Pajamas Media

131 Comments

1. Marc Malone:

The real solution is simple. First, fire all the top execs. They are barred forever from working for any company accepting a bailout. Next, pass a law that mandates shareholders voting on exec-pay packages. Right now, the board decides, and they are all so chummy.

Nothing else need be done, other than simply letting the lousy companies just go bankrupt, which is what really should be done. We never did need another massive government enterprise to fix all this. There were already two: the various “insurance companies” (FDIC, et al); and bankruptcy court.

Fact is, investment banks only provide a service. they don’t actually produce anything. If they go bust, we wouldn’t even miss them in the economy, as those who work for them will go somewhere else or hang out their own shingle. Sure some money would have been lost, and some instability would happen to regular banks because of the CDS’s, but we’d be on the road to recovery by now if the danged government would’ve just stayed out of it. NOw, everyone’s sitting around waiting for the government to solve it.

In 1945, when Patton forced his way into Germany, he was surprised. The shells hadn’t quite finished falling, and the Germans were up on their houses fixing their rooves. That was not the case anywhere else he’d liberated. The others all sat around waiting for American largesse. Which category do you think we fall into, now, during this “crisis”? This is, essentially, an overblown crisis; a governmental power-play. Crisis is the friend of the State.

Feb 5, 2009 - 2:40 am 2. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

I watched ABC Nightline last night and from their media report, the wealthly have changed. They are listening to angry mobs that demand them to stop living excessively lavish lifestyles. With the stroke of President Obama”s pen, to enact a $500,000.00 cap on their bonuses, they have agreed to become “thrify and frugal”. Can you believe that?

I was becoming afraid for their lives. What good news, that they have seen the light. And all it took was a matter of minutes for the turnaround.

Feb 5, 2009 - 3:10 am 3. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

“thrifty”

Feb 5, 2009 - 3:11 am 4. dougf:

“As someone with libertarian tendencies, I find it scary that the government is going to intrude to such an extent in the boardroom. Will the bedroom be next?”

Well I’m not much of an ‘ian’ of any type unless it is utilitarian or pragmatarian so I don’t have any ideological horses to ride in this race.

That said there are worse things than the State being involved for hopefully a relatively short period. And one of those things is a feeling amongst the Great Unwashed that these creatures on Wall Street are free to ruin millions of lives and then get paid handsomely for the effort into the bargain. And then go on as if nothing had happened. I would fire the first two or three levels of managements of these colossally STUPID companies, and THEN impose salary constraints as well. Let them eat cake — well frankly I don’t care if they eat at all, if truth be told.

There is an argument to be made that almost NONE of the ‘wealth’ these unprincipled parasites has ‘created’ over the past 20 years is in fact real. It’s all based upon financial manipulations and intricate and barely understandable investment instruments that have a lot more to do with Ponzi than Principle. They grow rich while the underlying system decays all around them. Punishment for past ‘errors’,must not only be done it must be seen to be done. The ’system’ NEEDS it. Justice demands it.

Off with all of their heads, to be frank. The new lot could hardly do worse. To be honest, you,me,and Mr.Malone if put in charge could hardly have done worse than these self-appointed ‘Masters of the Universe’. And that’s the talent it is important to ’save’? As in the Princess Bride, I don’t think that that word means what they think it means.

Feb 5, 2009 - 3:43 am 5. HonestJon:

Ms. Goldman stated, “When one’s entire company is making profits and creating value for your shareholders, I believe that the sky should be the limit when it comes to executive compensation.” I disagree on the basis that this increases the financial separation of classes. This will eventually lead to Paris, France in the book, “A Tale of Two Cities.” Pitchfork mafia anyone? I hate to be a Madame Defarge, but nobody deserves what these greedy jackwads make! How about a maximum wage across the board for all companies in the U.S.? Not so much to bring the rich down as to bring everybody else up. It could be structured along the lines that the highest paid makes no more than 10 times the lowest paid. And relevant only within each company.

Believe me when I say that there are plenty of good people who could take over for these idiots and do a better job for half the pay. I completely agree with #4 dougf above.

It’s staggering to think that what these folks are making during one year–on bonus no less–oftentimes is more than the average working man will ever make in his entire lifetime. Nobody is worth that kind of money!

What needs to happen is that a few of these guys need to be killed by the people whose lives they destroyed. Gunned down in the streets in the back of their limo for maximum dramatic effect. I think that would sort of curb some of the excesses.

Call me a commie/radical/marxist or whatever. I don’t mind. This sort of thing is on the way for this country because of the unbelieveable greed of these jerks!

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:58 am 6. Sara for America:

Obama pulled the $500K figure out of the blue. What does that amount represent, in his world? Clearly, Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton couldn’t live on that. What if he feels, tomorrow, that $300K is now the limit? $100K?

If you want to talk about obscene income, let’s cap the earnings of Hollywood Celebrities. Today. And all the NFL players, too. I mean, it’s only FAIR.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:00 am 7. RE:

These good intentions will ultimately be harmful. The best and brightest will not accept such a ceiling on their earnings potential – they will apply their talents elsewhere, guaranteeing second or third rate performance in these quasi-government businesses.

I don’t condone the behavior of the CEO’s and bankers, but this sort government regulation will ultimately harm us all. I’d much rather see our politicians clean up their own acts first, rather than try to deflect attention away from their own misdeeds, incompetence, and derelictions of duty.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:10 am 8. Mike T:

As someone with libertarian tendencies, I find it scary that the government is going to intrude to such an extent in the boardroom. Will the bedroom be next

As someone who actually is a libertarian, I can shenanigans on your argument. Your worrying about the executive compensation limits in the face of a truly massive redistribution of wealth to these companies is like a gun control advocate obsessing about how a murderer got ahold of a handgun instead of acknowledging the fact that the salient point is the crime itself.

As a libertarian, I say let these corporate cretins reap what they have sewn. If they want tax payer money, then they can take the limits that the feds put on them. The last thing we need is them awarding themselves more bonuses and golden parachutes on our dime. As I have said, that just leads to the risk of the sort of wealth redistribution found commonly in third world countries ruling classes.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:38 am 9. Mike T:

New York is worried that China and the Middle East will recruit this “talent?” Good. Let them have these senior investors and executives who got the banking system in trouble. That’ll be just desserts for the melanin-laced milk and lead-tainted toys they sent us, not to mention how little money the Middle Eastern states will have to finance terrorism with those guys managing their petrodollars.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:42 am 10. Mike T:

If you want to talk about obscene income, let’s cap the earnings of Hollywood Celebrities. Today. And all the NFL players, too. I mean, it’s only FAIR.

You would actually have a point if those people were receiving tax payer dollars and had to have their projects/franchises become partially owned by the federal government to keep them from failing. The federal government owns part of these banks now as part of the bailout deal. It gets to have some meaningful say in who gets paid what.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:57 am 11. Tolbert:

RE: said -

“guaranteeing second or third rate performance in these quasi-government businesses.

Hah!

Second or third rate performance would have resulted only in the loss of tens of billions of equity, not trillions.

Also, pray tell, just exactly elsewhere would these “best and brightest” apply their talents?

F*** them and the $35,000 commodes they rode in on.

The CEO’s of Japanese manufacturing companies, people who actually manufacture something of value, and certainly the mental equals of anyone employed on Wall Street, are payed a fraction of what those whining tittie babies receive.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:01 am 12. Harry:

Yes cap them…along with congress and the senate. After all, they get government money too and their performance over the years has been tragic and disgusting. Trust is at an all time low. They should be forced to work free for a year. How many will stay??

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:13 am 13. Ted:

While it should go without saying that even a legitimate President’s “ordered” $500,000 pay cap is an unenforceable intrusion into the private sector, as if that weren’t enough, Obama LACKS EVEN OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY to issue the order UNTIL HE OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:19 am 14. JohnnyL:

Let’s extend Obama’s logic just a bit. Our honorable representatives helped to cause some of this mess….well…make that a lot of this mess. In a show of solidarity with working and non-working Americans they should be asking to have their salaries not only capped for the next few years but even rolled back until the economy is growing again, unemployment back to the 5% range, and possibly a balanced budget. This way they would have a little stake in whether they are actually proposing bills that will help the economy or just trying to get their foot in the door with new multi-billion $ programs that would not stand much of a chance in passing in a normal business year. Why should they be pocketing a raise considering their performance on the past few years?

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:23 am 15. marsouin:

If we wish to keep those responsible for our current woes, why limit it to Wall Street? The US Congress and President just got pay increases. Why should they not face punishment, particularly as government meddling is the source of our current financial troubles. Better yet, have the salaries of Congressmen and the President tied to the unemployment rate. Share the pain with their own money!

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:32 am 16. Cybergeezer:

Yea! Yea! Now were on the right track! Maximum Wages to go with minimum wages. This should start in D.C.; After all, we need an example.
And then we have the “New Progressive Party”.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:36 am 17. Sara for America:

Mike, #10

Oh I see….since these banks are now partially owned by the government, therefore we all have a say in what pay scales should be in place.

Shouldn’t we, then, as the new “shareholders” have a vote in what is “fair”? Maybe $500K to you represents a penalty laden amount. Others might say $50K is more like it.

My question to you is, who said Obama could decide?

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:47 am 18. Mongoose:

This is just a set up for doing it to all of us. They want us to accept the practice of it in this bailout case, and then they will limit incomes across the board. These people are Communist Totalitarians.

They think that they give us an allowance. What is next, they will tell the banks whom to make loans to? If so, the you better join the Democrat Party and start kissing the backside of your local Acron commissar, because that is the only way you will get a loan then.

Obama, Pelosi, Franks, and the whole bunch got millions fromm these people. Let them give that money back.

The media made money reporting on this mess. Let them give that money back.
Government Officials at Freddie and Fannie made millions to, and still are, let them give that back, Let them put caps over there.

For Pete’s sake, they tried to put over a quarter of a billion dollars to the Hollywood crowd in the bailout plan. Can we have movie stars work for free for a couple of years? Heaven knows that they do not do anything productive. Let them do their part for “National Unity”. This is just lunacy.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats lecturing people on what they should earn is exceedingly offensive: They have not earned an honest day’s pay in their lives, sometimes not for generations.

The Democrats causedthis mess and they have the gall to say this.
The whole lot of them should be in jail, not preaching to us about how the world works.

The nerve of these people. This is just a Trojan horse for Communism. The Democrats just cannot stand the idea of anyone making money other than through their corrupt control of Government. And the absolute hubris and vanity of making the President’s salary some sort of standard. What is he, the “Dad in Chief”? This whole business is completely against the very nature of our history, civilization and culture. It must not stand.
It is a assault on the very notion of private property. And it is also extremely dishonest to spring this on people after the fact.

They want to destroy the very concept of private property. Destroy capitalism.

If you ask me, it is beginning to look like this “crisis” was manufactured.

It is up to the owners of property to decide what they do with it. It is up to the stock holders, not the government.

But they are US funds? Well they will drive everything down to the point that everyone has to take bailout funds.

I would also point out that this is not retroactive, the Dem insiders at firms that already have the bailout are sitting pretty while their competitors have to deal with this.

Watch jobs, capital, talent and companies head overseas. Watch talent flee that industry.

Watch tax receipts tumble.

What villains. What jackels.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:57 am 19. Mongoose:

Malone. It is up to the shareholders who to fire, not the government. and how does this solve anything? how does it change anything. It only the goernment’s business when someone has broken the law. The Government is not there to foist some weird socialist “morality” on us.

Obama and Co. need to mind their own business. The upside is that most of these poeple on Wall Street are Dems. Hope they remember this the next time that the Democrats come around with their tin cups out.

Obama must assume he can get enough cash for overseas and the Soros coven.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:01 am 20. Mike T:

Oh I see….since these banks are now partially owned by the government, therefore we all have a say in what pay scales should be in place.

This is a republic, not a democracy. The republic’s leadership, not the people, gets to decide on behalf of the people.

Shouldn’t we, then, as the new “shareholders” have a vote in what is “fair”? Maybe $500K to you represents a penalty laden amount. Others might say $50K is more like it.

Others’ opinions don’t matter since America is not a democracy.

My question to you is, who said Obama could decide?

The founding fathers and every generation of Americans that continues to affirm the constitution which established our republic.

If you want the will of the people to reign supreme then either go live in California and expand the proposition system or build a time machine so you can live in ancient Athens. True democracy has been discredited as a viable system since well before our continent was colonized by Europe.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:08 am 21. Mongoose:

dougf: “the state involved for a relatively short time” what hogwash! They are de facto nationalizing the industry. Next will be the healthcare industry, then the auto industry, then the energy industry.

