1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by 海王泪——要么自燃成灰，要么浴火重生

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.20]» https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1043352&page=1&extra=

My Sum-Up
America and China need each other, but they are a long way from trusting each other.
1.American leaders again emphasize and contemplate the relation of their countries with China.
2.America looks uneasily on the rise of a potential challenger—China.
3.The power and status is shifting more rapidly in China’s favor with the different situation between economy in America and China.

Choose your weapons

4.For trade co-operation, Obama will visit China on December. Military force of China also threatens American.
5.Another potential threat is the status of China for becoming the biggest lender to America. However, it is not fair to say that so the special report will explain why.
6.The financial relation in finance is a “foreign-exchange version of the cold-war stalemate based on ‘mutually assured destruction’”.
7.The economic crisis may serve as an opportunity for China to freer high-tech. In the past, although the nation always swallowed rubble of global economy, it still suffered from the barrier of America.
8.The economic crisis slowed the growth of China’s outbound direct investments.
9.China may grow stronger and stronger but its power still lags far behind America.
10.China and American will work closer but the former will be more liable to be under the dominance of the latter.
11.However, nationalism is a powerful, growing and potentially disruptive force.
12.Mutual economic benefit emerges as a winning answer for which China and America become friends instead of ideological rivals.
13.But American finds they have different relationship with China when they deal with different part of the bureaucracy.
14.There are growing worries in America that China’s military power becomes a threat.
15.Political uncertainty, the change of leaders, in China, America and Taiwan simultaneously will be a big challenge for the relationship between China and America.

Triple hazard

16.For inappropriate fiscal investment, some doubts the stability of China’s recovery after global financial crisis.
17.Social tensions, political uncertainty and economic challenge could eventually imperil Chinese stability and relationship with other countries, especially America.

My Comment

Once, I heard from my friend about this magazine: “The Economists always lampoon China. It always publicizes reactionism.”However, as far as I concern, Economists' attitude about China may be paradox rather than only criticizing. Sometimes the magazine may be even more objective than most of the media in America and China.

For instance, the report has called for justice for China in paragraph 5. The magazine asserts that it is unreasonable for American to blame China as the biggest purchaser in their American Treasury securities which may wreck their economy when China would suffer from value-destroying with the slump of US. But in the last two paragraphs, it has criticized Chinese frailties—inappropriate economic policies, social tensions, political uncertainty and point out these factors could endanger its own stability and relationship with other countries, especially with America. Different attitute to China in different questions shows Economists is not as evil as what my friend said.

Some Sentences is vivid and meaningful. I like the statement about “foreign-exchange version of the cold-war stalemate based on ‘mutually assured destruction’”. China and America are interdependent. Although Chinese government has the ability to draw down the greenback from the throne of currency, it may also suffer from great loss such as depreciated foreign assets, less export and thus more unemployment, and more importantly, domestically serious inflation of RMB.

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.20
A tired day...About 11 hour for learning...
Comment, translation and a meeting...
Other time is for major homework... Unfinished yet~~555
Have a good sleep~

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.21
Tired day....all day's classes...
HOMEWORK from major had been finished yet..
But the comment is still left....I only read the report twice...Then, it is time to sleep.
Certainly I will finish it next morning...Hehe

Today everyone in our Q group is exciting... And our topic... is ... Sex....
Hahahaha.... Don't YY... We were talking about Gender.

Have a nice dream.

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.21]

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1043638&extra=&page=1

My Sum-Up
Thesis: The world economy is recovering from financial disaster. But it will not return to normal as we know it.
(Pessimist)
1.Financial crisis are not only the sole province of the banking industry but also job market, fiscal expenditure.
2.The world economy is fitfully getting back to normal, but it will be a “new normal” because not every change wrought by the financial breakdown will be reversed.
3.Former banking system and especially the securitization markets make physical capital worse.
4.Government intervention is needed but is embarrassed by fiscal strain.
(Optimists)
5.Some forecasters believe the economy will bounce back to the “old normal” according to the string theory from Milton Friedman.
6.Friedman’s piece of string represents the demand while the rigid board symbolizes the supply. While spending is strong enough, everything will be OK.

