Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama And Capping CEOs Pay  
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

I have to admit I agree with our savior on this one BUT I sure hope once the company pays back the money they fed has given them and can operate normally without bailout dollars Obama better lift the restrictions. I think this action was needed especially after hearing about Wells Fargo wanting to send their upper level employees on a 12 day Vegas jaunt which was totally out of line.

109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2566 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Thread starter):
BUT I sure hope once the company pays back the money they fed has given them and can operate normally without bailout dollars Obama better lift the restrictions.

As I understood the proposal, the limitation would automatically cease to apply as soon as the company stopped needing the support.


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Well, in this case, a business that takes government money (actually OUR money) better heed to our rules. Although I don't think the government should be meddling in businesses anyway, it's already punctured the bag and these businesses must follow the (new) rules.

There could be several scenarios that may unravel. For a couple;

One, and it's not my idea - I recently heard it on a radio talk show - is that this salary cap might lead a lot of execs to say "Hey, we can't live with a salary cap. Let's figure out how to bail ourselves out without government help."

Another is that a salary cap might not lead new expertise to come in and fill exec roles that truly need fresh expertise in running a company.

And another, alas, is that the government "nationalization" of certain industries may not go away anytime soon, if ever. regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

I agree that no one from Citibank should be getting a $20 million dollar paycheck (I don't think it's the governments job to enforce paychecks though), but $500k? You might as well tell the CEOs of these major bailout victims to start begging for food -- or, most likely, find another job (executive retention is key during crises). Senior managers in a company like Citi make $500k+, VP-level makes over $1 million per year. Banks aren't like airlines where Joe Unionworker screams if the CEO dares to make $100k more than he does. Again, the Citi CEO shouldn't be earning $20 million, but I think it's an extremely dangerous precedent that the government is telling boards what their top executives can earn -- bailout money or not.

[Edited 2009-02-04 09:44:47]


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2532 times:



Quoting JCS17 (Reply 3):
I agree that no one from Citibank should be getting a $20 million dollar paycheck (I don't think it's the governments job to enforce paychecks though), but $500k? You might as well tell the CEOs of these major bailout victims to start begging for food -- or, most likely, find another job (executive retention is key during crises). Senior managers in a company like Citi make $500k+, VP-level makes over $1 million per year. Banks aren't like airlines where Joe Unionworker screams if the CEO dares to make $100k more than he does. Again, the Citi CEO shouldn't be earning $20 million, but I think it's an extremely dangerous precedent that the government is telling boards what their top executives can earn -- bailout money or not.

The Government is only telling the boards of companies that CHOSE to accept Federal money to remain afloat. With the amount of money that Fed. has pumped in - it could well have bought 100% of most of these and then some.

So these companies should be glad that all they have had to live with is a generous pay cap of half a million dollars and only until they pay back the money they got back to the Government.

The companies' executives essentially work for the Federal Govt. and I think Obama was generous not to cap them under $400K - the salary of the President (unlike what all other Federal employees - who may not earn more that the President). And considering how badly most of these Wall Street guys have run the companies - I think the Fed. could do no worse in running them if they had been nationalized.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2527 times:



Quoting JCS17 (Reply 3):
executive retention is key during crises

Why would it be worth millions to retain the exact same executives who had just run the company into the ground???


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26016 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Talk about communism. Central planned economy.

OK Mr. CEO here is your rationed $500k.

There goes personal incentive to do better, or let market forces dictate pay in a competitive global enviroment.  banghead 



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2518 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
There goes personal incentive to do better, or let market forces dictate pay in a competitive global enviroment.

The management of the failing corporations which actually need the bailout have already proven that their competence is – um – limited.

They've earned their pay cut.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6646 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):

There goes personal incentive to do better, or let market forces dictate pay in a competitive global enviroment

err if "market forces" would have dictated their companies would have been broke and these executives would not have job



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2501 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Talk about communism. Central planned economy.

OK Mr. CEO here is your rationed $500k.

There goes personal incentive to do better, or let market forces dictate pay in a competitive global enviroment. banghead

Let's say that those companies, where the execs did their job properly don'rt need bailout money, so let them pay their execs the way they like to. And in those cases where they received government money, they'd better shut up, because they f*cked up on the job.

Jan


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

Where this rubs me raw concerns firms that didn't want to take TARP money. I'm talking about J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo here, though there are a few others. They didn't want to accept the money (and the attached strings), but Paulson told them a) Take the money or else b) if you don't take it, other banks will be less likely.