Where have you been the last 70 ears. The State never willingly “uninvolves” itself.
Social Secirity was supposed to be “temporary”

These people are Marxists. You need to get clear on this.

I will give you a few “isms” to think about: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Totalitarianism, Fascism. Oh, and Patriotism.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:08 am 22. Mike T:

It is up to the shareholders who to fire, not the government. and how does this solve anything? how does it change anything. It only the goernment’s business when someone has broken the law. The Government is not there to foist some weird socialist “morality” on us.

The government is a shareholder under the bailout arrangement. It even purchased voting stock as part of the deal. On top of that, if the shareholders accept a government bailout and investment, then they lose the right to control certain aspects of their business until the government is divested from the company because government money is the money of millions of people who otherwise had no interest in investing in that bank.

If you want there to be incentive to not accept a bailout, let alone even consider the possibility of there being one, you have to make this as painful as possible for company and its stockholders. If it doesn’t feel like a Faustian bargain from the beginning, you’re not making it seem sufficiently dangerous.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:13 am 23. goy:

- The federal government owns part of these banks now as part of the bailout deal. It gets to have some meaningful say in who gets paid what.

This is a myth followed by a lie.

The federal government produces exactly nothing. The money it gives out must be taken from somewhere else.

So far, funding for the credit market bailout has been generated by the sale of treasury securities, purchased by a tiny subset of Americans and some foreign countries. The notion that the federal government should be dictating anything to these banks on that basis is ludicrous on its face.

Furthermore, the initial credit market bailout distribution has so far been completely INEFFECTIVE at freeing up credit. This was obviously, in retrospect, by design: the government wished to get its hooks into as many banks as possible, irrespective of whether or not any given bank would be in a position to lend money after its toxic assets were covered.

The problem is that many (most?) of the banks and credit firms in which the government now claims a “stake” don’t have the deposits on hand necessary to make loans. As well, they are using the bailout funds to essentially shore up their balance sheets. So while billions of $$ was pumped into these institutions, very little of it has actually been released into the economy. That explains why inflation is still nonexistent despite the government printing money (essentially) as fast as it did.

This is yet another in a long list of examples of how “spreading the wealth around” (indiscriminately) DOES NOT WORK. Capping executives’ salaries based on the false premise that it does is the height of mendacity… as well as hypocrisy, coming as it does from an ineffective career politician who’s never held a successful executive position in his entire life.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:15 am 24. Cybergeezer:

Obama’s trying to micromanage everything; Carter tried this too. Here we go!

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:16 am 25. e:

Putting stipulations on companies in order to receive a bailout is well within the Government’s rights. Those companies are the ones asking for the bailout. Then again this whole bailout crap undermines our economic and legal system.

We already have a system that allows businesses to reorganize and manage debts: Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:43 am 26. Sara for America:

Mike,

I appreciate your well thought out lesson on representative democracy.

Let’s take your lesson further. If the stimulus package goes to industries across the board, would you say then that whoever takes money as part of this next bailout should have Obama dictate the pay scale? That would mean everyone from the contractors to the architects, to the homebuyers – right?

I take it that you like $500K as a cap salary. Why that amount?

I will not agree that Obama should arbitrarily decide who gets what. He’s ramming it down our throat due to the “impending crisis.” Soon, we’ll all be paid according to our value in the collective, because we’ve all touched the “stimulus”.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:06 am 27. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

Clare McCaskill came up with the idea that ceos shouldn’t make more than the president’s $400,000.00 salary. I guess the president just threw in the extra $100,000.00 as a goodwill gesture?

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:20 am 28. goy:

@26. Sara for America

Very well put!

This is why federal bailouts of this type can’t rationally come with strings attached. Otherwise you’re headed down the slippery slope.

The one and ONLY reason BHO can get this to fly even as far as it has is because of the class-baiting rhetoric we’ve been subjected to as a society for years.

- Soon, we’ll all be paid according to our value in the collective, because we’ve all touched the “stimulus”.

And of course in that context it’s now becoming crystal clear, if we extend this hypocritical CEO salary cap to its logical conclusion, what BHO meant by all his “everyone will have to sacrifice” rhetoric.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:35 am 29. river:

Banks are “owned” by the share holders who were caught napping by their well performing investments while the CEOs were pocketing cash by concocting weird and wonderful bonus generating financial instruments in a poorly regulated system.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:36 am 30. wildman:

e: wasn’t it the government that told the banks to make loans to folks with lousy credit or no credit or they would get punished?

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:41 am 31. Mongoose:

MIke T: I will point out that there is such a thing as a body of laws starting with the Bill of rights. This is not a Republic, it is a Constitutional Republic.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:41 am 32. Mongoose:

Honest John. It is none of your business, nor the government’s business either, how much money someone makes. I you want more moey, you go and make it. Stop telling other people what they should be doing with their lives. Stop telling other people what to do with their labor, hard work and property. It is immoral.

If you do not like that go live in a communist country. Merely because you are lazy and mediocre does not mean the rest of us have to join you in your character flaws, weaknesses and immoralities.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:47 am 33. cfbleachers:

Is anyone talking about requesting that Franklin Raines or Jim Johnson give back any money? Is anyone even interested in whether the books were cooked at Fannie or Freddie. If they were, would those incomes and bonuses be under review?

How about ACORN giving back money? Didn’t the entire crisis and economic downturn spawn out of the thuggery tactics of forcing lenders into vaporous underwriting.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to ask Barney Frank or Chris Dodd to give any money back.

When we traipse down this yellow brick road, shaking our fists and demanding that “those people” be forced to “pay” for their sins and we should use the “government” as the stick with which to beat them….it never fails…I always look at it and somewhere deep within me says “Yeah, I get it but….are we missing something here?”

It just seems to strike me as a rather odd “coincidence” that once again…the breathless panting and pot stirring by the folks who are putting out these “facts” into our information stream…are aimed at Wall Street (the capitalists) and there is a strange and eerie silence surrounding the lavish excesses of anyone…anyone…who adheres to the “message”.

Using the government as a stick with which to beat Wall Street, reinforces the notion that “Wall Street” caused the crisis. Simultaneously, it deflects attention away from Frank, Dodd, Raines and Johnson. Neat trick.

Once again, the words that are used, the phraseology employed, the framing of the issues…leads the sheep and lemmings as usual, but also picks up the distracted good people above.

When the government can be fairly counted on to administer its beatings fairly across the board, I might…might…be more comfortable with granting them free reign to do so. Has anyone here, now righteously shaking their fists at the capitalists on Wall Street ever witnessed even a momentary inclination toward even the slightest wrist tap toward ACORN, Raines, Johnson, Dodd or Frank?

It galls us to watch a .240 hitter get paid millions for striking out with men on base with appalling regularity. A talent barren Hollywood nimrod, out of rehab for the twelfth time, playing yet another wooden character assassination of someone in the military or CIA, making millions for a mindless political screed on celluloid. Can we ask the government to restrict them as well? I might go for that. And take away their smirking, smug, pedantic award show tin hardware?

As long as we have given the rousing ovation to beating Wall Street with a stick and using the “government” to administer it for us…can we make a list of who we would like to place next in the stockades for public flogging?

Will it always be just the capitalists or can we take away the protectionism of those who steal our information stream and those who delude us with half-truths, distortions, forgeries and outright lies?

The reason I didn’t like the “bailouts” was not because the economy couldn’t use the help, I just believed then, as I believe now…they couldn’t afford the consequences.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:50 am 34. Mongoose:

HonestJon: The so called “rich” have not “destroyed people’s lives” they have given them jobs. But for the productive, we would be all living in caves. Civilization depends on there being “rich people”. The rest of us would not have jobs. How do you think we get the money to pay for a Moxzart or a Newton? Take up a collection?

It is the crooks in congress that have ruined people’s lives. They caused this mess. Go look at socialist countries, there the “rich” are all politicians; they produce nothing but tyranny. There are only about 2 classes in those societies: Masters and slave.

That is just propaganda that your Democrat teachers and the Democrat controlled congress put in your mouth. Learn to think for your self. Do not let immoral vipers like the Democrats think or speak for you.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:54 am 35. goy:

Mike, e and wildman –

Perhaps this story will explain some of this.

None of the institutions that have received money to date will have caps imposed unless they take more funding.

wildman – yes, this is absolutely true. This is why the notion that banks weren’t regulated “enough” is so ludicrous. At least SOME of the regulation (e.g., CRA, et al.) forced credit institutions into taking risky loans, thereby artificially inflating housing prices, thereby creating a bubble which, when the it burst and the market adjusted, caused the risky loans to become toxic assets. Boom: instant credit crisis – manufactured in part by federal regulations.

And BHO was one of the lawyers out there suing credit institutions when they didn’t make bad loans… loans that also coincidentally benefited primarily Dem constituencies.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:57 am 36. Jarhead91:

I like the way the author and Obama casually brush aside the concept of contracts. Who cares what an employment contract says? Now that Uncle Sam runs all the banks, contracts don’t matter and are no longer legally binding.

Here begins the road to serfdom.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:05 am 37. Jarhead91:

Marc – the real solution is simple and Constitutional – no bailouts.

With no bailouts, the Feds don’t have to worry about executive pay, jets and travel, tracking bailout funds, devaluing the dollar. They can just mind their own business and let the recession cull out the losers.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:12 am 38. Mongoose:

Government is NOT the shareholder under this arrangement, you are wrong.

To say so is to say that the banks are being nationalized. Did they meet with other shareholders to decide this? Individuals are shareholders, or other organizations made up of them are. Shareholding is a voluntary arrangement. Can I sell my portion of the my stake as a taxpayer. What do you mean by “the government” here? The taxpayer? If so, you are wrong. Are they going to send senators to stockholder meetings? Do I get to go? Do we have preffered or common stock? How does it work? You are playing with words here and the Democrats are defiling the very notions of stockholder and private property. They do this because they are a pack of Socialists and Communists and thus they have complete contempt for capitalism, liberty, property and the individual. The Democrats are ripping off the taxpayer to get control of the industry, and in effect they, not the taxpayer, not some lofty notion of “government”, will be the calling the shots. If we are going to defacto nationalize the financial industry, we should have stated this before we started the bailout. We should have also had a national discussion about it and voted on it. It is dishonest to do otherwise. The nation did not sign up for a communist coup.

You have a quite childish faith in government. Socialism never works. It leads to serfdom.

BTW, the Democrats in Congress caused this mess.

Another point: A cap does not necessary affect just the people that were exec during this mess. It effects anyone that comes on board. Should they have to pay a price for someone else’s mistakes? Why should they bother? Those are the people that will be headed overseas along with their money, other jobs. other firms, other opportunities and other companies. This affect your livelihood.

Some commenters here need to get a grasp on how the real world world works. Some evidently need ot get a real job too.

It is evident that many of you have never had a professional job at all. Just because you cannot make a decent wage does not mean that the rest of us have to be punished for your mediocrity–or your jealousy. IF you want to make more money go out and earn it. Stop making the rest of us suffer for your lack of ability.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:15 am 39. David W. Lincoln:

Remember how we got into this mess. One is the callousness demonstrated on Black Friday at the Walmart on Long Island. When you have someone trampled to death, and a pregnant woman injured by a mob pretty well gone berserk, it shows how far people are captives to their appetites.

The other dealt with a house auctioned off in Atlanta, because the owners had it renovated and borrowed against the house to start a busines that went belly up; plus the owners wasted about a quarter of a million dollars.

Where anyone begins plays a huge role in where they wind up.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:17 am 40. Jim Baker:

I think top musicians, athletes, actors, and community organizers should have their salaries capped, too. Your salary and mine, for that matter. This bailout is our worst nightmare. First they will attach salary limits to bailouts. Then they will attach salary limits to businesses needing licenses to operate. Then the dad gum barber will have to stop cutting hair as soon as he has reached his haircut quota

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:25 am 41. Justin Credible:

Wage and Price controls ALWAYS work, Don’t they??

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:32 am 42. Mongoose:

Lincoln we did not get into this mess becuase of an auction of a house or a stampede in a shopping mall.

we got in because of the steath redistributionist agenda that the Democrats rammed tough with the CRA, Fannie and Freddie and the like. The thing you cite are just anecdotes and to use them as you are is merelt an attmpt to deflect scrutiny away from the real culprits (and slander the common citizen in the process).

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:50 am 43. Northern Light:

Take a moment to realize how horrible it is to be a Wall St. tycoon these days.

People are so mad over the bailouts that their servants cannot hold their heads up in public.

They are facing the horrible thought of having to stay at FOUR star hotels and resorts.

Times are so tough that it’s all they can do to scrape up $700 for lunch these days.

Many normal Americans can make a little money holding garage sales, but these guys can’t do that. It’s hard living in gated communities.

