Home Depot even though the share price had fallen during his six-year tenure. Carly Fiorina was $180m better off when she left Hewlett-Packard despite a lackluster tenure. Defenders of executive pay argue that great bosses such as Louis Gerstner, the former boss of IBM, and Jack Welch, the former boss of General Electric, are worth every penny because they create huge amounts of wealth for both shareholders and employees. The debate about executive pay, though never cool, is particularly hot at the moment. Workers have been squeezed by the recession. Unemployment is approaching 10% in the United States and much higher numbers in many other countries. Numerous governments are planning to deal with their rising deficits by freezing public-sector pay. And yet many bosses and bankers continue to make out like bandits—or so lots of people think. We are lucky to have two of the best people in the business to debate this subject. Steven Kaplan, who proposes the motion, teaches at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. Nell Minow, who opposes it, is a long-time shareholder activist and chairwoman of the Corporate Library, a research company. (For people who want to know more about her she is also the subject of a profile in a recent issue of the New Yorker.) Mr. Kaplan starts off by making two fundamental points. CEO pay has not gone up in recent years; indeed, it has been dropping since 2000, particularly in relation to other well-paid groups, such as hedge fund managers, lawyers, consultants and professional athletes（高收入阶层，有兴趣可以了解一下）. Nor is CEO pay unrelated to performance. Boards are increasingly willing to fire CEOs for poor performance. Ms. Minow focuses heavily on the relationship between pay and the recent credit crunch. She points out that executive pay helped to create the mess in the first place: Countrywide's CEO, Angelo Mozillo, made more than $550m during his time in office. She also points out that the fact that many companies that were bailed out（主要的意群是解救，但是可以翻译成保释） by the government continue to pay their CEOs huge salaries and bonuses is damaging the credibility of the system. Such bold opening statements raise questions galore. Is Mr. Kaplan justified in starting his account in 2000 rather than 1980, when executive pay exploded. And is Ms. Minow right to concentrate so heavily on the financial sector? These are only a couple of the questions that we need to thrash out in the coming days.
这部分是引入话题，介绍各种背景和各种想法（我感觉橙色和红色差不多啊）
嗯？我用word编辑的东西都白编辑了……
下一部分得用高级回复试试，不然回复框太小，没法宏观操作，另外，我鼠标也不好用，选中目标单词很辛苦……

dairymanUID：2683905

在我开始编辑各种颜色的debate之前，先给一个温馨建议
debate好不好？固然是好，但是这个属于治本的问题，提高写作水平是早晚的事情，但是你得等，你等得了么？所以还得治标。什么叫治标呢？就是说，为了应试，你得有效了解怎么快速把水平发挥出来，要知道如何发挥，不得不提到各种精华帖的内容了，下面给大家一个imong的好东西，里面全是imong和历届版主的辛苦工作，如果能看完，相信即便是临阵磨枪的童鞋们也能拿到一个不错的分数：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/forumdis ... =type&typeid=50
不过要切记，aw不是为了考试的，你以后写paper，aw事实上是个很大的障碍。中国人去美国，最大的问题是单词，单词不是问题了，那么如何在论文中，presentation中应用各种单词就是问题了。绝大部分人都把时间浪费在搞定论文上---看论文，或者自己写论文，这是个恶性循环，为了考试而aw，为了写文章而aw，那是很功利的想法，大家搞aw的时候应该向着自己以后写论文的方向看，现在如果能开窍，出国以后能省多少事情啊……
所以大家都先看看精华帖，然后再来开始对自己严格要求的项目上来，双管齐下才能对aw了解到入木三分。