So now they're being hamstrung by rules attached to money they didn't want (or need) in the first place.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

I really get the feeling that some people are still in picnic mode while the storm is already ripping the trees from the ground around them...  eyebrow 

User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2476 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Talk about communism. Central planned economy.

OK Mr. CEO here is your rationed $500k.

They can make whatever they want to make. 1mil a year, 2mil, 50 mil, but they will have to make the company work themselves. The choice is up to them.

But if they are going to need money from the government, suffering tax payers money, they better do something worthwhile with it, apart from paying exhobitant amounts to the CEOs. 500K isn't bad by the way, they will survive, until things get better.

I don't see what the problem is. I mean think about the absurdity of using taxpayers money to pay CEOs salary, and yet the company still continues in the shambles. I mean everyone is in this mess together, and everyone has to get out together. So while Joe plumber may have to accept 2 -3Gs a month, the CEO accepts, 42Gs (what a hard life). Hopefully in a couple years we all can get back to life as we knew it.

P.S. I know for some the money is not so much the issue, more so it is the very idea of the government restricting the salary of someone, it sounds questionable, but we are in questionable times and after all it is the government's money.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2475 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Why would it be worth millions to retain the exact same executives who had just run the company into the ground???

Why would anyone consider going to work for a company where their pay would be capped? Mr. President has essentially doomed those companies that have taken bail out money, which originally did not come with those strings, to having to settle for 2nd string CEO's. I wonder how often the government will come back and decide they need to impose even more restrictions? It just goes to show what happens when non business men try to become instant CEO's.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26016 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Frankly, when things are bad, the government should be looking to further encouragement not throwing on a regressive pay cap.

The time is exactly now when these troubled firms need the best minds and talent they can get to work the hardest possible to right the ships so to speak. How are you going to attract new blood, ideas or hard work when you have a fixed pay regime?

Instead, the compensation spigots should be opened including encouraging heavy use of performance based incentives.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2460 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 13):
Why would anyone consider going to work for a company where their pay would be capped? Mr. President has essentially doomed those companies that have taken bail out money, which originally did not come with those strings, to having to settle for 2nd string CEO's. I wonder how often the government will come back and decide they need to impose even more restrictions? It just goes to show what happens when non business men try to become instant CEO's.

They should be doomed. The Current CEO's didn't do any good keeping the companies safe and sane during the mad rush for profits.

If a company wants to do well on it's own, it shouldn't need to go to the government for funds. If they require assistance to survive, then they should be willing to accept the consequences.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6694 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2457 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
The time is exactly now when these troubled firms need the best minds and talent they can get to work the hardest possible to right the ships so to speak. How are you going to attract new blood, ideas or hard work when you have a fixed pay regime?

Money can't buy everything. The truly talented don't work just for the high pay. Simply throwing out big salary numbers won't guarantee that you attract the best and in some cases it can backfire and you simply attract the greediest....the banking industry has become exhibit A for this.

It's kind of funny that people get upset when gov't throws money at a problem, but they thinking just throwing money at people will solve a corporation's problems.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Those of you who are griping at the pay-cap, are you kidding me?

These companies, including the CEO's took YOUR money and MY money because they couldn't get their crap together and did bad business. You are screaming communism, but they are the ones who asked for Federal assistance.

If you are getting billions of the US people's money, which includes part of your paycheck, aren't you going to want them to use it to better their company, not better their daily choices of Maybach's to drive to work?

$500K is not a bad living, these people aren't going to suffer unless they have already spent their money they've already earned. They have plenty of back up and connections to support them.

The banks wanted help, and by god, they need to scale back. Robbing from the poor to give to the rich at this point in time is not what we need, Obama knows that, YOU know that, and it's YOUR money the CEOs and Banks are robbing!

UAL


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2436 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Instead, the compensation spigots should be opened including encouraging heavy use of performance based incentives.

There is a very heavy performance based incentive here - if you want to make more than $500K a year, get your company off of federal support!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Why would it be worth millions to retain the exact same executives who had just run the company into the ground???

Precisely.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2432 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 13):
Why would anyone consider going to work for a company where their pay would be capped?

If somebody is so far removed from reality that (s)he still doesn't realize that bad performance deserves a pay cut, they should know where the door is.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
The time is exactly now when these troubled firms need the best minds and talent they can get to work the hardest possible to right the ships so to speak.