They can barely even afford silicone for their trophy wives.

It’s easy to stand on the sidelines and moan that $18 billion in bonuses seems to be too much considering they are on welfare (don’t kid yourselves, this is welfare) now, but if they aren’t paid huge amounts of money they would be forced to be exposed to the sort of riff-raff that pays taxes. Like most of you reading this right now.

They are rich so they are better than you are. Just give them the blank checks and they will stimulate the economy by buying German cars, traveling to Europe, and importing Filipinos to raise their children. They are entitled to your money.

Just because they are on welfare doesn’t mean they should be treated like normal people.

Didn’t the Republicans reject a bail-out of the auto industry because they wanted workers there to take a pay cut? I guess autoworkers just don’t make enough money to be a conservative cause. We must protect the rich, they are the ones who made the economy what it is today!

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:08 am 44. Mike T:

Mongoose,

MIke T: I will point out that there is such a thing as a body of laws starting with the Bill of rights. This is not a Republic, it is a Constitutional Republic.

I will point out that the Bill of Rights has no bearing here as none of its stipulations are being violated. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to get upset about these compensation caps when the very idea of a bailout itself is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to own shares in any business venture, to subsidize one, etc.

Government is NOT the shareholder under this arrangement, you are wrong.

Oh really? From Forbes magazine:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. government may want to consider converting the preferred shares it has bought in troubled banks into common stock to boost capital levels at no initial cost to Uncle Sam.

Are you saying that Forbes too is lying about the federal government buying shares in these banks?

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:14 am 45. Paul from Hamburg:

Mike T:

“You would actually have a point if those people were receiving tax payer dollars and had to have their projects/franchises become partially owned by the federal government to keep them from failing.”

I am sure Sara will appreciate knowing that you agree with her. I assume that you agree, since a majority of NFL teams play on fields subsidized by taxpayers. If professional sports teams had to pay the full cost of their venues, salaries would almost certainly be lower.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:17 am 46. Mike T:

Let’s take your lesson further. If the stimulus package goes to industries across the board, would you say then that whoever takes money as part of this next bailout should have Obama dictate the pay scale? That would mean everyone from the contractors to the architects, to the homebuyers – right?

Absolutely, and I say this as someone who is far more of a libertarian than most PJM readers, and who has voted Libertarian several times in the past. If you take the devil’s dollars, the pucker up sweet cheeks, it’s going to be a colorful ride.

I take it that you like $500K as a cap salary. Why that amount?

I think $500K is a reasonable compensation for a competent CEO. It’s also similar to what CEOs get paid in Japan, and what they used to get paid here.

I will not agree that Obama should arbitrarily decide who gets what. He’s ramming it down our throat due to the “impending crisis.” Soon, we’ll all be paid according to our value in the collective, because we’ve all touched the “stimulus”.

Rubbish. Most people have never seen a penny from it. Most businesses will never, especially not now, ask for any of it. Anyone who does, doesn’t deserve to be saved from federal control. There is a price to pay for lining up at the public trough and siphoning others’ funds into your business.

By God if these banks are going to take part of my pay check, they’ll pay dearly for it.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:22 am 47. Mike T:

and slander the common citizen in the process

Who the hell do you think voted in most of the people who voted for the CRA? “The common citizen.” America is a constitutional, representative republic. The people don’t have the luxury of mewling about how bad the leadership is like the subjects of a monarchy, since they vote the @$$hol3s into office.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:24 am 48. Mike T:

I am sure Sara will appreciate knowing that you agree with her. I assume that you agree, since a majority of NFL teams play on fields subsidized by taxpayers. If professional sports teams had to pay the full cost of their venues, salaries would almost certainly be lower.

I have no problem with a state government passing a law setting a wage cap on those because once again, he who has the gold, makes the rules. However, as you pointed out, not all NFL teams play on subsidized fields, and those are the ones I was defending because her statement was a blanket one.

There is a simple rule here: if the government buys your stuff for you or buys a stake in you to bail you out, you no longer get to control it because government money doesn’t exist for the benefit of small, well-connected interests.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:29 am 49. seven:

TAXES

Obama promised redistribution of wealth. He promissed to tax these that he rebuked. He hasn’t figgured out that he can collect a whole lot less tax for income from wallstreet is compensation goes down 90%. He sure can’t run for re election without their donations.

Just like he opend his lying lips and promised to buy American goods and the foreign countries, said they are in a recession and hate being punished by imperialism.

He can’t stop tobacco sales in America because they need the tax money for health programs. They actually need about 20 million moere smokers.

Obama has accomplished making Jimmy Carter look like an economics genious in 2 weeks time.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:47 am 50. seven:

By the way. One other item regarding compensation. If Goldman for example has an employment contract that explicitely states for example John Stein will recieve .5% commision on the market value of a 10 billion dollar merger, by employment contract law, they are bound to pay it. If other contracts have different terms, they are bound. with anarchy, the King can break written agreements at will. Citi banc had contracts that included penalties for the purchase of a plane. Chicago way says you can bully your way out of anything you want.
All these expensive sales and marketing conferences have contracts. conventions are booked several years in advance you pay even if you do not show up. Why would some ignorant bank loan money to build Hotels and conference centers if advance booking for conventions ahd to carry the approval based on the moods or whims of the emperor?

this economic model has been tested in Venezuela.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:58 am 51. Rockmelon:

If they accept bailout money, YES.

If they can’t make some concessions and live on half a million until they get straightened out, then they should declare a $50 million dollar bonus and we use the bailout money elsewhere.

This about an obscene amount of money. They have the public bamboozled into thinking that no one can perform their jobs except them! Damn, they’re not that smart!

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:58 am 52. Jarhead91:

Rockmelon – You’re wrong. There is a very limited number of people who can successfully lead a large firm. Look at AIG – Hank Greenberg led the company for decades with great success and became very rich in the process. He was run out by Elliot Spitzer during his run for governor.

Greenberg’s replacement probably has a great resume but could not perform the job.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:22 am 53. Blackwell:

The arrogance of the Wall Street types makes me ill.

The government is absolutely right to insist on salary and bonus caps in any company taking money from trauma nurses, bad drivers, waitresses and me.

Any bank loaning substantial money or VC group would insist on salary caps. These businesses that chose to take taxpayer money are no different: if they don’t want the government capping their pay, blocking their jet purchases, and limiting their redecoration budgets, work harder and leave the stimulus money. Better yet, make something of value instead of moving money around.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:29 am 54. Jarhead91:

Blackwell,

I would be tempted to agree if the banks were choosing to take bailout money. Many were forced to take it even with a stable Balance Sheet.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/31/business/31plan.php

Check out the middle of the article where Treasury officials promised only limited restrictions on executive bonuses and compensation.

Sounds like a bait and switch to me.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:52 am 55. mike:

I’m not so sure about limiting salaries, sounds un-American to me. Id prefer to concentrate of education. Id round up all the guilty executives and all the top business school faculty that educated this generation of leaders and bus them out to the desert to be re-educated. Teach them that everything they knew is wrong, that wealth cannot be built on a mountain of debt. Might be a little rough for those city boys out west , no yachts, no golf. Once they have seen the light, fit them into some clean suits, bus em’ back to the big cities, put them behind desks and let them get on with it. Im not comfortable with salary limits.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:26 pm 56. Jarhead91:

You are being manipulated. Obama and his surrogates in the media are distracting the rubes with stories of executive “greed.” Meanwhile they are trying to steal a trillion dollars out of the U.S. Treasury and run U.S. businesses from the White House.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:39 pm 57. MarkD:

There is always the choice to take the money with the cap, or refuse it.

I lean libertarian, but when you take my money, you live by my rules. Besides, the really smart executives aren’t in this mess. Not if they’re honest. The people affect are either too stupid to know that these bundled securities were a scam, or too dishonest to care. I’ll lose no sleep over a $500K cap on those people.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:45 pm 58. Marc Malone:

#19 Mongoose – I disagree. As far as I know, the shareholders decide squat when it comes to hiring, firing, and compensation. The Board of Directors does it all. Am I wrong?

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:51 pm 59. Jarhead91:

The shareholders elect the Board.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:57 pm 60. Marc Malone:

#29 river – It is not a poorly-regulated system. It is an over-regulated system. I believe there already is a legal cap on CEO salaries of $4M/yr. (I could be wrong.) That’s why all these stupid excessive bonuses, as a way to get around a system.

I would much rather that this go away, and execs get paid a larger salary. The bonus system encourages them to do short-term profit-taking and not long-term wealth/value-building. It also encourages accounting shenanigans, and artificial wealth like Credit Default Swaps. Paper profits with no real value.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:58 pm 61. tommyd:

Your job is next.

Wake up people.

The Government is not the solution, The Government IS THE Problem.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:06 pm 62. goy:

Marc M. – that’s precisely the problem here. The federal government in this case is, at best, a minority shareholder. And that’s a stretch, since it’s actually the T. bondholders and (at some future point) taxpayers doing the investing.

But BHO wants Board of Director level control over the companies’ operations – despite the fact that he’s never held an executive position in his entire life and hasn’t the foggiest clue what they do or don’t do that would incline a company to offer them the salaries and bonuses that they do.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:07 pm 63. Marc Malone:

#38 Mongoose _ I generally agree with your general outlook on your posts, but you often have some bad premises.

When the government gives these loans, they get preferred stock. In AIG, they got 85% of the preferred stock until the loan is repaid, but not voting rights. To accomplish this, the shareholders had to vote to allow it. This is done mostly by the board holding any number of proxy votes. They don’t bring in a million people to vote on it.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you that many of these people advocating pay limits lack success themselves and suffer from the class-envy propogated by the Socialists. Not all lack success and experience, and not all those who lack success advocate this. I fall into the latter category. I know why I have failed financially, but I don’t blame others nor envy others their success. Don’t paint all people with the same brush.

And to the guy who said the answer is no bailouts, you are, of course, correct. I’m discussing the other angles, because these bailouts seem unstoppable, so I would like to see some restrictions on them.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:25 pm 64. Judy, NYC:

the peculiar nature of this lies in the notion that waggling a finger at wall street without waggling at corporate miscreants is now the hot media game in town. after all, on the street no one is there to make anything BUT money. it is the corporate pigs and the banking hogs with their heads stuck in the trough who deserve the biggest efn’ waggle. they’ve been dancing on the graves of the middle class long enough.

in any case, 500K, is way too much. and, why should we pay their salaries altogether. epecially while it is their malfeasance that is the reason we are swirling down the commode. and, i don’t know about you, but i want my money back. and, those guys have got it.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:50 pm 65. JFM:

I think how much CEOs are paid is omething to be decided by the shareholders. If A ask N millions more than B but he manages to get N millions and ten cents more than B then hiring A is profitable.

But and it is big but, shareholders should reconsider the whole system of incentives. With the present system the CEO has a financial interest in inflating the Stock valuation more than the real performance of the company. It can happen, it happened during the bubble that CEOs took unconsidered risks in order to inflate the value of the stock, cashed fantastically high bonusses thanks to these inflated stock valuations, then the debts came home, company folded and CEOs retired with enough money to buy a small country. Thre were several examples of this between the banks who folded last autumn.

Shareholders need to think long and hard about how to pay CEos. Perhaps linking salary to profits instead of stock valuation and have a system of liabilities in case company loses money and/or it s discovered that some actions were not entirely healthy

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:59 pm 66. tommyd:

please read, thank you Mongoose

Mongoose:

HonestJon: The so called “rich” have not “destroyed people’s lives” they have given them jobs. But for the productive, we would be all living in caves. Civilization depends on there being “rich people”. The rest of us would not have jobs. How do you think we get the money to pay for a Moxzart or a Newton? Take up a collection?

It is the crooks in congress that have ruined people’s lives. They caused this mess. Go look at socialist countries, there the “rich” are all politicians; they produce nothing but tyranny. There are only about 2 classes in those societies: Masters and slave.

That is just propaganda that your Democrat teachers and the Democrat controlled congress put in your mouth. Learn to think for your self. Do not let immoral vipers like the Democrats think or speak for you.
__________________

If any congressmen/women had any guts there would be some from their ranks under heavy investigation now.
Same goes for the lame ass media. They are so inept at their job description they have become nothing more than a leftist mouthpiece.

How is it that congress can sit up on the hill raking CEO’s over the coals and No One,I mean no one, thinks to ask the congressional morons about their part in all this??

This one fact makes all the posturing by the politicos a huge joke, but it is a joke on us the American public, and the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others are the ones doing the laughing. They know that to this point they have managed to get away with placing all the blame on others when they themselves are primarily to blame.

I call for action against members of congress involved in this.