dairymanUID：2683905

The proposer's opening remarks
Oct 20th 2009 |Steven N. Kaplan （这位说不该限薪）
In the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, CEOs are routinely criticized for being overpaid. Critics argue that boards do not respond to market forces, but, instead, are dominated by or are over-generous to their CEOs. Boards are criticized for not tying CEOs' pay to performance. These criticisms have been exacerbated by the financial crisis and the desire to find scapegoat（替罪羔羊）s. 陈述反方观点，下面转折，给出自己想法I argue below that the critics are wrong and that there are many misperceptions of CEO pay. While CEO pay practices are not perfect, they are driven by market forces and performance（这两个反复出现，说明薪酬的客观性，首先市场不偏向的，其次薪酬与工作绝对相关）. Contrary to public perception, CEO pay has not gone up in recent years. In fact, the average CEO pay (adjusted for inflation) has dropped since 2000, while the pay of other groups has increased substantially（这一句是最重要的，因为高管薪酬不升反降，那么这个辩论使得高管成为了弱势，限薪自然也变得有些残酷）. Similarly, the view that CEOs are not paid for performance is wrong（薪水与工作密切相关，使得限薪的前提：无故高薪，变得很没有说服力）. In fact, the opposite is true and boards increasingly fire them for poor performance. And, most recently, consistent with market forces driving pay, （市场是自发形成了薪水水平，而非刻意提升了薪水）the US and UK governments each hired a new CEO (of AIG and the Royal Bank of Scotland) for pay exceeding that of the median large company CEO. It is useful to understand how CEO pay is measured. It includes three components: salary, bonus and stock-based pay.（解读高管薪酬组成，从而让大家了解高管的薪酬并非无理） It is usually measured in two ways. The first is the sum of salary, bonus, restricted stock and the expected value of stock options. I call this expected pay. Expected pay measures what boards believe they awarded the CEO. This is the best measure of what a CEO is paid each year. Note that the CEO does not actually walk away with this money. The second measure replaces expected stock option values with values actually realized and realized pay measures what CEOs walk away with. The first graph shows average and median expected CEO pay for S&P 500 CEOs since 1994 (adjusted for inflation). It shows that median CEO pay has been stable since 2001; it has not increased. And average pay has declined substantially. In fact, average CEO pay in 2008 is below the average in 1998.
以上基本就是所有的这方观点，下面就是要详细论述了。那么重点在哪里？重点是强调了高管薪酬的原因，你们说高管高薪无理，所以要限薪，那么我告诉大家，首先高管薪水不高，它降了不少，其次即便是高管薪水颇丰，他也是有原因的--1.市场调节薪水，而非公司故意高薪；2.业绩决定薪水，而非毫无关系。
到这里，想插一句嘴。把市场搬出来是很聪明的，因为在西方国家，经济自由，市场经济是引以为豪的，市场是决定一切的，其他只是被动接受市场，因为大家都希望并且也认为市场是自由的，无人能操纵的---那么薪酬如果是市场force的，其合理性就很明显了，无可争议。
While average CEO pay has declined, the pay of other highly paid groups has increased. The second graph shows S&P 500 CEO pay relative to the income of the top 1% of US taxpayers. Relative to those other groups, CEOs are no better off in 2008 than in 1994. Strikingly, relative CEO pay is a half of what it was in 2001, a huge decline.（图表没看到……）
Which are those groups that have earned increasingly high compensation? Hedge fund, private equity and venture capital investors have increased their assets and fees substantially, translating into high pay. By one estimate, the top three hedge fund managers earned more in 2007 than all 500 S&P 500 CEOs combined. Professional athletes, investment bankers, consultants and lawyers also have benefited greatly. For example, from 2004 to 2008, the inflation-adjusted pay of partners at the top 20 law firms increased by 12% while that of S&P 500 CEOs dropped 12%. Those law firms had over 3,000 partners making an average of $2.4m each.
这里非常有意思，他拿出来说，别的行业薪酬其实涨了很多，高管变得不那么富裕了，说实话我觉得这一招不能算是原因，但是可以算是把高管变成弱势群体的一个小trick。众所周知，弱势群体是值得大家同情的，如果高管成为大家认为的弱势群体，那么大家就不会想法子光扣他们钱了。辩方说，你们看，这些人才是真地主，打地主土豪其实不该打高管的……（可怜巴巴状）
One can look at the Obama administration for other examples. Larry Summers made $8m (more than the median S&P 500 CEO) giving speeches and working part-time for a hedge fund. Eric Holder made $3.5m as a law partner.