Paraphrasing Jon Stewart: "You just ran your company into the ground – you don't have 'best people'!"


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Talk about communism. Central planned economy.

OK Mr. CEO here is your rationed $500k.

There goes personal incentive to do better, or let market forces dictate pay in a competitive global enviroment. banghead

No, you are wrong, this is precisely the incentive needed to PREVENT the companies from sucking on the government teet for very long. There has to be some incentive to make them want to pay back what they owe quickly or like any good business, they will drag it out as long as they can for their benefit.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
They've earned their pay cut.

   Actually many of them (not all) earned a pink slip and if it weren't for the government bailout they would not have the job they have right now.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
Where this rubs me raw concerns firms that didn't want to take TARP money. I'm talking about J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo here, though there are a few others. They didn't want to accept the money (and the attached strings), but Paulson told them a) Take the money or else b) if you don't take it, other banks will be less likely.

So now they're being hamstrung by rules attached to money they didn't want (or need) in the first place.

Agreed, but then this is excellent incentive for Well Fargo and JPMorgan to pay back the loans. They have already done their part and they have helped others that needed it accept it. If the business in fully solvent and it makes economic sense they will pay it back.

Quoting DXing (Reply 13):
Why would anyone consider going to work for a company where their pay would be capped? Mr. President has essentially doomed those companies that have taken bail out money, which originally did not come with those strings, to having to settle for 2nd string CEO's. I wonder how often the government will come back and decide they need to impose even more restrictions? It just goes to show what happens when non business men try to become instant CEO's.

I don't know, why do pilots work when they know that their pay is capped? Of course you are referring to the REDUCTION in pay that they now have to endure. And I seriously doubt that any of the top people will leave as they will be offered big bonuses to compensate them for when the companies exit their situation. In addition to the fact that the employment environment is already terrible in the financial sector and many people are out of work and looking.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Frankly, when things are bad, the government should be looking to further encouragement not throwing on a regressive pay cap.

The time is exactly now when these troubled firms need the best minds and talent they can get to work the hardest possible to right the ships so to speak. How are you going to attract new blood, ideas or hard work when you have a fixed pay regime?

Instead, the compensation spigots should be opened including encouraging heavy use of performance based incentives.

And that is exactly what WILL happen. the pay will be deferred to when the company exits the dire straits they are in now. As I've said above, this is a good idea. Get them off and out of the public money trough and back into the private sector completely where they belong.

Tugg

(And it appears many others agree as several posted similar comments while I was typing. Apologies for appearing repetitious.)

[Edited 2009-02-04 11:27:24]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2418 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Frankly, when things are bad, the government should be looking to further encouragement

Encouragement like giving them taxpayers' money to help dig themselves out of the mess they've got themselves into? Or maybe we should just be throwing money at failing companies with no serious strings attached? Come on, let's get real here. The president is doing the right thing, the moral thing, and the sensible thing - and it's about time someone did!

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 18):
There is a very heavy performance based incentive here - if you want to make more than $500K a year, get your company off of federal support!

Exactly!  checkmark 



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26016 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2386 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
Or maybe we should just be throwing money at failing companies with no serious strings attached?

To start with no, we should not be throwing money at the companies to begin with. Let the chips fall where they might.

If the government wants to provide commercial like loans, or purchase company stocks that is fine, however I oppose any 'bail out' of companies or the consumer.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 16):
The truly talented don't work just for the high pay.

But money is hell of an incentive.

Capping pay is the equivalent of deflating that incentive for many.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 20):
Actually many of them (not all) earned a pink slip and if it weren't for the government bailout they would not have the job they have right now.

I agree. If companies go bust let them. We live in a cruel world and don't need to coddle private enterprise.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 17):
Robbing from the poor to give to the rich at this point in time is not what we need,

If anyone is being robbed its the tax payer now with this hair brained idea to subsidize or partially governmentalise the corporate world.

Government has no place in the board room. If you don't like the manner a company is run, let its true owners - us the shareholding public decide. Dont need Uncle Sam deciding on how or who to compensate.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

I really don't see what other alternative Obama had but to make this decision in light of the public outcry over bailout recipients laying off workers by the thousands while giving their top executives lavish bonuses.

Still, this whole thing doesn't sit right with me, not sure why.