Feb 5, 2009 - 3:21 pm 67. Allan Crowson:

When a public company files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection, it has to receive court authorization to spend any money. If it survives and come out of Chapter 11, it can spend the money as it pleases. These companies taking the handout, oops, bailout from the government (i.e., all the rest of us) are in the same boat. It is not only fitting that strings are attached, it is necessary! In addition to salary caps, I favor barring all their C-suite personnel and directors from serving in C-level/director capacities in any other publicly traded company for the duration of the bailout (bailout duration, not permanently). Teeth of that sort would cause executives to try a little harder, it seems to me.

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:58 pm 68. Jarhead91:

The big bonuses are a result of Congress changing the accounting rules to make stock options a thing of the past. Before a couple of years ago, stock options were the way to reward talent.

Now that options are no longer available, bonuses and/or “performance shares” are written into contracts.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:04 pm 69. Moogie:

#6 “Sara for America” …

You said exactly what I was thinking.

I’d like to add that I doubt seriously this interference by the government is supposed to be a temporary fix. Once in they won’t get out. And once started, capping the execs salaries won’t be enough. They’ll work their way down to upper, then middle, then lower management and continue their way down to the lowly entry-level mailboy in that corporation.

Can you say “Civil Service?” It’s just one more giant leap for America’s descent into socialism.

Feb 5, 2009 - 5:08 pm 70. JED:

Another approach to these amazing situations is to ask, “What would Stalin do?”
Then try to find the opposite path to freedom and opportunity.
Stalin would level the playing field one way.
Talent and creativity would open the fields another way.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:48 pm 71. Barrett:

I have a couple of quick points.

1) Forget the salary cap. It misses the point. The CEO, Chairman of the Board, the Audit Committee of the Board, The Compensation Committee of the Board, the President or COO and the Heads problem divisions (at the banks, in particular) must be fired if government money is accepted. The government does not get to appoint replacements. Companies do and shareholders ratify the decisions.

2) What do think will happen to the macro-economy and consumer spending if wages are capped (because it will start here and creep down the ladder)? What do you think will happen to the macro-economy if you take the incentive to work out of the system?

Of course, the Left led by the man-boy President will call for more government to solve the problem.

Obama is so clueless about how the real world works it is scary. One stupid decision after another. He says it will take a long time for the economy to recover. If he keeps making policy mistakes, it will get worse. He is becoming the laughingstock not only at home but abroad. That’s quite an accomplishment in three weeks.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:09 pm 72. HonestJon:

Mongoose said: “It is none of your business, nor the government’s business either, how much money someone makes. I you want more moey, you go and make it. Stop telling other people what they should be doing with their lives. Stop telling other people what to do with their labor, hard work and property. It is immoral.

If you do not like that go live in a communist country. Merely because you are lazy and mediocre does not mean the rest of us have to join you in your character flaws, weaknesses and immoralities.”

I appreciate your response, Mongoose. For your information, I went to college and got a degree in Biology with a minor in chemistry-not an easy thing to do I assure you. I’ve worked pretty dang hard all my life and still have little to show for it. So I reject your flawed analysis of me that I’m “lazy and mediocre.”

You further wrote: “The so called “rich” have not “destroyed people’s lives” they have given them jobs.”

Sure, they give them jobs that pay just enough to keep them there-never enough to really get ahead and move up. You can only be asked if you happen to have any Grey Poupon a few times by some jackwad in a limo while you’re worried about the price of milk before it begins to crap in your craw.

You said, “That is just propaganda that your Democrat teachers and the Democrat controlled congress put in your mouth. Learn to think for your self. Do not let immoral vipers like the Democrats think or speak for you.”

Gosh, Mongoose! I’m a staunch conservative who has voted Republican every time. And I do think for myself. If you reread my original post, you’ll discover that I propose that the maximum wage be determined within each company. Like this: highest-paid can only be allowed to make 10 times the lowest-paid. If the CEO makes $1 million then his secretary makes $100,000. I know you think I’m a socialist, and that’s fine-maybe even true. What I propose doesn’t bring the rich down so much as bring up the “unwashed masses” a little. The separation between classes is going to cause civil unrest before too long if it’s not addressed soon. And that worries me.

Your response, Mongoose? Others?

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:32 pm 73. HonestJon:

64. Judy, NYC: I completely agree, ma’am.

65. JFM: Right on, man!

51. Rockmelon: “This about an obscene amount of money. They have the public bamboozled into thinking that no one can perform their jobs except them! Damn, they’re not that smart!” Precisely! And, with consideration to the way that they’ve run us into the ground, I think it’s been proven that they’re not smart at all (at least with other people’s money).

43. Northern Light: Well done, sir!

14. JohnnyL: I agree wholeheartedly.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:50 pm 74. Marc Malone:

#72 HonestJon – I appreciate the honesty of your post. You’re speaking about how you personally feel, rather than regurgitating talking points. Here is your requested response.

Why do you believe that the company should ever pay you more than just enough to keep you? The proper questions are:

1)Why should they pay you more than that?;

2) How much are you really worth paying?

As to the first, corporations are obligated to their stockholders to pay you as little as possible, period. Their purpose is to pay the STOCKHOLDERS as much as possible, not you. You cannot get rich working for them. Logically impossible, except in top management.

As to the second, do you ever contribute far more than your co-workers? Are you one of the key personnel on whom they take out insurance? If you’re more productive, why don’t you get paid more? Do you force the issue? Are you willing to walk out? Do you shop your skills around? You must be proactive, not passive. You must be hungry.

To a lesser degree, small companies operate the same way. Often they can’t pay as much, but whne they can, some do. There is an emotional component to the employer-employee relationship in very small companies.

It seems to me that you’ve bought into the idea that you can just show up every day, punch the clock, do your work, and you’ll be able to live well on your salary. Logic and empirical evidence will show this to be false. There are a number of types of people pushing this meme to their own benefit.

You are clearly educated and willing to work, but how HUNGRY are you? Go read up on the subject of wealth. Learn how our economic system is supposed to work. While reading, compare the solutions offered to what you have actually been doing yourself. Generally speaking, to be successful, you have to develop the second skillset of business. It is a skillset. Even successful entertainers (musicians and athletes) must develop this skillset, or they end up not very financially successful, a al Willie Nelson and MC Hammer.

The key is not to resent those who have achieved. It is to learn how they have achieved it. Go to a wealthy neighborhood. Find the guy who is home during the day. Ask to buy him a cup of coffee so you can pick his brain about his success. You’ll be delighted at the result. He’s probably the nicest guy you’ve ever met. You may gain a mentor, or at least get some solid advice.

As to your proposal of wage caps, that’s just silly. The guy who runs a multi-billion dollar corporation maybe makes four decisions per year, but the livelihoods of 100,000+ people depend on those few decisions. His decisions make the difference between making $2B or $3b in a given year. If he has the skills to do that right, why should he work for a million/yr or less? You don’t like being underpaid, and neither does he. Think about it. The class-envy is tearing us apart, but it’s all manufactured. You should be excited about the success of others, not envious. Thou shalt not covet.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:00 pm 75. Marc Malone:

Oh, when you talk to that rich guy, DO NOT argue with him. Ask questions only?. He’s an expert. He doesn’t want some tyro arguing with him.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:07 pm 76. njcommuter:

The phrase “Let them eat cake” certainly flitted in my head when the New York State Comptroller, Thomas Di Napoli, announced that the financial services companies paid a staggering $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year 2008.

I expect better from Pajamasm Media and its readers.

First question: how many people were these bonuses spread among? If they were spread among, say, 100,000 people the average bonus would have been $18,400. Not chump change for most people, but what is the salary structure in the industry? If you expect to get 40% of your income from the bonus, this is at best a disappointing number.

Let’s try a different statistic. Let’s separate the bonuses into three tiers. The first tier is CEOs, managing partners, and people who report directly to them. The second tier is everybody else who makes financial decisions. The third tier is the army of programmers, network administrators, computer administrators, etc, whose machinery and operations power the ship steered by the financial people. Then let’s look at these bonuses over the last five years. Are the numbers higher or lower than those years? By how much?

THAT would be a useful set of numbers. The raw numbers, aggregated across thousands or hundreds of thousands of people employed across the USA, is a damned lie when used as a statistic.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:05 pm 77. njcommuter:

And I make a mistake on the numbers myself! Okay, if it’s spread among 600,000 people, the average bonus is $30,666. Again, not chump change and the reasoning stands. And when you count that army of technologists, 600,000 isn’t so ridiculous.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:09 pm 78. HonestJon:

Thank you Mr. Malone for the judicious and well-thought-out response to my queries. I very much appreciate your replies and have gained a good deal of respect for your judgement.

You wrote: “corporations are obligated to their stockholders to pay you as little as possible, period.”

My (Marxist/socialist) response: Perhaps there needs to be a cap on the absolute upper limit on the amount of profit derived from holding shares of said company. By suggesting this, I’m not exactly advocating penalizing the shareholders who capitalize the company. But, I am advocating that above a certain level, that the profits that were gained by the people actually in the trench digging the ditch should share in the enhanced profits that their hard work has made possible. Don’t you belive that that would influence the “ditch diggers” to work even harder and thereby further increase future profits?

I’m going to break the next section down a little, so bear with me. (I dislike hijacking a thread, but good debates are usually long ones.)

Next, you wrote, “As to the second, do you ever contribute far more than your co-workers?”

A good question, and prescient.

Here’s my answer, sir: In all of my work experiences, I’ve never been permitted to know what my contribution to any company actually means profit-wise compared with my co-workers in terms of how much it costs the company for me to be an employee versus how much the company actually makes in profit from my employment in regard to my co-workers. Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion (with consideration to the fact that the company ain’t gonna tell you) that one must judge for himself how much he is worth. With that in mind, and in light of the multimillion dollar bonuses that some executives reap; and with consideration to my level of education, knowledge, and experience, how can they possibly be worth so much (in excess of extravagance) while I just (in comparison) barely manage to get by?

“Are you one of the key personnel on whom they take out insurance?”

Every company that I’ve ever worked full-time for has provided health/life insurance. If they hadn’t, I would never have agreed to be an employee. I suppose that, to them, I’m worth at least that much…

“If you’re more productive, why don’t you get paid more?”

See above. They don’t tell me if I am or not. And therefore, I have no real impetus to achieve more for the company than is required for continued employment. Maybe these companies that allow these enormous bonuses should give the exact same bonus to every employee. That way everybody feels valued as an equal contributor to the company’s success. (Again, not so much to bring the wealthy down as to raise the less-wealthy up.)

“Do you force the issue?”

Not anymore. The rich folks (read owners, shareholders, management) seem to dislike when Oliver Twist humbly asks for a little more porridge.

“Are you willing to walk out?”

I’ve done it two times. Both times, I felt like a great weight was raised off my shoulders (a magnificent feeling, in case you’ve never experienced it). But both times, I feel confident, I was sorely missed for a substantial length of time thereafter–and both times I scarpered it was because the company was getting rich while I was just getting by.

“Do you shop your skills around?”

With regard to the current trend where folks find new jobs and quit the old (with greater regularity than in the past), a person who is desiring upward mobility must constantly attempt to better theirself.

“You must be proactive, not passive. You must be hungry.”

I’ve been all three at the same time, sir. However, owner/shareholder greed seems to get in the way somehow (no matter what) unless one has connections.

“To a lesser degree, small companies operate the same way. Often they can’t pay as much, but whne they can, some do. There is an emotional component to the employer-employee relationship in very small companies.”

As a general rule, the owners/management only very rarely pay as much as they could (and still gain reasonable profit.) They’re in it for the money-and only that. Humanitarian considerations always come second. Greed is always first-grab as grab can.

“It seems to me that you’ve bought into the idea that you can just show up every day, punch the clock, do your work, and you’ll be able to live well on your salary. Logic and empirical evidence will show this to be false. There are a number of types of people pushing this meme to their own benefit.”

Come in, punch the clock, work, live well. If you show up on time when you’re supposed to, do the company a good job, and work hard (with the caveat that the company remains sucessful), then a person should, absolutely, be able to live well. But it goes back to the original argument, Mr. Malone, that the executives aren’t working that much harder and are getting remunerative compensation far in excess of what their actual value is. Sir, let us face the fact that the general is not the one at the front line that actually fights the war, the soldiers are. The general may call the shots, but is he really the one who wins the war? I respectfully disagree with you if you believe that to be so. It is always the dedication of the soldiers that wins a war.

“You are clearly educated and willing to work, but how HUNGRY are you? Go read up on the subject of wealth. Learn how our economic system is supposed to work. While reading, compare the solutions offered to what you have actually been doing yourself. Generally speaking, to be successful, you have to develop the second skillset of business. It is a skillset. Even successful entertainers (musicians and athletes) must develop this skillset, or they end up not very financially successful, a al Willie Nelson and MC Hammer.”