So, while CEOs earn a lot, they are not unique. The pay of people in the other groups has undoubtedly been driven by market forces; all are compensated in arm's-length markets, not by cronies(cronism 任人唯亲). Technology, globalization and scale appear to have increased the market value of these groups. CEOs have not done better and, by some measures, have done worse. Those who argue CEOs are overpaid have to explain how CEOs can be overpaid and not subject to market forces, when the other groups are paid at least as well and are subject to market forces.

Why is the pay of these other groups relevant for CEOs? Top executives regularly leave to work for private equity firms and hedge funds. Law partners and consultants leave to work for public companies as general counsels and executives. Relative pay matters and all these groups are paid according to market demand. Markets are the driving force for senior executives in all these industries and talented people jump across industries, based on market perceptions of their worth.

Critics also argue that CEO pay is not tied to stock performance. Again, that is not true. Looking at what CEOs actually receive—realised pay—Josh Rauh and I found that firms with CEOs in the top decile of realised pay earned stock returns 90% above those of other firms in their industries over the previous five years. Firms with CEOs in the bottom decile of realised pay underperformed by almost 40%. The typical CEO is paid for performance.

This was reinforced in 2008, when average realised CEO pay declined by 25% (according to S&P's Execucomp). And Equilar, another provider of CEO pay data, estimated that the typical CEO experienced a net worth decline of over 40%.

The final myth to bust is that CEOs control their boards and earn high pay through this control and not performance. In fact, CEO tenure has declined, from ten years in the 1970s to six years today, and boards have got tougher on their executives when they do not perform.

In sum, market forces govern CEO compensation. CEOs are paid what they are worth. Talented individuals, who are perceived to be valuable, can move between industries to be compensated well. The clearest example of this is that even governments have to pay highly for talented executives（拿政府出来说事，你们都高薪，凭什么企业不能高薪）. Recently, the Royal Bank of Scotland (under UK government control) hired a CEO with a package worth up to $16m; AIG (under US government control) hired a CEO with a package worth up to $10.5m. For these critical jobs, both of these executives received compensation exceeding the pay of the median S&P 500 CEO.
总结一下，前面摆明观点，然后使劲列数据论证，所以中间一大堆其实可以不看，重点是前面的立论环节。后面有反例，政府本身高薪请高管，普通企业如果说我们这些高管有水平，值得他们的工资，那么也不应该被限薪。