This CEO pay cap decision is an example of the reason why I opposed the bailout in the first place, it left the door wide open for this type of scenario where the government has a say on what private companies do as long as they operate with government funds (even if only partially). Don't get me wrong, I understand that the government had to act fast as it was evident that several major banks were in the brink of collapse, but I still have the impression that our elected officials did not evaluate other alternatives thoroughly before settling for the bailout. We got shortchanged.

To make matters worse, Congress did not adequately set the restrictions needed to ensure that the funds were used for what was the original intention, and failed to incorporate adequate oversight. Now we are in a reaction mode (doesn't that sound familiar?) and trying to undo the damage.


User currently offlinePNQIAD From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2378 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Government has no place in the board room. If you don't like the manner a company is run, let its true owners - us the shareholding public decide. Dont need Uncle Sam deciding on how or who to compensate.

In that case - these companies shouldn't have been begging the government to bail them out - no? If I as a lender lent you loads of money - almost as much as your market cap - you bet I will ensure I get heard loud and clear about what I want you to do.....like it or not. The only reason these companies have to be thankful for is that GWB did not put any conditions in the first half of TARP funding - so they pretty much have had a free run till now.


25 Post contains links PPVRA : Problem is, there is evidence some banks were coerced into "accepting" the funds. I don't disagree with what you said but unfortunately your backgrou
26 Windy95 : I cannot believe that I am agreeing with the left on this. Let me check my pulse. You want incentives then get your company back on solid ground. Gol
27 Post contains links PNQIAD : Everybody hyperventilating that the Government is changing the rules of the game after the fact can relax....according to this news - this will only a
28 PPVRA : That's good. Hopefully no more coercion, though.
29 Klaus : According to CNN these corporations would even be allowed to offer share options with just the restriction that these options couldn't be exercised be
30 WunalaYann : The problem is that they are not attracting "new blood". It is the same management teams getting handsomely rewarded for a decade of greed, incompete
31 COrocks : I think if this had just come out of nowhere I probably would have had an issue with it. However, after the constant reports of execs taking advantage
32 NIKV69 : Normally I would agree in fact I still think Obama for businesses being controlled but the ones that came begging for money have to play ball. If the
33 FlyPNS1 : There could be a huge payout for said CEO. As soon as they turned the company around and paid back the loan, they could have a HUGE bonus or whatever
34 Glydrflyr : Please remember this at all times: The Government has no money, it takes it from working people only. The position of the current administration seem
35 Flighty : I agree. That will just lead to more disasters and more corruption. Performance based incentives have led to much of this excess risk-taking. The inc
36 WunalaYann : Good point, in my opinion. And we go back to PPVRA's core issue of the agency relationship - the dilemma between short-term, shareholder-oriented man
37 Klaus : As far as I understand, the idea of the Obama administration is that industries which have to take government protection will be subject to this limi
38 Post contains links JCS17 : And predictably, here we go... Barney Frank is suggests that the compensation caps should be extended to all businesses, whether they receive federal
39 RussianJet : And let's thank God for it. It's about time.
40 JCS17 : Name for me one country where socialism has actually worked.
41 RussianJet : Name me one country where true, uncorrupted, unmanipulated socialism has ever been truly given a chance to flourish.
42 Klaus : Actually, continental Europe has largely adopted a social democratic model with a substantial social system coupled with a market economy and a solid
43 RussianJet : Indeed, and unfortunately has also meant that anti-communists and anti-socialists dismiss it as 'proof' that neither communism nor socialism have any
44 Klaus : Well, all large-scale historical experiments in that directions have been pretty dismal failures, so I can't blame people for making a connection the
45 Aaron747 : It's not a good precedent but it's what most American people want after giving loans to banks that failed. Take it up with the last administration th
46 Mir : If a company isn't getting bailout money, they should be able to pay what they see fit. Let them take stock instead of cash. Then they have a really
47 WunalaYann : Actually, this is not correct. Free market economy assumes that the five requirements of pure and perfect competition are in place and effective. Thi
48 Charles79 : Absolutely. That was my argument on another thread about the Wall St bailouts that Obama criticized...if you didn't touch the federal funds then you