Thanks for the compliment. I worked hard for my education. How the economic system is supposed to work is not how it is working today. All these “best and brightest” folks that I keep reading about have dragged us (collectively) into a pretty deep malarial swamp (without any quinine). All for the love of money. Isn’t there a quote somewhere in some book that the root of all evil is money? We need a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt! Not so sure about Willie, but MC Hammer had it all and just squandered it wastefully. –And you’re right in this respect. Hammer had no business skills.

“The key is not to resent those who have achieved. It is to learn how they have achieved it. Go to a wealthy neighborhood. Find the guy who is home during the day. Ask to buy him a cup of coffee so you can pick his brain about his success. You’ll be delighted at the result. He’s probably the nicest guy you’ve ever met. You may gain a mentor, or at least get some solid advice.”

They won’t let me past the gate at the gated community. And, to be totally honest, I do resent the greedy wealthy.
Why not pay the employees just a little bit more? It will attract better employees, more-dedicated employees, and more-productive ones, too.

“As to your proposal of wage caps, that’s just silly. The guy who runs a multi-billion dollar corporation maybe makes four decisions per year, but the livelihoods of 100,000+ people depend on those few decisions. His decisions make the difference between making $2B or $3b in a given year. If he has the skills to do that right, why should he work for a million/yr or less? You don’t like being underpaid, and neither does he.”

Come now, sir! You cannot reasonably argue that John Thain really deserves a toilet worth $35,000 when the guy that is cleaning it is probably not making that much per year! Ah the grandiosity of it all! Gold-embroidered tush tissues, anyone?

The problem is the gap in remunerative compensation.

“The class-envy is tearing us apart, but it’s all manufactured. You should be excited about the success of others, not envious.”

Yes, sir. When I see some rich guy roll down the window on his limo and ask the flagman at a road construction site whether or not he has any Grey Poupon, I get very much excited.

“The class-envy is tearing us apart, but it’s all manufactured.”

Here is what I fear, sir. Eventually, the lesser classes are going to revolt against this perceived economic injustice on a wide scale. I can see Cincinnatti, Detroit, and L.A. in flames. The economy is really going to be hurt when cities are burning.

“Thou shalt not covet.”

A final arguement, to wit: Thou shalt not steal.

Feb 6, 2009 - 2:12 am 79. tommyd:

Today Obama & the left want to tell those at the top how much they can have out of their companies profit pie.
Tomorrow they will decide when they look at that pie that the company itself does not deserve to have all that pie and that there will be a cap on profits the company is allowed to keep with the “excess” going to.. “The People” (read government & higher taxes).

Socialism hasn’t worked anywhere, what makes anyone think it will work here? Because “our” politicians are geniuses? get real…
Oh I see, so some here think we can try just a “little” Socialism, not really all of it… but just a little bit of it.. too funny..
Maybe it will work for us if we just call it something else, don’t use the “S” word and it will be alright… And while we are at it let’s just turn off all those radio’s that we can’t seem to control, after all if they won’t come over to our way of thinking then let’s just get rid of the lot. Can’t have any rabble-rousers mucking up things for the people now can we.
(you are aware that the “esteemed” congresswoman (Stabenow D-Michigan) who is pushing for the “fairness Doctrine ” is married to an executive for none other than “Air America” aren’t you? I am sure there is no conflict of interest there…)

Every time it is tried “The People” always end up being a select few of their choice which will not include %99.9 percent of the rest of us.

Open your eyes, unplug you brain from the tube that is force feeding you a load of crap and realise you are being taken for a one way ride and without the “correct” ticket your destination will not be as advertised.
Sorry… no refunds allowed, all sales are Final.
All aboard for the leftist express…..come on get on board,, it’s the express train for “the people” don’t you see… The “Boss” is playing in the club car and the Hollywood gang will keep you entertained with free en route movies, all the popcorn you can eat…
just get on board….now, this special is good for the next hour only after that the world will come to a abrupt end if you don’t buy your ticket now, as in today.

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:15 am 80. deguello:

We shouldn’t cap their entitlements; I’d settle for kneecapping them instead.

Feb 6, 2009 - 6:17 am 81. Mike T:

And I make a mistake on the numbers myself! Okay, if it’s spread among 600,000 people, the average bonus is $30,666. Again, not chump change and the reasoning stands. And when you count that army of technologists, 600,000 isn’t so ridiculous.

If 600,000 most rank-and-file employees got such large bonuses, the banks would tell us because it would be excellent character defense material for the management. The reason I can’t take your argument about that seriously is that the technologists at these banks were already very well compensated, as banking is one of the highest paying employers of IT staffers and software developers in the global economy.

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:16 am 82. Mike T:

***And companies are not generally well-known for handing out such large bonuses to IT staffers and software developers who are already well-paid because they are usually regarded as just a cost of doing business, not as an integral part of the business itself.

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:17 am 83. Oldguy:

Mike T: The point you miss is taxpayer dollars. How many professional sports stadiums are built with said taxpayer dollars? You lay on your couch and imagine yourself to be Brett Favre or some athlete and never question how these high salarys are made possible by the “gifts” of tax dollars for stadiums.

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:22 am 84. Mongoose:

Malone: that does not apply across all packages giving out in the bail out, or in the upcoming plans. In any event it is just a setup to nationalization.

In any event, the argument that the government is somehow a proxie shareholder for the taxpayer is ludicrous

Think not? Now they are talking about limiting all pay regardless of if the firm is part of the bailout or not:

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart

How does that fit into the option of “government as a shareholder”?

It does not, it is a ramp up to full socialism. It is nationalization.

Next they will be telling the indistry who they can loan too.

Feb 6, 2009 - 9:56 am 85. Mongoose:

HonestJohn and Mike T:

You need to review the notion of the Bill of Rights, and do so particularly with regard to property rights. It is not up to the voter–or anyone else–to vote or legislate those rights away. That is why it is called a “Bill of Rights” in the first place.

The Government has not right to limit profits of a company, or to limit pay arbitrarily (which is another form of property). This is theft. What is next, the cost of your wardrobe? What books you can own? What medical service you can recieve? Where you can live? How many children you can have? What they are taught?

This is tyranny. This is nascent communism. It is an overthrow of our way of life, culture and traditions. Is this what you stand by?

It is free enterprise, capitalism and individual liberty that got us where we are today, and it is an historical accomplishment. People get so keep the fruits of their labors. Do you want to go back 200,000 years to the primitive jealousies and envy of the tribe? It is overcoming that jealousy as the dominant social force that got us out of the caves. The jealousy of collectivist cultures kept us in them. Socialism always impoverishes in the final analysis. This is because it takes the fruits of labor out of the hands of the most productive and capable and gives it out to the least productive, giving the lions share to the people that maitain the terror state that enforces this theft.

It does not matter how dissatisfied you are with your own life. That does not give you the right to impoverish the rest of us. If you do not like the money that you are making then do something about it. Get better skills. Get a better job. Start your own business (then you will not be talking about limiting profits, you can count on that). It is none of your business how much money someone else is making. It is not a zero sum game. You are just indulging in jealousy and envy, and you are trying to mask it in the cloak of morality. But socialism is immoral. It is theft. Theft of liberty; theft of property; theft of the future. Your neighbor has no right to seize your property just because he wants it. Why do you have the right to do that to me? Why does the government have the right to do that to the both of us? Are you so sure you want to do away with the bill of rights?

Under the system that you seem to be proposing you will still have rich people, believe me.

They just will be government officials. They will not be elected either. And they will have wealth beyond what any business man could ever dream of. And you will have no way to get out of poverty. The best that you can do is be their servant and maybe they will throw you a few crumbs. But you will not move up by honest ahrd work and real moral accomplishment.

What gives you the right to say who earns what? What gives you the right to say how much someone’s company can earn? Why do you think it is a bad thing for a company to be successful? Because you are not as successful as you would like to be?

The honest answer is that you are jealous of another’s success. How can we build a civilization if failure can topple success out of sheer envy and jealousy.

So can then someone who is less successful than you take your property from you?
Can someone who does not work as hard as you, and therefore make less money, come into your dwelling and claim it and its contents as their own? By your logic this seems to be the case. How can such a world survive for long?

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:00 am 86. David S:

If we are going to spend taxpayer money on bailouts, it is only right that we have some say on compensation.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:02 am 87. Mongoose:

DAVID S.
We are not spending it. The government is. The taxpayer does not get ownership, the government does (which is really the Democrat party). What does that really mean? This is Nationalization. This is socialism. What is next, that they can only loan to the friends of Democrat insiders? THis is how it practically works out in corrpt one part, sft socialist states like Mexico. It is particularly pernicious when the government caused the mess in the first place. By what constitutional right does do this, and by what right do they sell this to the American people and then change the game later?

How will firms attach talent? Why should they stay here? Why not head overseas? Why should they even take the money? Dave S., did you not just see my link to pending legislation that would limit all salaries in the sector without regard to whether or not they tkae bailout money or not? What is up with that? How can in each case the government know what a even company needs? Perhaps they need better traders? How will they get them when they limit their pay?

Not the Democrat politicians, that is for sure. They have spent their whole lives inside the government. Obama has never had a real job in his life, not is a business where making money placed him on the line. How does he know anything about business at all? he has spent his entire life using government to loot businesses and harm capitalism. He is a parasite on productive people. the whole lot are.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Franks got hundreds of millions of dollars from the wall St. Will he give that back? Fannie and Freddie execs–government people, almost all democrats–got millions of dollars (the current CoS of the White House was a director of one of them). Are they going to give their money back? Are they going to limit them?
What about the companies that were already bailed out. They were big Democrats insiders, firms like Goldman Sach, etc. This is not retroactive. So Goldman Sach is exempt fromm this but their competitors are not? Is that not deeply corrupt?
How is that not hypocrisy?

Are they not really trying to seek in socialism? Can you honestly say otherwise?

How does this help a recovery?
I tell you, that it is a Trojan horse for implementing American style socialism and communism.

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:40 am 88. goy:

87. Mongoose: - Are they not really trying to seek in socialism? Can you honestly say otherwise?
I wouldn’t expect so. David S is an avowed Socialist, he is happy to see the country moving closer to socialism, which is why he was so supportive of BHO.

@78. HonestJon:- Thank you Mr. Malone …

Wow, here’s the sort of exchange one doesn’t often find anymore. Kudos to you AND Marc M.

If I might be permitted to contribute…

- … I am advocating that above a certain level, that the profits that were gained by the people actually in the trench digging the ditch should share in the enhanced profits that their hard work has made possible.
HJ, my first thought here is that there is absolutely nothing to stop those in the trenches from reaping the potential rewards. They can purchase stock in their company like anyone else (assuming it’s public) and are very often able to do so at a discount. This is more often the case with companies reaping so-called “obscene” profits than others.

That said, my question on this suggestion would be: who decides that “certain level”? And who decides the ditch-digger’s share? Based on what? Both are completely subjective assessments. This is why “from each according to his gifts, to each according to his need” is completely unworkable. No human society is capable of defining “gifts” and “need” to everyone’s satisfaction, to say nothing of their actual, objective meaning. It’s the same, or at least directly analogous, here. This is especially true in an enterprise where the level of responsibility and/or risk taken on by a particular individual far outweighs the contribution of any one worker (or, more typically, many).

- In all of my work experiences, I’ve never been permitted to know what my contribution to any company actually means … and in light of the multimillion dollar bonuses that some executives reap; and with consideration to my level of education, knowledge, and experience, how can they possibly be worth so much (in excess of extravagance) while I just (in comparison) barely manage to get by?
It’s not likely you’re ever going to be provided with this information in a company of more than 20 people. Even there, things can get complicated enough to throw doubt on any ostensibly objective assessment of a given individual’s contribution. The only workable alternative is a contract between the employer and employee that formalizes their mutual agreement regarding what the employee’s effort is worth to the company under the best circumstances. In the case of highly paid executives, whether or not we worker bees understand it based on our limited knowledge of how a company is actually run, the compensation level determined by that agreement is always directly proportional to the executive’s perceived financial impact on the company. Many such contracts are written to provide bonuses and the like regardless of the company’s performance, and obviously some Boards consider that arrangement acceptable for certain circumstances. So when we have cases where executives get huge bonuses even when their company lost money, it’s likely due to a contractual obligation that did not factor in unforseeable events – like the sudden worthlessness of real estate backed securities caused by the Dems’ torpedoing the housing market with extended abuse of CRA regulations.