String theory

(Introduction and critique)
7.When the lain idle resources are fully used again, the economy can grow faster than normal in a period until it reaches the scale before crisis

8.However, the string theory can come unstuck in two ways. The remained lack of demand will reduce the level of potential output or even its rate of growth
9.Labor kept out of working equates to the weaken skills and thus shrinked output. In addition, their back to work needs time.
10.Capital and savings will not be active when demand remains weak.
11.Labor and capital in bad condition result in a lower ceiling on production and an alarming gap after crisis.
12.The situation is very serious if the “10%” law continues to take effect.
(The mechanism)
13.Financial crisis pose a threat to national incomes. It also a seriously and continually hurt economy.
14.Shattered assets and remained liabilities in balance-sheet cause the continual erosion in economy.
15.Lost decade in Japan serves as a good example.
16.The scenario of post-war recession can help understand the mechanism.
17.The protracted slog of most Japan’s companies keeps the balance-sheet recession for a long time
18.The world economy has palpably improved and financial shock seems to have given way to relief.

The persistence of debt

19.But the relief is likely to be short-lived because the world economy again fell.
20.This report will argue that the world economy will meet a new normal, which demand, stimulus packages, unemployment, debt, banks and security markets are different from the old normal.
21.Shortfall in demand weighing on supply and massive unemployment will continue. The financial system should copes with past mistakes and impending regulation.
22.Heavy legacy of debt on the balance-sheet allows past losses to depress future gains.

My comment

Well, I am not interesting in the Macroeconomic. Special terms seem familiar to me but in fact I cannot clearly understand them in our real world. It is too complicated. The real world contains so many premises and complicated factors. Their relationship would glitch my head until experts tell me what truly happened “this time”. As what the report says, the new normal is different from the old normal. Frequently changing world makes economists’ opinions vary from time to time or person to person.

By comparison with complex and changeful macro phenomenon, people’s behavior in micro angle is more stable, because human nature seldom changes in our history. Pursuit for great wealth, enormous egos, greed, passion and controversy vary from forms but they keep the similar essence as before.

In the light of the excellent words from Irving Fisher about the evil debt, I would talk about crisis in micro angle about the behaviors of over-confident debtors.
Generally speaking, over-confident debtors often waste social resources. When people or companies have excessively easy access to others’ money, psychologically they may invest or speculate at very high risk. If they fail, they can just borrow again. Again and again, their debt is bigger and bigger. At the very last moment, application to bankruptcy is available. These golden-collars are under the protection of law. Their loaners, banks, won’t tightly chase them or even hurt them in rude ways as those usurers from Las Vegas. Since failure in speculation or investment is not too terrible, hardly can they refuse to become desperado.

Above might be a little exaggerated. Some people or companies may refuse applying bankruptcy to keep their credit. But the consequence to economy could be still terrible as the examples illustrated in paragraph 17 about Japanese companies in the lost decades. It is just a protracted slog. Balance-sheet is easily ruined but difficultly paid off.

Although the banks and security markets were born for more effective use of money and resources in our society, the system of debit and credit also cause lots of problems. It is a long way to go. Our long climb will continue. As what the report said, “The mobilization of capital will be fitful as the financial system copes with past mistakes and impending regulation.”

Sentences and Phrases

Yet students of economic turmoil will find their subject matter conveniently close to hand.

That phrase has caught on,
even if people disagree about what it means.

Friedman’s piece of string represents the demand side while the rigid board symbolizes the supply side.

The result is a lower ceiling on production.

Even when the economy begins to expand, it may not regain the same pace as before.

Financial crises can pose such a threat to national incomes because of the way they erode national wealth.

Rather than file for bankruptcy, they set about paying down their stock of debt to a manageable level.

The world economy fell off a precipice. When you are falling, you do not look up. Only when you hit bottom can you stop and contemplate the cliff you must now climb.

