I don't think you'll find that Hognoxious was claiming at all that the salary was the reason for the bankruptcy. I think you'll find that he was claiming that with the company going bankrupt, odds are that the CEO wasn't worth what he was being paid. Many a company in the hands of competent management has been brought back from the brink of the abyss, and I don't think you'll find anyone arguing against those people being paid a fair amount (e.g. Air New Zealand, once bankrupted and salvaged by government intervention, now turns over close to $200m in profit per year - the CEO gets about $1.9m per year. By contrast Qantas, now quarter of a billion in the red, pays their CEO $5m per year),
If by "now" you mean "not" then sure. Because you most certainly can not buy fuel, cars or land with Bitcoin. And you certainly can't remit the taxes on those sales using it.
Yes, but if you renounce your citizenship, you're required to have citizenship somewhere else first. At which point, your new-found patron nation is required to defend you.
Physically no, but economically, very much yes. Companies going bankrupt results in layoffs (more unemployed people), defaults (more suppliers not getting paid for deliveries they've made), and the flow on effects of layoffs and defaults.
Let me guess... you're a Ron Paul supporter?
I very much doubt Tim Cook is the person that makes those kinds of decisions. It's likely more in the CFO's realm than the CEO.
Dafuq are you on about? It's spent mostly to acquire natural resources on behalf of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc. 99% of those trading partners that you haven't invaded would be surprised to hear that you're defending them, mostly because you aren't.
No, no they do not have a legal responsibility to maximise ROI. They only have a legal responsibility to not piss away the money they have, and to manage it in the way they say they do in the company's formation documents.
That is true about fiduciary duty. However, there is still no legal requirement to maximise profits at all costs - this is a lie that is constantly trotted out. The fiduciary obligation of a company is generally detailed in its constitution (or other formative document) - for example in NZ there are companies whose constitutions explicitly state that they may on occasion make decisions that are not in the best interests of the company OR shareholders, where it will benefit only tribes of indigenous people.
Basically, a company's obligation is to state upfront how they manage funds (e.g. in their prospectus), and it's your responsibility to Do Your Own Research.
Yup. Here in NZ, all Apple purchases are from Apple Australia, Google sales are from Google Ireland, and Microsoft sales are from Microsoft Singapore. All three of these companies have local subsidiaries that refuse to do business with local companies.
Meanwhile, you get relentless articles in the papers from "thinkers" telling you that people need to get over their hangups, that there's nothing wrong with renting a home your entire life, and that you shouldn't worry about owning your own home.
Trivial to a techie, yes. But newer versions of browsers display warning messages so dire you'd forgive the user for immediately logging off and cowering under the desk.
It's not a hack, nor is it an attack.
Frankly the only reason that corporates that deploy these include the CA in the policy that they apply to their machines (keyword: not your machines) is because browser vendors have made it next to impossible to access sites if the chain of trust is broken, so the only option left is to inject into the chain of trust.
Then don't check your bank and 401k from work. Job done.