My suggestion here would be this: mortgage all of your assets and start your own small business; take on the responsibility of paying thirty-two employees as well as that of providing for their health benefits, etc.; manage that risk for six years. Whether or not you’re profitable, at the end of six years, measure the risk you took, the ulcers you developed, the overwhelming level of finances you managed and the endless hassles with government (and unions, if applicable) you had to deal with as an employer. Note that in all this your employees took little-to-no risk and made no financial investment whatsoever in accepting your offer of employment. Their rewards were based solely on their ability to make good on their promise to do the job they agreed to do for you, at a rate you both deemed fair. Your rewards are based on far more nebulous factors, requiring orders of magnitude more creativity, commitment, risk, patience, diplomacy and long hours. At the end of that exercise, if you don’t believe you earned the $100M you made when you sold your company to IBM – just as your employees earned what you mutually agreed to pay them (along with whatever they collected on the generous stock option plan you provided) – then I’d be very interested in whatever conclusion you do come to.

This is a scenario based on the rule, not the exception. Those few individual CEOs being demonized by politicians and the media for making so-called “obscene” salaries are a tiny fraction of the whole, but it allows people like BHO to paint with a very broad brush. Executives typically earn what you (in your personal opinion) consider ‘beyond extravagance’ precisely because they handle the nebulous part of the company business, and have an inordinate impact on the company financially.

- … owner/shareholder greed seems to get in the way somehow (no matter what) unless one has connections.
This is a curious statement. When you purchase stock, you expect it to increase in value, yes? And if it doesn’t, you withdraw your investment in favor of a better one. Is that “greed”, HJ? Because that’s what’s at the heart of what you’re describing (actually, complaining about) here. Owners are going to feel entitled to what they’re earning based on the scenario I outlined above. It’s in their best interests to give their shareholders the best ROI they can so that they have the invested cash to grow their company, provide salary increases, etc. Recent volatility in the stock market, thanks to the way the government incessantly tries to micromanage the economy, has distorted this process in such a way that preference is given to shareholder confidence, where possible. The reason being that without that confidence, many companies would cease to operate, meaning their employees would be looking for a job, not simply complaining that they didn’t get a raise.

- As a general rule, the owners/management only very rarely pay as much as they could (and still gain reasonable profit.) They’re in it for the money-and only that. Humanitarian considerations always come second. Greed is always first-grab as grab can.
In my experience this is absolutely not true. Only in the rarest few cases have I ever seen anything remotely like what you describe here. Small businesses – the vast majority of employers – simply do not take this attitude. People won’t work for them and/or won’t be very productive when they do. Larger corporations give the appearance of this condition due to the nature of bureaucracy, which abets a lack of accountability (see also: federal government). That’s a function of size, complexity and human nature, not capitalism.

- Come in, punch the clock, work, live well. If you show up on time when you’re supposed to, do the company a good job, and work hard (with the caveat that the company remains sucessful), then a person should, absolutely, be able to live well.
You don’t get rewards just for ’showing up’, although that’s exactly what our public education systems have begun preaching to our young.

The problem here, HJ, is that – like ‘gifts’ and ‘need’ – everyone’s definition of ‘live well’ is different. Someone who defines ‘living well’ as having three homes – one in Manhattan, one on Long Island and one in Bermuda – a 60′ sailboat, private plane, 6 weeks’ annual vacation and an apartment for her ’squeeze’ on the side is going to strive for a very different level of compensation than someone who defines ‘living well” as owning their own home and taking a two-week cruise every other year.

- The general may call the shots, but is he really the one who wins the war? I respectfully disagree with you if you believe that to be so. It is always the dedication of the soldiers that wins a war.
I’m sorry to tell you this HJ, but here you are clearly mistaken. The fact is that both are required. The problem with this analogy, however, is that it’s a false one in this context (employee compensation) because the distribution and level of risk are completely different in war than they are in civilian peacetime.

- How the economic system is supposed to work is not how it is working today.
Here I’d absolutely have to agree. To the extent that overweening government and unions have distorted the normal function of capitalism, confounding the basic principles of honest competition and free enterprise, the economic system is completely broken. And that’s before we even begin to talk about the bankrupting effects of comprehensive health insurance and the wholesale, systematic abuse of various entitlement programs.

- You cannot reasonably argue that John Thain really deserves a toilet worth $35,000…
Here’s the problem, HJ. The question is not what he ‘deserves’. It’s a question of what he’s earned and of his perceived financial impact on his company. Ridiculing Thain’s (or, in this case, the company’s) definition of ‘living well’ (with hyperbole, no less is an exercise in futility. Both your and his opinion there are completely subjective.

- The problem is the gap in remunerative compensation.
No, that’s not the problem, and this is the biggest myth of all. But it’s a convenient stick with which to beat the masses into a frenzy, isn’t it. It’s the same one used by Che, Castro and others who promised “Change”.

The “problem”, if you really want to know, is that we now live in The Age of No Accountability. But that’s another subject entirely.

There have always been and will always be filthy, stinking rich people and filthy, stinking poor people. There will always be this so-called ‘gap’. No system devised so far has ever been able to change that in tens of thousands of years. Capitalism as practiced in America is the closest we’ve ever come as a species, and in numbers this large, to raising so many members of society so far above the level of abject squalor and starvation. That was accomplished by accepting and ignoring the gap, not trying to shrink it based on some arbitrary ideology that pretends all outcomes should be equal. Criticizing that (ongoing) success as ‘not enough’ is an exercise in demanding immediate, unreal perfection. Instead of criticizing, why not help it work even better to finish the job it is already well on the way to accomplishing?

- When I see some rich guy roll down the window on his limo and ask the flagman at a road construction site whether or not he has any Grey Poupon, I get very much excited.
Hmmm… I thought you were a serious person until I read this.

- Here is what I fear, sir. Eventually, the lesser classes are going to revolt against this perceived economic injustice on a wide scale.
Well then what you should be working toward is correcting that false perception, which is fomented using class-baiting rhetoric. What happened to leadership that inspires everyone to do and be the best they can – to live as well as they can? Let’s take even just 50% of the effort currently used to hype the ‘gap’ and apply it toward making government and private bureaucrats accountable – in some tangible way – for their actions. You do that and everything else will magically take care of itself.

We’ve already seen how wealth redistribution works out, and how many lives are lost in the process of trying to force it to work. I’ve studied the history. I’m satisfied that socialism is an utterly discredited ideology.

- Thou shalt not steal.
Not sure you could come up with an argument that makes this applicable. But I’ve been wrong before.

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:45 am 89. Mongoose:

SEEK IN SOCIALISM-SNEAK IN SOCIALISM.

Feb 6, 2009 - 11:47 am 90. liberty4usa:

http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/libertyforusa/2009/02/05/obama-the-master

Class warfare 101

Isolate freeze and attack your target

What should be done is eliminate one government job for every dumb idea these bureaucrats come up with.

Soon they would disappear- and America would re-bloom!

Feb 6, 2009 - 12:05 pm 91. Mongoose:

HonestJon:

I appreciate your response, Mongoose. For your information, I went to college and got a degree in Biology with a minor in chemistry-not an easy thing to do I assure you. I’ve worked pretty dang hard all my life and still have little to show for it. So I reject your flawed analysis of me that I’m “lazy and mediocre.”

Are you sure of that. I know lots of people in those fields that have good jobs. lots more that started their own firms and are doing well. I do not buy that. I think that you are not trying hard enough.

Maybe you are lazy. Too lazy to take it upon yourself to do something about your financial situation. Getting a degree is the easy part. You are not guaranteed a job just because you have a degree, or a particular standard of living.

Maybe you have degree that does not mean anything in your profession. Maybe you are mediocre. Maybe you are in the wrong field and need to retrain. I do not buy it. I think that you are in denial.

Looks to me like the job market agrees with me.

I do not buy you argument that you are not “lazy or mediocre”, I think that you are not being honest with yourself. If you were otherwise you would do something about it. You are obviously young enough to still do something about it. do it. My analysis, rather than flawed, was all to keen for your comfort, it would seem.

Sure, You can only be asked if you happen to have any Grey Poupon a few times by some jackwad in a limo while you’re worried about the price of milk before it begins to crap in your craw.

But you were just saying that people’s pay should be limited. This makes no sense at all.
(BTW, Wall Street pays small salaries and huge bonuses. The bonuses can be 3 or four times the size of a salary at the staff level.)

You do not seem to understand how the world works. Successful companies do not “give them jobs that pay just enough to keep them there-never enough to really get ahead and move up.” They compensate as well as they can, along the lines of what the market will bear and their profits allow, or their good employees would leave for another firm that does pay more. Again, You are projecting your own situation on this. It is nonsense. That is not how compensation works in the real world at all. You must not be deemed worthy of this by your firm. But if you do think that you are not being rewarded to your level of contribution, go look for another job or start your own business. You are just wallowing in bitterness. Take responsibility for your own circumstances and stop trying to limit other people lives and goals because you are unhappy with yours. Take an honest assessment at what value you truly add. No one is obliged to pay you more than what you are worth. I assure that if you make yourself worth more, you will be paid more.

The irony here is that if we adopted the Democrat scheme of setting a “maximum wage”, we would be in a world where there is not competition in compensation. it would be a case of.

“they give them jobs that pay just enough to keep them there-never enough to really get ahead and move up.”

You should listen to what you are proposing sometime, it is completely irrational.

Also, I do not believe that you are a “staunch conservative”. All of your posta clearly articulate either a Left of center or a Marxist viewpoint. You may think that you are a conservative but you do not at all sound like one. It you really think that you are one perhaps you should review just what conservatism means.

Feb 6, 2009 - 12:22 pm 92. David S:

@87. Mongoose:

We are not spending it. The government is. The taxpayer does not get ownership, the government does (which is really the Democrat party). What does that really mean? This is Nationalization. This is socialism.

Well, it may be a step in that direction, but is isn’t socialism. “We” are spending it, insofar as the government is “of, by and for the People”.

What is next, that they can only loan to the friends of Democrat insiders?

No, there will be clear written standards like there should be. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not likely to provide large no-bid contracts to their private industry buddies a la Halliburton.

How will firms attach talent? How will they get them when they limit their pay?

From what I read, it looks like the restriction would be on the tax deduction allowed for pay by their employers. There are plenty of ways to compensate aside from base salary.

Are they not really trying to seek in socialism? Can you honestly say otherwise?

Are they really being sneaky, and do you really think that a modest change to tax policy means our economy is socialist now?

How does this help a recovery?
I tell you, that it is a Trojan horse for implementing American style socialism and communism.

It helps the recovery because it will prevent all the bailout money from going into bankers’ pockets. Maybe this is what you would call American style socialism. I think most people call it “common sense”.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 2:08 pm 93. Mongoose:

David S: Do you realize how loony your reponses are. They do not address the questions I raise at all. They are just a jumble of weird Liefty talking points. It literally cannot be parsed. It is just a jumble of mish mash. No true facts and even the false fact do not form a coherent cogent agrument, even f we were to allow them for the sake of argument.

Go back and read what you wrote. I makes no sense whatsoever.

What do you do for a living, work in a tattoo parlor? Are you even out of college yet?

You know, people around here are starting to refer to you as a “soldier of idiocy”

Terrible way to go through life.

Feb 6, 2009 - 2:39 pm 94. David S:

@93. Mongoose:

Go back and read what you wrote. I makes no sense whatsoever.

That is what I was trying to explain. You “makes no sense whatsoever”.

Amazing. I quote from your reply, and you can’t parse it? I’m not surprised.

You want to give bailout money to firms, and also allow them to take an unlimited amount of this money as personal compensation.

I don’t.

Peace.

DS

PS – You refer to me as a “soldier of idiocy”. It’s a term of endearment and respect coming from PJMers, who generally adore and worship soldiers, and appreciated our idiot President in spite of his failings. I would be a role model in that light. Is that so terrible?

Feb 6, 2009 - 3:48 pm 95. Cybergeezer:

If “His Emptiness” had any business sense, he would tax executive bonuses at 40% or more, and let them party on.

Feb 6, 2009 - 4:06 pm 96. goy:

@93. Mongoose: - David S: Do you realize how loony your reponses are. They do not address the questions I raise at all.
Get used to it. It doesn’t get any better with that useful idiot.

- What do you do for a living…
If I told you, you wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:23 pm 97. David S:

@95. Cybergeezer:

Sounds good to me, but I think 39% is all he was asking. This isn’t a salary cap.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 5:31 pm 98. HonestJon:

88 Goy: “Wow, here’s the sort of exchange one doesn’t often find anymore. Kudos to you AND Marc M.

If I might be permitted to contribute…”

Thanks, GOY! I Appreciate the sentiment. And, by all means, please contribute to the debate. Here we go!