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.22]
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1044038-1-1.html

My Sum-Up
Thesis: A procedural vote in America's Senate brings Barack Obama's health-care reforms closer
1.A health-care reform bill will be passed out of Senate as what Obama wanted and Republicans give up their fighting.
2.The heath bill supported by the Democrats cleared the first and the most difficult procedural hurdles from the Republicans.
3.The Senate version has been deprived of something when another bill adding a public option was passed by the House of Representative.
4.The Senate version obliges everyone to have health-insurance and it benefits disadvantaged groups.
5.Republicans hates the healthy bill because of its cost.
6.It is unprecedented for such a substantive and expensive bill to have been forced through Congress on such a narrow vote.
7.The health-care reform will meet difficulty for the conflicts between the Senate version and the House version of a public option.

My comment
This special report only draws a blank in my mind, except for the strange feeling about the difference between the U.S. governments and ours. What President Obama wants such as the health-care bill needs to clear many hurdles in Senate and House. By comparison with it, our Wu (W for H, on the ground of avoid being detected and eliminated) can easily enact policies he wants.
Democracy or relative autocracy… That is an issue argued for a long time.
I do not mean relative autocracy is not good. In fact, I love our governments in some way.The Olympics Games can serve as a good example. Collecting resources in such a short time is a great achievement while Democracy may hold action in protracted way.

Well, let us come back to our topic—The health-care reform of America.
The bill is in controversy. The cost is spectacular. That means it benefits disadvantaged groups a lot but certainly it pose heavy burden on government's shoulder and finally pass it to other taxpayers.
In my opinion, America is a nation believing in market. How could its government make such a high degree of intervention in medical field? There must be a lot of stories. Pardon my stop here.

Sentences and phrases
Sentences and phrases
“Republicans, who have been fighting tooth-and-nail to block passage of the bill seem to have given up the fight, and have given warning instead that this will be a wish that he comes to regret.”
Fighting tooth-and-nail with sb to do sth

“Shortly after 1am on Monday December 21st, the health bill cleared the first, and the most difficult, of the procedural hurdles it has to leap in order to secure passage through the Senate.”
Clear hurdles=overcome obstacles/difficulty
Only through clearing the hurdles of GRE and Toefl can we flying across the Pacific Ocearn.
The head of our school clear any hurdles of course reforms.
“There are many hurdles to overcome in life.”--Oxford

“The health bill has been stripped of something very dear to many of then”
Be stripped of something=be deprived of something

“Many tens of millions more, who have insurance but fear losing it through redundancy or ill-health, will have those worries lifted from their shoulders”
Have sb’s worries/burdens lifted from their shoulders
The cut down of tax have farmers’ financial burdens lifted from their shoulders.
The new policy has those workers’ worries lift from their shoulders.
Kon’s high score in GRE test has his parents’ worries lift from their shoulders.

“Republicans, however, hate the bill, mostly on the ground of cost.”
On the ground of=for the reason of=because of
Kon take the GRE test on the ground of will to study aboard.
Keeping comment for Economists everyday is on the ground of improving reading and writing skills.

“The public option is one big stumbling block.”
Sth. is a big stumbling block.
GRE is one big stumbling block on the long journey to America.
Sloth is one big stumbling block for keeping pace with other Gters.
Low score in AW is one big stumbling block to  scholarship.

Difficult sentence:
As of today though, health-care reform, expensive and imperfect though it is, is looking a lot more likely.

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.23
Classes...
Review my major...
Sadness for something doesn't belong to me...
Comment unfinished yet but the debates read once.

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.24

Rejoice...
Remember the sentence in last diary?
"Sadness for something doesn't belong to me..."

Miracle, miracle, miracle... Finally I find that belongs to me....
A special scholarship.. Gift... Thanks everyone who helps me!!

However, today I got too many jobs unfinished yet....
Sigh... I need more time.

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.23]&[12.24]
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1044413-1-1.html

My Sum-Up

[Topic: Executive pay]
Issue: This house believes that on the whole, senior executive are worth what they are pay.

[About this debate]
The trend of much higher executive pay is radioactive.
Disagree: Huge pay is seldom tethered to performance and thus it demotivates other workforce.
Agree: Successful executives add hugely to a firm’s profitability and do hard works.