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID：2705887

奶男，你虽然水一点，实力还是很强的说。小眼皮子不跟着你到处水了。。。要提高战斗力才是王道

dairymanUID：2683905

The opposition's opening remarks
Oct 20th 2009 |Nell Minow
Excessive executive compensation of the past decade is both a symptom and a cause（有恶性循环的意群） of the current economic mess（别人看到你宿舍很乱，你可以歉意的说：sorry for the mess）. And the post-meltdown awards are all but（几乎？） guaranteed to continue to create perverse incentives that will reward management and further damage the interests of shareholders and every other participant in the economy. Incentive compensation rewarded executives for the quantity of transactions rather than the quality of transactions. It inevitably led to failures like the subprime(次贷，专业词汇，有必要记住) disaster and the dominoes（多米诺骨牌，意群） it toppled as it took the economy down with it. Worst of all, the avalanche（看到这里我不禁想说，此类意群确实很让文章出彩） of post-bailout bonuses and departure packages like the $53m Ken Lewis got from Bank of America have severely damaged the credibility of Wall Street and the American financial markets as a whole. The billions of dollars of losses do not come close to the reputational hit to American capitalism（看见没有，这就是万恶的资本主义）, which will increase the cost of capital for all US companies.Panglossian observers will always be able to find some metric to justify any level of pay. But the results speak for themselves. The decisions that led to the meltdown were made by executives who knew that they would be paid tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how successful the consequences of those decisions.Let us look at ground zero of the subprime mess, Countrywide, where Angelo Mozilo made more than $550m during his time as CEO. When the compensation committee tried to object to his pay levels, he hired another compensation consultant, paid for by the shareholders, to push them into giving him more. He also pushed for, and was given, shareholder subsidies, not just for his wife's travel on the corporate jet but for the taxes on the imputed income from that travel. Instead of telling Mr Mozilo that he had no business asking the shareholders to subsidise his taxes, the board meekly signed off on it, making it clear to everyone in the executive suite that the pay-performance link was not a priority.
这里这位女士的辩论也很聪明，先让大家看看，高薪的高管们是多么无能，次贷还是危机了；然后说，各位shareholders，其实ceo是在浪费你们的钱，看看他们拿着这么多钱，花了这么多，为你们才创造了多少？先镇住大家，这一点和前面那位先生不一样，前面是条理地说出反对限薪意见，这位女士直接先让大家燃起怒火……
By the end of 2007, when Countrywide finally revealed the losses it had previously obscured, shareholders lost more than 78% of their investment value. Meanwhile, in early 2007 Mr Mozilo sold over $127m in exercised stock options before July 24th 2007, when he announced a $388m write-down on profits. Before the bailout, Countrywide narrowly avoided bankruptcy by taking out an emergency loan of $11 billion from a group of banks. Mr Mozilo continued to sell off shares, and by the end of 2007 he had sold an additional $30m in exercised stock options. There is the definition of outrageously（出现两遍了） excessive compensation.
Countrywide responded to a shareholder proposal that year asking for a non-binding advisory vote on its pay plan by urging shareholders to oppose it because "Countrywide has been an outstanding performer" and because "The Board's Compensation Committee has access to the best information on compensation practices and has a thorough process in place to determine appropriate executive pay." They could hardly have done worse. And it is likely that some market feedback on the structure of the pay plan could have given compensation committee members Harley W. Snyder (chair), Robert J. Donato, Michael E. Dougherty and Oscar P. Robertson worthwhile guidance.

Michelle Leder of the indispensable Footnoted.org website discovered that Frank A. Keating, Charles T. Maxwell and Frederick B. Whittemore, the compensation committee at Chesapeake Energy, not only paid the CEO, Aubrey McClendon, $100m, a 500% increase as the stock dropped 60% and the profits went down 50%, they spent $4.6m of the shareholders' money to sponsor a basketball team of which Mr McClendon owns a 19% stake, they purchased catering services from a restaurant which he owns just under a half of, and they took his collection of antique maps off his hands for $12.1m of the shareholders' money, based on a valuation from the consultant who advised Mr McClendon on assembling the collection. The board justified this by referring to Mr McClendon's having to sell more than $1 billion worth of stock due to margin calls, his having concluded four important deals and the benefit to employee morale from having the maps on display in the office. A market-based response would be: (1) that was his risk and it is inappropriate to the point of misappropriation to force the other shareholders, already substantially out of pocket with their own losses due to his poor leadership of the organization, make up for his losses (2) if the deals are good ones, he will be adequately rewarded when the benefit of those deals is reflected in the stock price; and (3) you have got to be kidding. （三个方面，说实话我还没看明白，囧）If this is pay for performance, what exactly is the performance we are paying for?（这里重点还是说薪水高，薪水与业绩无挂钩）

These may be anecdotes, but they are illuminating ones. The numbers and details may be at the extreme, but the underlying approaches are representative. Even as outliers, they still demonstrate the failure of the system to ensure a vigorous, arm's-length system for determining pay and the inability of the system to require an effective incentive program with a genuine downside as well as an upside.