You said, “That said, my question on this suggestion would be: who decides that “certain level”?”

How about an arbitrary maximum possible profit per share of 5% per year. Across the board. All publicly traded companies. Anything above that limit could be paid as a bonus to the workers. It could be considered profit sharing. Said bonus should be the exact same for all workers. Socialism? Probably. Reasonable? To me, yes. To you, probably not.

“Dems’ torpedoing the housing market with extended abuse of CRA regulations. ”

I agree 100%. But the Dems are never going to own up to it. It would be political suicide. The Republicans should beat the Dems over the head with this on a daily basis.

“My suggestion here would be this:…then I’d be very interested in whatever conclusion you do come to.”

I agree with your thought experiment. At the end of the 6 years, if the guy who started the company can reap a 100 million dollar reward, then shouldn’t he feel morally obligated to reward his workers very well? If it’s a small company then shouldn’t all the workers that have made a large contribution to that success be millionaires, too?

“This is a scenario based on the rule, not the exception…”

Of course the execs have a great impact on the bottom line and sure the proportion of those execs that are getting paid (in my opinion) way too much are a definite minority of the whole. And it is unquestioned that they make some very difficult and, at times risky decisions. My arguement is that that small fraction couldn’t possibly be worth as much as they are getting paid. As an example: I recall reading (in WSJ if memory serves) that John Thain originally wanted $20 million per year. I believe he “settled” for $5 million per year. If that’s not extravagant, then I don’t know what is. It even qualifies in McCain’s reconing as wealthy. Noteworthy is the fact that his situation is definitely an outlier. But it is demonstrative of the unequalled greed that’s causing the populist backlash.

“This is a curious statement…”

Here’s the problem (as I see it) with that arguement: Most of the worker bees really don’t have a lot of purchasing power in terms of being able to buy lots of stocks. Sure, they may be able to buy a few shares here and there but it generally isn’t a whole lot–and shares are usually purchased by those folks to be put towards retirement.

“In my experience this is absolutely not true…”

I my experience, excepting intimately small businesses (where each worker is proportionally more important), it is true. Again, this is personal experience and your arguement very well may have merit. I’m confident that your experiences differ from mine. So, on this point I believe it would be prudent for each of us to respectfully disagree with each other.

“The problem here, HJ, is that – like ‘gifts’ and ‘need’ – everyone’s definition of ‘live well’ is different…”

I propose here that anybody who has three homes is living the high life. Again, it comes down to greed.

“I’m sorry to tell you this HJ, but here you are clearly mistaken…”

It is an imperfect analogy, to be sure. And certainly 3rd army wouldn’t have driven 100 miles in three days during the battle of the bulge if it weren’t for George Patton with a bullwhip. Without doubt, Patton deserved every medal and kudo he received-but here’s the difficulty I experience: He was a great leader who rose throught the ranks by way of meritocracy which is the way it should be. But a lot of these execs (as demonstrated by way of the economic difficulties that the whole world is now experiencing) are not good leaders. Therefore, IMHO, they were compensated far in excess of their actual value.

“Here I’d absolutely have to agree…”

A shot in the arm for me. We’re in total agreement on one aspect, anyway.

“Hmmm… I thought you were a serious person until I read this…”

This actually happened to me. It still rankles and always will. Not so much that the guy was rich, but that he might as well have spit in my face. I sort of wish that he had. There would be one less rich jackwad and one more prisoner at Eddyville.

“Well then what you should be working toward is correcting that false perception, which is fomented using class-baiting rhetoric.”

I don’t consider myself to be a class warrior. I’m just fed up with the extravagantly rich kicking sand in the face of the regular folks. A modicum of humility or humbleness would go a long way in this regard.

“We’ve already seen how wealth redistribution works out…”

I’m not advocating totalitarian socialism, but am advocating trying to bring the less-wealthy up without bringing the extravagantly wealthy down. Nor am I advocating wealth redistribution so much as I’m making an attempt to argue my personal vision of what is morally fair with consideration to gainful compensation. It’s my personal morals, here. I feel like your (GOY) morals differ (on this issue) from mine and that is acceptable to me. I don’t expect to convert you or anyone else who has the misfortune to read this, but only to make an attempt to put forth my argument in a reasonable and respectful manner.

“Not sure you could come up with an argument that makes this applicable. But I’ve been wrong before.”

I was trying to add a little levity here while putting forth that I believe the admittedly small proportion of execs who are rolling in the dough, constitute, in my opinion, nothing better than thieves. Again, a personal opinion-and one unquestionably driven, in large part, on emotion.

I humbly respect your arguements to the contrary of what I put forth, and do appreciate the honest, intellectually stimulating, and respectful manner in which this debate has been waged. My thanks to Marc Malone and GOY!

Feb 6, 2009 - 6:23 pm 99. Mongoose:

David S; Do you realize that you are completely irrational? That you make no logical sense, no matter what your beliefs are.

What are you 16 years old? If you cannot get a hold of those issues it is going to end extremely badly for you.

You cannot address rational discussion, and you resort to name calling.
You have completely evaded my points, and put words in my mouth.

How do you expect to get ahead in life with this kind of incompetence and immaturity?

Feb 6, 2009 - 6:27 pm 100. David S:

@99. Mongoose:

You are the one casting aspersions, not I. I was trying to help you understand the nature of the legislation proposed, which would not do what you think it would do.

I never called you names, or drifted from the rational discussion of the legislation at hand.

That you are questioning my competence and maturity only speaks plainly of your own.

The fact is that this bill will not cap compensation, it only protects against tax evasion.

Peace.

DS

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:41 pm 101. HonestJon:

Mongoose: With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t presume to know whether I’m financially successful or not, whether I’m lazy or not, or whether I’m mediocre or not. I fully agree to honestly debate you on the points of the arguement that I’ve put forth on this thread, but not on my (or your for that matter) personal situation. In short, sir, feel at ease to attack the message, but not the messenger. I didn’t post my propositions to receive ad hominem attacks from you or anyone else.

In post # 99, you accuse David S of being completely irrational, incompetent, a soldier od idiocy, and immature-and then you accuse David S of resorting to name-calling. I, as well, as mentioned above, have had a taste of your vitriol (see lazy and mediocre). It is (at best), a double standard that you are perpetrating on David S and myself and (at worst) a hypocritical manner in which to wage an arguement. Let’s debate only the points, sir. And let us not resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks as a method of arguement.

Please understand that I’m not defending David S for his views. But I am defending his right to not be personally attacked for putting forth those views. If you can debunk his arguement, then by all means, have at it.

regards

Feb 6, 2009 - 8:21 pm 102. goy:

@98. HonestJon: How about an arbitrary maximum possible profit per share of 5% per year. Across the board. All publicly traded companies. Anything above that limit could be paid as a bonus to the workers. It could be considered profit sharing. Said bonus should be the exact same for all workers. Socialism? Probably. Reasonable? To me, yes. To you, probably not.
I think this approach – minus the arbitrary 5% cap – is reasonable to a lot of business owners. While I don’t think (don’t know, actually) it’s as popular as it was when I first started working, I believe profit sharing is still done on some basis at many companies. And it’s only socialism if it’s statutory, which looks like what you’re suggesting. The problem is that you can’t have the government dictating profit levels to companies and still call that free enterprise. Plus you’re not taking into account reinvestment of profits back into the company, which is necessary for growth.

The problem with letting government dictate levels is that – as we see in the current Spendulus bill – they refuse to do so rationally. Instead, they use control over the economy to further their own political agendas. I’m talking about ALL politicians here, not just those of any particular party. This brings me back to my argument for tangible accountability in government and business bureaucracies as the solution to all this. Government has proven itself incompetent at micromanaging the economy with mechanisms like this. Just look at how much trouble we’ve gotten into by giving them simultaneous control over defining loan rules and the prime interest rate.

- I agree with your thought experiment. At the end of the 6 years, if the guy who started the company can reap a 100 million dollar reward, then shouldn’t he feel morally obligated to reward his workers very well?
But that’s precisely the point I made. S/he DID reward the employees based on the terms of their agreement. And if that agreement included stock options, which is extremely common, then they have in fact profited beyond just their wages.

- If it’s a small company then shouldn’t all the workers that have made a large contribution to that success be millionaires, too?
Nope. And you’d learn why if you actually did what I suggested. The level of risk borne by the owner and/or venture capitalist(s) that make the company possible in the first place far outweighs the contribution of rank-and-file employees who have already been compensated at a rate they agreed upon.

- My arguement is that that small fraction couldn’t possibly be worth as much as they are getting paid.
Really? And what, exactly, are you basing this assessment on? If a person’s expertise or business connections can double the earnings of a $10B/year company, their services are certainly worth something in the millions in terms of compensation.

- As an example: I recall reading (in WSJ if memory serves) that John Thain originally wanted $20 million per year. I believe he “settled” for $5 million per year. If that’s not extravagant, then I don’t know what is.
Again, “extravagant” is in the eye of the beholder. Thain’s prospective employers (i.e., the Board) are the only ones who can make this determination. Would you argue that Christian Bale earning $38,000,000 for 8-10 weeks’ work on Dark Knight makes sense? Is that morally fair? If so, why? If not, why not?

Noteworthy is the fact that his situation is definitely an outlier. But it is demonstrative of the unequalled greed that’s causing the populist backlash.
Not as much of an outlier as you might think. Every large company has extremely highly paid executives. It’s not a question of greed, it’s a question of attracting the executive management team that makes the company most profitable, providing the greatest ROI for shareholders and the best potential compensation, benefits package and working conditions for employees. The populist backlash is the result of one thing only: politicians and their media lapdogs who use class-baiting rhetoric to convince wage-earners that they should be earning what executives earn simply because they “showed up” for work at the same profitable company.

Here’s the problem (as I see it) with that arguement: Most of the worker bees really don’t have a lot of purchasing power in terms of being able to buy lots of stocks. Sure, they may be able to buy a few shares here and there but it generally isn’t a whole lot–and shares are usually purchased by those folks to be put towards retirement.
I’m not sure why you think this is a problem. Stock option plans typically reduce the cost of purchases to a fraction of their public price. For pre-IPO startups, that fraction is often 1/10 or even 1/100 of the publicly offered price. The point is this: it IS possible for employees to profit in a situation like this – all they have to do is be willing to risk some tiny fraction of what the owner or VC(s) risked in order to get the thing going in the first place.

I propose here that anybody who has three homes is living the high life.
I would completely agree.

- Again, it comes down to greed.
I would completely disagree.

Here’s the thing: the very essence of individual liberty is that one’s aspirations are not subject to others’ approval. No one person – much less the government – may tell another how high or low to aim in their pursuit of happiness. Your misconception here may be based on the notion that such a person is somehow ‘hurting’ others by pursuing such an aspiration. This is certainly the game BHO is playing (with help from useful idiots like Dave S. and ilk). But this is really only true if they’ve stolen others’ property. It’s NOT true if they’ve contributed talents, connections and/or creativity that effectively generated wealth directly. The point to remember here is that free enterprise capitalism is, by definition, not a zero-sum game.

- And certainly 3rd army wouldn’t have driven 100 miles in three days during the battle of the bulge if it weren’t for George Patton with a bullwhip.
Patton’s “bullwhip” was the complete trust his men put in him. That trust was earned by the fact that he knew, much more often than not, how to win battles. The actions of any single soldier under his command wouldn’t have changed those outcomes in any measurable way. His actions, however, determined the outcome directly. See the difference? If so, great. If not, that’s fine too. Either way – again – I don’t think this analogy applies here for reasons I’ve already explained.

… Patton … was a great leader who rose throught the ranks by way of meritocracy which is the way it should be. But a lot of these execs (as demonstrated by way of the economic difficulties that the whole world is now experiencing) are not good leaders.
That’s a very sweeping generalization which, in reality, doesn’t hold a lot of water. The difficulties the whole world is now experiencing are due far more to incompetence in the federal government than incompetence in the business world. Business executives work (or worked) within a set of economic rules, trends, procedures and regulations. No one can deny that the companies who faltered due to the manufactured credit crisis were well-managed prior, as they were extremely profitable and strong – based on those rules, trends, etc. That changed when the rules changed. That is, when the federal government torpedoed the economy by meddling with free enterprise and then tried to blame the outcome on “predatory lenders” – lenders who only appeared “predatory” because of the combined regulations and interest rate manipulation by the government. Businesses failed because of the government’s efforts to impose social engineering programs ostensibly aimed at ‘helping the little guy’ but in fact aimed at nothing less than furthering their own political agendas.

- This actually happened to me.
Oh come on, HJ, this strains credibility in about seven different ways. Please don’t try to turn this into anything more than what it was – a bad joke.