[Opening Statement]

The moderator's opening remarks
Executive pay is out of control.
Evidence: Executive pay has exploded since the 1980s..
Question: Isn’t his a disgrace? (Opinions and Examples)Critics vs. Defenders: Be given outsized rewards vs. Be worth every penny)
Background: Unemployment, government expenditures, bosses and bankers.
An introduction: Defender and Critic
Defender: 1) CEO pay has not gone up but dropped, comparing with other well-paid groups; 2) CEO pay is related to performance
Critic: There is relationship between pay and the recent credit crunch.1) Executive pay helped to create the mess; 2) Continuing huge pay damage the credibility of bailing out system.

The proposer's opening remarks Steven N. Kaplan
【Thesis】 Critics have been in psychologically imbalance.
1【Reason】 CEO pay is driven by market forces and performance.
1.1『Evidence1.1』CEO pay has not gone up but dropped, comparing with other well-paid groups
[Measurement]How CEO pay is measured: Three components measured in two ways.

[Description]The wave of (average and median) expected pay (with data)
[Comparison] Other well-paid groups (Data)
[Description] About the well-paid groups (Classification and Examples)
[Sub Argument]CEOs are not unique. Their pay has been pay driven by market forces as people in the other groups. [Defense] Critics must explain how CEO can be overpaid and not subject to market forces while other groups are consistent to market.
1.2『Evidence1.2』:The pay of other groups is relevant for CEOs, because relative pay matters (the occupation they choose) and payment are according to market demand.
2【Reason】 CEO pay is tied to stock performance.
『Evidence2』 Examples and Data
3【Reason】 CEOs do not control their boards.
『Evidence3』 CEO tenure has declined and CEO has been treated tougher by boards.
【Conclusion】Market forces govern CEO compensation.[Examples]Governments payment

The opposition's opening remarksNell  Minow

【Thesis】Excessive executive compensation is both a symptom and a cause of the current economic mess.
【Reason】Incentive compensation rewarded executives for the quantity of transactions rather than the quality of transactions which led to subprime disaster.

『Evidence1』[Example] CEO Angelo Mozilo and his shareholders.

『Evidence2』[Example] Aubrey McClendon

【Conclusion】There are deadly sins of executive compensation.

Reference
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.
Arm's-length markets

A financial market in which parties engaging in transactions are separate and have no contact with each other outside of the buying and selling of securities. In the case of the stock market, most investors will never know from whom they are buying securities or to whom they are selling them.
http://www.investorwords.com/6403/arms_length_market.html

Arm's length principle
The arm's length principle (ALP) is the condition or the fact that the parties to a transaction are independent and on an equal footing. Such a transaction is known as an "arm's-length transaction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm's_length_principle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentences and Phrases
This trend was never popular, even during good times. But today it is becoming radioactive, as governments step in to rescue failing companies and ordinary people are forced to tighten their belts.
Popular=radioactive
Tighten ones’belts=Retrenchment

These are only a couple of the questions that we need to thrash out in the coming days.
Thrash out=discuss and solve (A Plan, Problem or Agreement)

The multiples increased exponentially.

These criticisms have been exacerbated by the financial crisis and the desire to find scapegoats.

And the post-meltdown awards are all but guaranteed to continue to create perverse incentives.

Functional Senteces
【Introduction to topic】
The debate about executive pay, though never cool, is particularly hot at the moment.

【Argument: Call out questions to a claim】
Such bold opening statements raise questions galore.

【Issue or Argument: Contradiction to misperceptions】
1) 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.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.
2) Similarly, the view that CEOs are not paid for performance is wrong.
3) 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.

【Euphemism when details are too extreme】

These may be anecdotes, but they are illuminating ones. The numbers and details may be at the extreme, but the underlying approaches are representative.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments

Part One: Comment on the Proposer
Only after reading Debates from Economists do I truly realized what sentences mean as follows:

[AW Intro-Issue]

Once you have decided on a position to defend, consider the perspective of others who might not agree with your position. Ask yourself:

• What reasons might someone use to refute or undermine my position?

• How should I acknowledge or defend against those views in my essay?

Here are examples:

1)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.

2)Critics also argue that CEO pay is not tied to stock performance.
Looking at what CEOs actually receive—realised pay—Josh Rauh and I found.

