Swiss CEO Pay

Now it's my belief that if a company is run successfully and efficiently, yielding high profit margins, a CEO should be able to grant him or herself or be granted significant pay for efforts leading to that success in managing a company. If you can afford to be allotted significant pay from a company and not cause any detriment to its revenue and profit or others salaries then that should be sufficient. Novartis was mentioned in this article and I can't help but have bias because I interned with the company while living in Greensboro, NC for a decent amount of time. I know a lot of people who work for the company and know that the company is worth upwards of 60 billion dollars. It doesn't shock me that they would pay the chairman 76 million and obviously this does not really dent their budgets when I know the animal health division alone spends at least that much annually on developing projects, its part of the companies risk factor. If shareholders were put in charge of the pay behind chairmen and other people in high positions would that also give shareholders the right to manage other financials of the company? I don't think that is at all fair, people should be given control over the things they have experience with and should be allowed to continue their current practices as long as the companies in question, like Novartis, stay successful without intervention by outside forces.

Twitter

As twitter becomes more and more prevalent, it has grown to support a large following and has pages for companies, celebrities, people, and a lot more. Twitter is used by businesses for advertising to promote products and according to some of the articles has not yet reached its full potential. Twitter is a great way for people to connect easily and see things quickly as it emerges into the more "modern" social networking outlet. The stock itself has already fared better than Facebook's and seems to be a lot more popular. Twitter shares are forecasted to improve in price but is that really the case? How will we know when the company peaks or what will happen if another site takes its place as it is seeming to do with Facebook. Competition will be a large factor in determining where the company goes into the future.

Bigfoot Shooting

It seems the whole premise behind Bigfoot is all about marketing. The fact that this "creature" is used now as a business model to make money makes the events in the shooting even more absurd. The fact that someone was allegedly so curious but obviously fearful about the creature that they had to bring out guns in a group of people just makes little myths like this extremely dangerous. Maybe there is a Bigfoot, there isn't any proof however to back up this claim. It is for that reason the curiosity of many has peaked because the idea of Bigfoot is so old and still unproven. If a person were to find the real creature there would be a lot of fame and money to follow them. I just don't see the point of heading out late at night looking for a creature that may or may not exist- they ended up running into more trouble than was necessary and now all participants may end up with jail time over an unknown creature. I'm unsure if that's embarrassing or just depressing.