In my comments, I will discuss the seven deadliest sins（居然连七原罪都搬出来了） of executive compensation, the two key elements that are essential for any plan that merits support from investors and the only metric that matters in looking at pay.
总结，说实话我没太看懂，但是我发现这个论证过程是非常passionate的，也就是说，你可以愤怒地呼喊出这一切，能挑逗到大家都愤怒。这个的亮点是喜欢举例子，举那种让你感觉我被人蒙蔽了，被人骗钱了的例子，然后利用大家的感情再来添油加醋地慷慨激扬一下子。不错，这个文章如果朗读起来，肯定是很有感染力的，不过我还是感觉这个的说理性有些问题，开头举了例子，但是这些例子很容易被反驳，毕竟一个人的无能，几个人的腐败不能映射所有人……

NaperyUID：2710990

老头儿不愧是老头儿，就知道你不简单呀。。。

爪子没看错人。。。哈哈哈 。。。。

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID：2705887

都这么强，我都不敢把我自己的贴上来了。(>_<)

dairymanUID：2683905

昨晚断网，郁闷，米饭给的，或者是说小爪子的图书馆检索xxx没有成功传上去，今天起来传的。
昨晚没有网络，百无聊赖，于是我就拼了我买了好久都没有动手的高达模型
拼到十二点，拼出一个脑袋，两条胳膊出来，累死我鸟。今天下午要回学校，上午拾掇一下，中午去拿一个美女同学要我捎带的衣服，然后下午坐汽车走……
晚上到校，休息休息，然后要准备明天上课了。
昨天家里说要给我买笔记本电脑了，高兴啊，价位在3500到5000之间，大家有没有推荐的机型？欢迎大家来水

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID：2705887

模型~！( ⊙o⊙ )哇
我的模型也是买了好久，都没时间去做。

NaperyUID：2710990

爪子谢谢老头儿帮俺把文件搞定了~

嘿嘿，小小HUG一下~~

由于您老人家瘦削体弱，所以爪子也不能太激动的hug一啦~~

免得把您给挤坏了，那爪子可是罪孽深重啊。。。。

你终于要回学校了啊？

好好保养身子骨呀，哈哈。。。。。

现在笔记本多着呢，貌似都不会很贵，或许联想的可以吧。。。

但男生的话，爪子觉得可以用下华硕的呢。。。

HP在爪子这边貌似回修率挺高。。。买联想的多。。。价位不高。。。貌似还挺好用的呢。。。

dell的估计就售后不方便吧。。。。还有其他的爪子暂时想不起来。。。。想起来再告诉你哈。。。

dairymanUID：2683905

速度补一个
追星箭今天看了一下，argument分三步
第一部分说前面的复述属于无用环节，不如用在多写写后面的内容
震惊，我还喜欢从前面的复述里耍点花出来，因为一般是先复述，再说，这个是invalid，xxxxx
我当时写成了，复述主体，然后开始辩论，先辩其基础，就是基础假设，这样，从第一段就是先把最重要的驳倒了，后面再反驳其他的，先主后次，记得原来自己分析这样可以高分，而且不落俗套。
追星箭还没看完，等看完再完善一下自己的思路和文风……
另：华硕的啊？我那个美女同学也说要我买华硕的

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID：2705887

thinkpad，不二之选

dairymanUID：2683905

28# 单眼皮vs肿眼皮 太贵，而且IBM得thinkpad好，联想的thinkpad就不好，个人深切体会……

dairymanUID：2683905

看了大家的argu，感觉大家都很厉害，进步很神速，我也有所提高，可以改别人的了，还到处挑错误。
问题出现在别扭的模板式语言，其实很多拽词没什么必要，空浪费篇幅，但是对于新手来说，绝对是perfect job
issue 7我还米有写，不过我看别人也都米有交，囧……