49 Post contains links CALTECH : Before you go insane and agree with the left, let me defibrulate you just a little about the left. These democrats in the US government, they are bra
50 Klaus : Okay, but I was not thinking of that aspect (the pure theory is just as outlandish as Marxism on the other side). I was just thinking of a completely
51 Confuscius : I totally agree. It takes special breed of CEOs to lose these gazillion amount of money. Your average person would run out of ideas after losing a fe
52 STT757 : Look at exhibit "A" as in A-Rod. All that money and can't hit in the clutch for his life.
53 Bok269 : The way I see it, as long as each additional spent brings a marginal return, I have no problem with it. For example, if Citi feels that putting its na
54 Flighty : Not entirely. Our government policy had much to do with creating the financial crisis. Yes, they should have regulated 1 or 2 financial markets much
55 StarAC17 : And he would be wrong. I agree that if congress doesn't change their act soon and stop being partisan hacks then they are going to get voted out in 2
56 LTBEWR : Capping of the compensation of top level of executives of those companies getting TARP money from next and any future round of distributions is a poli
57 Klaus : The effectively unregulated derivatives market was the leak in the gas pipe. Which of the various sparks ultimately blew it all up is secondary. The
58 Baroque : Oh so dissappointing to get this and not an elaborate apologia for Wall St. See how nice it is to be with the angels NIK, or is that old Nick? I don'
59 DXing : Name me one industry from Hollywood to sports to writing to finance to education where the best and the brightest aren't paid, or don't demand the hi
60 Aaron747 : Are you talking about before or after they skip checklist items and take off without engine anti-ice? Or, if they make like psycho FedEx dude and try
61 LXA333 : Screw socialism and everything it stands for. It has doomed Europe and now its coming after us. I'm tired of the media doing what its not supposed to
62 Baroque : OR Screw capitalism and everything it stands for. It has doomed America and now its coming after us. I'm tired of the media doing what its not suppose
63 Post contains links StasisLAX : The new limitations on Wall Street executive salaries will likely not stand up in a court of law. From today's Los Angeles Times: "Corporate watchdogs
64 Klaus : Indeed! Well, at least I'm using quotes to distinguish "products" from actual products...! People in management will have to get used to the fact aga
65 Post contains links Baroque : A propos of which, Robert Reich was on the 7.30 report tonight http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2483710.htm Try the 8 minute 50 mark Klaus. N
66 Elite : Well, no. This is only if the company needed federal - or rather, taxpayer - money. If you don't take the money from the taxpayers, pay your executiv
67 Windy95 : And it is wrong. Once the deal was made they should not change the rules. How about Daschle making 5 million for being a "consultant" since the smart
68 Klaus : But not social democratic. That's the point. The social democratic approach after the war was to create wealth through a market economy, but to creat
69 Post contains images Elite : What you said about unions seem to be the original intent of unions, but obviously in the United States and many other countries unions gained too mu
70 Baroque : That stuff is supposed to be illegal in Hong Kong.
71 DXing : According to whom? The government? Only if that company took TARP funds. So what Mr. President has done is put those companies (and their shareholder
72 Elite : Really?! I didn't know that. And I just read that the HK Government was planning to spend something around $30 billion on construction... And it's th
73 Post contains links Baroque : That was from Robert Reich. Have you listened to the Vodcast? http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/ Click on Robert Reich (top right) as the transcript is not
74 Klaus : Indeed – the full interview is quite interesting. He's making good points without getting preachy. Good point. And given that these top 1% have ge
75 Mt99 : The opposite is true too though.. How much is Miley Cirus paid? Are you a closet Miley Fan?
76 Elite : Well her money doesn't come out of nowhere... she has to be able to generate that revenue, and she does.
77 Mt99 : Maybe she should be the next CEO of Citibank then ...
78 Elite : Not really sure where you're going or what you mean by that comment...
79 Post contains images Klaus : That's mainly been a defensive move in light of the otherwise unregulated exploitation-based capitalist environment. That's the problem: If you fail
80 Post contains links Mt99 : That obviously the COEs that ran those companies to the ground were not the best and brightest.... IN any case.. The Donald.. agrees with the cap...
81 Post contains links Baroque : According to Paul Keatings summary stat the other night of the largest 200 financial institutions having lost 74% of their value in a year, there wou
82 DXing : Big deal. He wasn't right in the 90's, he's even less right now. A couple of points to his interview, he claims the bail out package, in its current