3)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

The author successfully consider the perspective of others and give reasons one by one to defend agansit them. That's what the most valuable thing we should learn from this article! Excellent!

But I have question on reason2.
Although I admire the persuasive writing and logical thinking of Steven N. Kaplan as the defender, I cannot help myself arguing for an assumption ignored by Mr. Kaplan.

My question is how to measure performance of CEOs?

Steven N. Kaplan has showed how CEO pay is measured with three components in two ways. But that cannot explain if executives are well worth their pay. To a company, a CEO must create value more than his or her payment; otherwise board would treat the CEO as worthless person. Thus, the author makes significant mistakes when he placed too much emphasis on change and comparison of payment in positions, but ignored talking about how much they create for the company.

We find it hard to know how much do executives contribute to their company. CEOs macroscopically control the company and they are out of specific affairs. So there are no exact or detailed ways for calculation of their performance. In contrast, what salesmen contribute can be seem as the quantity they sold, while performance of product R&D personnel can be measured after calculation of sales and costs in their invention. Thus, how could we draw the conclusion that CEOs are worth what they are pay when we do not know how much do they create?

The author illustrates the relationship between the payment of CEOs and the stock performance of their company, in order to argue critics like me:
“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 year. Firms with CEOs in the bottom decile of realised pay under performed by almost 40%.”

As far as I concern, Mr. Kaplan may mistakenly treat correlation as causation. Even worse, he may turn around the cause and effect. The top firms perhaps tend to pay highly for their CEOs because such firms are strong with high stock returns itself . Similarly, firms in bad condition cannot afford high payment for their executives. Outstanding executives in high realized pay perhaps really help a lot. But the question is still unsolved when no evidence show if values they create are well worth their high salary, bonus and stock.

Part Two: Comment on the Opposition
When I read the first and second paragraph, hardly can I believe such a stupid mistakes come from a long-time shareholder activist and chairwoman.

Nell Minow wrote:“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.”

In fact, it is well known that the most important component of CEOs’ payment is stock-base pay. CEOs really care the consequence of their decisions which directly affect their stock returns. So it is really ridiculous to treat CEOs as workers who work very passively due to fixed salaries.

However, when I come to the next paragraphs, I know what the author means. I am sorry that I misunderstand the purpose of Ms. Minow. It is impossible for her to ignore the relationship between rewards and stock price. The example of Aubrey McClendon is valid, and I think I am one of those people who she was talking to “…you have got to be kidding. If this is pay for performance, what exactly is the performance we are paying for?”

Then Mr. Minow again surprises me. She wrote:” These may be anecdotes, but they are illuminating ones. The numbers and details may be at the extreme, but the underlying approaches are representative.”Well, I cannot but admit these two cases really serve as illuminating ones. I cannot but agree other executives may more or less use similar approaches for their own profits. She is right.

But, we cannot simply treat other executives as Angelo Mozilo and Aubrey McClendon. They are extreme examples, as what Nell said. Such great power to control boards, like raise in payment or misappropriation by enforce the other shareholders, is very very rare.

Part Three: My Perspectives on Both Side

All in all, Steven N. Kaplan is a good scholar. He supported his issue in a boarder view and discuss questions as a whole, while Nell Minow only used two examples, though they are strong, to criticize executive pay.

Although Mr. Kaplan didn’t completely persuade me because he didn’t suggest a way to compare value created by executives with their payment, he really does an excellent work to show CEOs have not been in a better situation than before. Nell Minow’s examples are illuminating and persuasive, but their range for explanation is too limited.

I believe most of people would like to accept what Ms Minow said, but I personally prefer Mr. Kaplan because of his explanatory power. That is the difference between scholar and business woman.

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.25
还是用中文写备考日志吧。。呵呵

唉··开始忧期末考试了。。
最近花太多时间在别的事上，另外COMMENT也着实耗费了不少时间。。。特别是DEBATES。。

当然，这样分析下来收获很大。。发现DEBATES是绝好的准备AW的材料

不多说了，早点睡觉。。郁闷中。。

为什么每天都在慌张中度过？ 难道是我掌握自己日程的能力太差了？
加油啊。。一定要做下去！！！

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

It is so amazing to figure out that your dream major is enviromental economics!
Well, as an environmental engeering student, I am so glad to hear that.
And, 嘎巴路:lol

海王泪UID: 2673613

55# zhengchangdian

Hey hey, thank you for your coming!
Let's fight for our environment.  The first step is GRE!
You will devote yourself in technology, I will contribute my life to social system.
Make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race~
Cheer up!!

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

55# zhengchangdian  

You will devote yourself in technology, I will contribute my life to social syst ...
海王泪 发表于 2009-12-26 09:09

devote ..to..?  or devote ...in..?  I am not sure...

海王泪UID: 2673613

57# 123runfordream

Devote to.. You are right~~
Typing too fast often coincides with stupid mistakes.
Thank you for pointing out that. :loveliness:

海王泪UID: 2673613

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.25]
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1045209-1-1.html
My Sum-up

The moderator's rebuttal remarks
Oct 23rd 2009 | Adrian Wooldridge  
[Introduction] It seems that experts are just as passionate on the subject of executive pay as the general public.
[1]Opinions of Proposer Mr. Kaplan
[2]Opinions of Opposition Ms Minow
[3]Opinions of Moderator Mr. Wooldridge:
To Voting: Although the voting is heavily against the issue, he wonder how fat this is driven by emotion rather than a reasoned assessment of the evidence
To Issue: We need to focus more on the overall picture, around the world as well as in the United States, rather than on a few attention-grabbing anecdotes.
To Proposer: Mr Kaplan's best chance of turning the voting around is to demonstrate that outstanding bosses can boost the performance of the organisations that they head, not only earning their pay but also benefitting workers, shareholders and consumers.

The proposer's rebuttal remarks
Oct 23rd 2009 | Steven N. Kaplan
【Introduction】
[Conclusion]Top executive compensation caused the financial crisisà [evidence] two "outlier" anecdotes(Data of Pay)à[Thesis]Data and anecdotes cannot support her conclusion
【Sum-Up of Opposition’s Claims】Five claims.
【Counter-examples for the Claims】Vikram Pandit, John Mack and Kenneth Lewis
The fact is that most financial-company CEOs received the lion's share of their pay in stock and options.
【Evidence:(Specific to) General】Overall CEO market(Data)
【Quote Authority】(1)David Yermack’s conclusion (though highly critical of CEO pay) is directly opposed to Ms Minow (About the relationship of CEO pay and financial crisis.)(2)A study by Rudi Fahlenbrach and Rene Stulz confirms Yermack’s analysis refuting Ms Minow’s conclusion.
【Denying Examples of Opposition】(1) Angelo Mozillo was charged with securities fraud and insider trading (potentially end up paying three times he took out). (2) Mr McClendon running an energy company cannot do anything with financial crisis.
【Conclusion】Data and "outlier" "anecdotes" cannot provide any evidence that top executive compensation had much to do with the financial crisis.
【Alter Explanation】Loose monetary policy, a global capital glut, over-high leverage at investment banks, mandates from Congress(mortgages to unaffordable people), flawed ratings, poor incentives at mortgage.
【Counter Example—Same result with Different Condition in Discussed Cause】Other countries with different pay practices also suffered from the Financial crisis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentences and Phrases
Financial service companies are once again paying huge bonuses despite the fact that their companies have been propped up by public money.
Prop up=support

But I wonder how far this is driven by emotion rather than a reasoned assessment of the evidence.
Be driven by emotionßàA reasoned assessment of the evidence

The fact is that most financial-company CEOs received the lion's share of their pay in stock and options.
The lion’s share=the biggest part

The preponderance of the data and, even Ms Minow's "outlier" "anecdotes," therefore, fail to provide any evidence
The preponderance of=The majority of

Nevertheless, his conclusion on the relation of CEO pay to the financial crisis is diametrically opposed to Ms Minow's
Diametrically=directly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Sentence
【Argument-Statement about opposition to criticism】
Mr Kaplan argues that the most powerful criticism of executive pay-that bosses get upside and no downside-is simply false.