83 Klaus : (Unformatted text blob ignored.) According to their performance, to repeat the obvious yet another time without seemingly penetrating your field of vi
84 Post contains links Mt99 : That "best of the best" Carly Fiorina does not approve... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/fiorina.pay/index.html "Under Hewlett-Packard's sever
85 NIKV69 : Let them try, because it they do they will all be voted out in 2-4 years. I mean Pelosi and Reid are losing fans fast and everyone is beginning to se
86 FlyPNS1 : Does paying the most for actors mean the movies are the best and most profitable? No. Does paying the most for sports starts mean the team is the bes
87 RussianJet : Certainly - a does of proper socialism in the UK would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
88 DXing : According to whom? How do you know they didn't meet the criteria set forth by the BOD to earn their bonus? If the mortgages had remained solvent and
89 FlyPNS1 : Gov't policy had little to do with it. It's all a matter of risk management. The banks knowingly and willfully took excessive amounts of risk looking
90 WunalaYann : You have eloquently exposed the points I was trying to make about differing definitions of social, economic and political systems, on either side of
91 Post contains links DXing : The Clinton justice department aggressively went after financial institutions and threatened federal prosecution if they did not open up their lendin
92 Post contains links FlyPNS1 : But the CRA's not the problem. The bulk of the bad loans were made by institutions not covered by the CRA. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...lib
93 Klaus : The main problem was the unregulated derivatives market which massively amplified both the ficticious revenue and the real risks. The mortgages would
94 DXing : Up until 1999 the piece you reference would have been true. After 1999 and the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act it is not. If you read the link
95 Yellowstone : Quite true. If the mortgages were the real problem, we could have used the bailout money to pay off every bad subprime mortgage in the country.
96 Klaus : And it wouldn't have come to the current situation either – only the derivative "packaging" of the more dubious loans enabled the speed and volume
97 DXing : If we paid them at their devalued price. But you also had Fannie Mae, as well as Freddie Mac managers and certain individual in Congress declaring th
98 Klaus : The (stupid) idea was that the (presumably) neverending inflation of real estate values would maintain the backing. But there again the derivatives c
99 Flighty : I just can't wait until a brave, strong government minister runs the US industrial complex. He will have to be a very smart man with a huge desk, to l
100 DXing : Correct and it fomented by government backed agencies such as Fannie and Freddie and individuals like Dodd and Frank. 4-5 years ago when not only the
101 FlyPNS1 : But what's your point? The CRA did not force these companies to make bad loans. These companies were not operating under the CRA when they made bad l
102 Baroque : Surely you must have heard Klaus that exponential everything is not only possible it is a natural law. Population, resources use. The sky is the limi
103 Klaus : It is – it's just hanging a lot lower than many people thought...! They simply couldn't believe that their apparent "luck" would actually betray th
104 Elite : And in what form will that dose of socialism in the United Kingdom be?
105 DXing : But the Clinton justice department did. In effect they were and they were pressured to continue making those loans. On top of that you had to governm
106 RussianJet : Lord only knows. It was a statement in principle, there are certainly no decent options on the table at the moment, that's for sure.
107 Klaus : At least from my point of view my impression is that it's not so much socialism per se Britain would need, but a more constructive cooperation betwee
108 FlyPNS1 : No, they didn't. Do the research. Most of the subprime loans were made by institutions not covered by the CRA. No, they were not. You can keep repeat
109 DXing : But were covered in the 1999 update of the original CRA law known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act it. Notice how the link provided in reply never menti
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
President Elect Obama And Darfur...What's Up? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 11:39:38 by QXatFAT
Looks Like It's Obama And Bayh... posted Fri Aug 22 2008 17:14:19 by Slider
OBama And His Global Poverty Act...Whats This Crap posted Thu Feb 14 2008 16:56:22 by LOT767-300ER
Obama And Another Flag Problem posted Mon Feb 11 2008 18:41:15 by Cfalk
Obama And Hiliary - The Secret Affair posted Wed Jan 30 2008 19:01:50 by Emirates773ER
Its A Small World (Obama And Cheney) posted Tue Oct 16 2007 17:00:05 by LAXspotter
US Owes Canada $5 Billion And Refuses To Pay! posted Thu Aug 11 2005 16:10:18 by Clickhappy
Barack Obama: "Young, Beautiful And Suntanned" posted Thu Nov 6 2008 09:35:08 by Turin_airport
If John McCain And Barack Obama Switched Bodies... posted Wed Nov 5 2008 17:59:59 by Evan767
Obama This...Obama That: And It's Not Even August! posted Wed Jul 30 2008 16:19:10 by Falcon84