【Pointing out Logical fallacies—Unrepresentative Samples】
We need to focus more on the overall picture, around the world as well as in the United States, rather than on a few attention-grabbing anecdotes.

【Argument-Ungrounded Conclusion】

The preponderance of the data and, even Ms Minow's "outlier" "anecdotes," therefore, fail to provide any evidence that top executive compensation had much to do with the financial crisis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
Part One: Perspective on the Moderator
Both the moderator and I tend to support the proposer.
Mr. Wooldridge said “We need to focus more on the overall picture, around the world as well as in the United States, rather than on a few attention-grabbing anecdotes.” ,while I said, “All in all, Steven N. Kaplan is a good scholar. He supported his issue in a boarder view and discuss questions as a whole, while Nell Minow only used two examples, though they are strong, to criticize executive pay. “ And I also said: “Nell Minow’s examples are illuminating and persuasive, but their range for explanation is too limited. “, ”I believe most of people would like to accept what Ms Minow said, but I personally prefer Mr. Kaplan because of his explanatory power.”

Moreover, we find a significant point that Mr Kaplan ignored.
The moderator said “Mr Kaplan's best chance of turning the voting around is to demonstrate that outstanding bosses can boost the performance of the organisations that they head, not only earning their pay but also benefitting workers, shareholders and consumers.”, while I said, “Thus, the author makes significant mistakes when he placed too much emphasis on change and comparison of payment in positions, but ignored talking about how much they create for the company.”

It is very exciting that my opinion is similar to the moderator.

Part Two: Perspective on the Proposer

So, that is argument.

Similar progress was used in the Kaplan’s rebuttal. It is just like the pattern we know in writing a beginning of Argument task. Here is it.
(Opposition’s conclusionàOpposition’s evidenceàThesis: Evidence cannot support the conclusion.)
There is not much analysis except for pointing out “The plural of anecdote is data.” The data is the pay at a broad sample of financial companies.

An effective reason of Mr.Kaplan is this reason.
The fact is that most financial-company CEOs received the lion's share of their pay in stock and options.
I absolutely agree with it because I wrote the similar paragraphs yesterday:

“In fact, it is well known that the most important component of CEOs’ payment is stock-base pay. CEOs really care the consequence of their decisions which directly affect their stock returns. So it is really ridiculous to treat CEOs as workers who work very passively due to fixed salaries. “

But I once hesitated when I saw the conduct of selling stock in Ms.Nell’s examples. So I said sorry in my comment to Nell for “Misunderstood” her claims. In fact, I am right. Let’s see what Mr. Kaplan said:
“And they kept most of that pay as shares in their companies which they never cashed in.”
Yes, CEOs seldom sold their stock because it is the biggest part of their pay. They are on the same boat of their company. Behavior in Nell’s examples is very rare because those bandits were in premeditation.

Exciting, exciting! After providing reason and three counter-examples, Kaplan talk about the overall CEO market with data, which indirectly lampoon Ms. Nell’s narrow view on only two anecdotes.

Moreover, Kaplan quote other authority to support him.

After that, Kaplan begin denying two anecdotes from Nell by showing bad end of Angelo Mozillo and ineffective use of case about Mr. McClendon.

Finally, Mr. Kaplan not only bring forward the alter explanation of financial crisis, but also strongly use common sense as the proof of what really cause financial crisis: Other countries with different pay practices also suffered from the financial crisis. That indirectly demonstrates that it is not the executive pay which cause financial crisis but other factors. (Same result with Different Condition in Discussed Cause)

I strongly suggest everyone study the method of Mr. Kaplan. Maybe only understanding what he says is not enough. This rebuttal is valuable and worth reading again and again.

P.S. Perspective on opposition is unfinished yet.

海王泪UID: 2673613

12.26
组队、COMMENT、Check资料
今天对着电脑11小时，不过效率很低的说。。。
[12.25]COMMENT的rebuttal也写得没之前认真。。。

不过值得开心的是，居然与主持人英雄所见略同。。
KAPLAN还是比较好样的，除了避开了个ASSUMPTION外。。。。