- I don’t consider myself to be a class warrior. I’m just fed up with the extravagantly rich kicking sand in the face of the regular folks.
You’re referring here, of course, to the Hollywood glitterati and their ilk, yes? The talentless rappers flaunting their multimillion dollar homes on Lies of the Rich and Shameless? How many wealthy business executives do you ever even recognize in public, let alone have them kicking sand in your face (whatever that actually means)?

- I’m … advocating trying to bring the less-wealthy up without bringing the extravagantly wealthy down.
That’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve in fact been preaching that the wealthy generally don’t deserve what they have. But even with that aside, what you desire here is precisely what our economic system has been doing for over 100 years. I would submit that the only reason you don’t see this is that you’re just not looking and, instead, relying on the daily spew from various entrenched media sources to give you your opinion on this issue. I recommend a careful review of this article. In particular, understand what this graph is showing, which is precisely what you want: bringing the less-wealthy up. The data on which this article is based is all freely available from the government – it’s not some mysterious computer model like the ones used to lie about global warming. You are free to come to a different conclusion based on this data, or anything else that can be verified (which leaves out stuff like speculation, generalizations, class-baiting rhetoric, etc.). If you do, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Nor am I advocating wealth redistribution so much as I’m making an attempt to argue my personal vision of what is morally fair with consideration to gainful compensation.
I understand that. I submit to you that your personal vision of what is morally fair is incompatible with individual-liberty-in-fact (as opposed to in-theory), as well as truly free enterprise. That’s all. I would recommend another article on this topic, which I wrote some time back, that addresses people’s notions of what is “morally fair”. It turns out this is something that’s been studied closely and IMHO the results hold the key to resolving a lot of the left-vs.-right or progressive-vs.-conservative ‘conflict’ that is presently destroying the function of our government, as well as our collective ability to carry on a national discussion about it.

- I was trying to add a little levity here while putting forth that I believe the admittedly small proportion of execs who are rolling in the dough, constitute, in my opinion, nothing better than thieves.
That was my surmise, which is why I responded to the comment. I think you need to review that position, as it’s related to what I mentioned earlier. A person is not a thief unless s/he’s stealing someone else’s property. If s/he’s generating wealth by building a company, creating and marketing a product, investing with a good return, etc., then everyone’s property is, in fact, increasing – either directly, through wages, or via other compensation. That’s not thievery, that’s properly functioning, free enterprise capitalism. Simply because the distribution of the property doesn’t match your personal view of what’s morally fair, that doesn’t necessarily make any particular beneficiary of that process a thief. I believe that if you took the time to understand the reasons for the distribution, you might realize this.

Having said all this, it goes without saying that there are greedy SOBs running companies out there. This doesn’t mean there’s a problem with capitalism as it’s currently practiced in America. The ability of people like this to continue such behavior is directly proportional to others’ willingness to put up with it. That is true regardless of what economic system is in place.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, HJ.

Feb 6, 2009 - 9:38 pm 103. ILikeIke:

Sara for America wrote: “If you want to talk about obscene income, let’s cap the earnings of Hollywood Celebrities. Today. And all the NFL players, too. I mean, it’s only FAIR.”

Not only are Hollywood celebrities and NFL players overpaid, but they are backed by powerful unions that make sure it stays that way.

Feb 7, 2009 - 2:07 am 104. HonestJon:

Thank you, GOY, for the well-reasoned and civil argument. You’re a difficult cat to herd, that’s for sure! And a very astute arguer. To continue the debate…

“I think this approach – minus the arbitrary 5% cap – is reasonable to a lot of business owners…”

I was suggesting for the cap to be statutory, but the number (5%) I just grabbed out of the air.

“Nope. And you’d learn why if you actually did what I suggested…”

My argument in this instance is based on how I would run it (being the nice guy that I am.) Basically, it’s entirely based on my sense of fairness. If, at the end of the six years, IBM bought out a business that I had for $100 million, a large proportion of that would automatically go to the workers. I would keep for myself 5% (5 million), and divvy up the rest of the pie to the workers (those who had been there longer would receive more than newer hires). I’m just not that greedy personally. I would then buy a small farm in the mountains and retire happily. And believe me when I say that I could retire happily with that amount of cash.

“Really? And what, exactly, are you basing this assessment on? If a person’s expertise or business connections can double the earnings of a $10B/year company, their services are certainly worth something in the millions in terms of compensation.”

I will partially agree with you on this point. If the said person’s decisions do double the earnings, then they do deserve “reasonable” compensation. But not “in excess of extravagance.” Again, “reasonable” and “in excess of extravagance” would vary with every person’s point of view here. Both terms are, as you put it, “in the eye of the beholder.”

“Again, “extravagant” is in the eye of the beholder. Thain’s prospective employers (i.e., the Board) are the only ones who can make this determination. Would you argue that Christian Bale earning $38,000,000 for 8-10 weeks’ work on Dark Knight makes sense? Is that morally fair? If so, why? If not, why not?”

The board really screwed the pooch on this one. I don’t watch any movies and very little television. I’m not going to take the bait and try to argue this point with you. I do think that most of those actors are overpaid mainly because I don’t think that (in most cases) they contribute any real benefits to society as a whole. Again, my personal take.

“Not as much of an outlier as you might think…politicians and their media lapdogs who use class-baiting rhetoric to convince wage-earners that they should be earning what executives earn simply because they “showed up” for work at the same profitable company.”

I do not propose that worker bees make the same as the execs. Only that the astronomical gap between the two is obscene and unjust. It’s going to end up causing social unrest before too long and that worries me. With the Dems running the show, it might not go that far to wit: Employee free choice act (that’s going to be rammed down our throats pretty soon) is going to result in a lot more union membership which will raise up some of the worker bees (and I don’t like unions because 1: it’s almost impossible to fire a union worker-even one who doesn’t contribute and 2: the unions end up with the power to break a company’s back (see GM et al)); and Obama and Geithner’s $500,000 limit on exec compensation that is already in effect for the bailed out banks (which starts us sliding on the slippery slope.)

Here is what I said earlier: “If you show up on time when you’re supposed to, do the company a good job, and work hard (with the caveat that the company remains sucessful), then a person should, absolutely, be able to live well.” The definition of “live well” is the sticking point. On this point, I would bet that both of our definitions would be pretty close (because you agree that a person who owns three homes is living the high life.)

“Here’s the thing: the very essence of individual liberty is that one’s aspirations are not subject to others’ approval…”

When our economy totally tanks (I have little faith in the “porkulus” bill actually doing anything positive) and folks are standing in a bread line while a limo passes by, it’s very likely that limoman’s aspirations may be cut tragically short…:)

“Patton’s “bullwhip”…I don’t think this analogy applies here for reasons I’ve already explained.”

Again, it is an imperfect analogy. But here’s where the rub lies for me: The “masters of the universe” and the “captains of industry” have driven us into a ditch. Not just themselves, but all of us. Collectively. They were not good leaders. Recently, there were riots in Iceland because of this same malady. It’s likely to spread here like a plague. That worries me greatly.

“That’s a very sweeping generalization…impose social engineering programs ostensibly aimed at ‘helping the little guy’ but in fact aimed at nothing less than furthering their own political agendas.”

The execs poked a large hole in the pail of water and now, without plugging the hole, the gubmint is pouring more in. I agree absolutely with you that the CRA and the minority interest groups along with the Dems pushed the whole home ownership thing to the point that it got the ball rolling into this catastrophe that we’re all having to deal with today. The “predatory lenders” were equally matched by the “predatory borrowers.” It seems that most of these folks (borrowers) didn’t bother to read the fine print in their home loan. Or, they greedily thought that they could live in the home for a while until the interest rate was about to jump (in the case of ARMs) and then sell it off and make a quick buck. If the folks whose homes are now facing foreclosure had read the fine print OR if they had been making more money (as I advocate), then we might just not be embroiled in this financial fiasco today.

“Oh come on, HJ, this strains credibility in about seven different ways. Please don’t try to turn this into anything more than what it was – a bad joke.”

Obviously, you’re never worked as a flagman on a road construction crew. I have. Believe me, people can get very nasty very fast when you hold them up even for just a couple of minutes. During the time I was thusly employed, I heard everything from, “But I have ice cream in the trunk” to having a guy jump out of his truck with an axe in his hand. I kid you not!

“You’re referring here, of course, to the Hollywood glitterati and their ilk, yes? The talentless rappers flaunting their multimillion dollar homes on Lies of the Rich and Shameless? How many wealthy business executives do you ever even recognize in public, let alone have them kicking sand in your face (whatever that actually means)?”

Yes. The Hollywood elites, the talentless and subversive rappers, and the overpaid and talentless CEOs and execs “flaunting their multimillion dollar homes on Lies of the Rich and Shameless.” All of the above. Flaunting=kicking sand in your face.

“That’s not what you’ve been saying…If you do, I’d be interested in seeing it.”

I suppose that I should have articulated that a little better. If you replace “without” with “not so much as” in that sentence, then the arguement becomes a little more accurate to what I truly feel. My apologies. I try to read as much as I can every day from as many sources and with as many differing viewpoints as possible (RealClearPolitics is a personal favorite). I’ll read what you suggest, but it’ll take a bit of time for me to absorb and chew on the conclusions. I’m just a dumb ol’ hillbilly, you know…

“I understand that. I submit to you that your personal vision of what is morally fair is incompatible with individual-liberty-in-fact…as well as our collective ability to carry on a national discussion about it.”

I’m doing my best here to not trample on anybody’s liberty. Truly free enterprise seems to be going the way of Russian communism circa 1989 considering the economic quagmire that everyone’s feet are mired in. Capitalism is the best system going to be sure, but now we’re all having to deal with the consequences of the flaws inherent in the system. Collectively speaking you’re right. It’s a great thing that we have discussion boards like this one to be able to flesh out our arguements pro and con on important issues like this one. I’m so very glad that AlGore invented the internet and opened up this avenue for discussion.

“That was my surmise, which is why I responded to the comment…I believe that if you took the time to understand the reasons for the distribution, you might realize this.”

I do hereby agree to alter my earlier arguement against Mr. Malone from “Thou shalt not steal” to “Thou shalt not be a malefactor of great wealth.”

“Having said all this, it goes without saying that there are greedy SOBs running companies out there. This doesn’t mean there’s a problem with capitalism as it’s currently practiced in America. The ability of people like this to continue such behavior is directly proportional to others’ willingness to put up with it. That is true regardless of what economic system is in place.”

Yep, capitalism is working so great right now that the Dems are going to end up forcing us into some sort of socialism-lite. (forgive the sarcasm, please) As to the third sentence in your paragraph above, an old song comes to mind with the following lyrics: “We’re not going to take it. No, we ain’t gonna take it. We’re not gonna take it anymore.” The last sentence is unquestionably true. The natives are getting restless and they’re going to get moreso when this economic disaster really starts to hit home. Think Paris in the book, “A Tale of Two Cities.”

In closing, this whole issure is really only a symptom of the fact that the folks who got really rich will, for the most part, remain so even through the depression that I believe is on the way while the little guy is going to be in a bread line living in a shelter. I sincerely hope that it does not lead to riots, civil strife, and that sort of thing (like it did in Iceland), but I’m not confident that that will be the case. I suppose that, as much as it galls me to admit it, I’m somewhat in agreement with Obama in terms of “spreading the wealth around” though I didn’t like his manner of articulation of the idea. What I’ve put forward concerning raising the little guy up a bit, I staunchly believe, is a much better idea than having the unions expand greatly and dictate to the companies that they leech on what the going pay rate is or shall be. It’s also a better approach than the Pres et al dictating to execs what they are going to make. At least in my approach, the wages of persons working at a company would be dictated as no less than a certain amount as determined by the person making the most at that company. Thus, my proposition may bring down what the execs make or it may bring the others up a degree. Maybe both at the same time. Is that such an awful thing?

Thanks again, GOY. Your arguements have made me consider some of the positions that I have taken in this discussion and have greatly contributed to the evolution of what I propose. Maybe, after a few more of these spirited yet civil debates, we may even come to a consensus on how to go about preventing future economic collapses.

Feb 7, 2009 - 6:05 am 105. goy:

@104. HonestJon: - Thank you, GOY, for the well-reasoned and civil argument.
Likewise. Almost seems sad that it’s the exception rather than the rule, huh. Trying to rein in the length below, so pls don’t take it as terse or dismissive…

- … the number (5%) I just grabbed out of the air.
Exactly what the fedgov is doing now and has been doing right along: experimenting with numbers largely pulled out of thin air (or… someplace). Fine if you’re the business owner willing to accept responsibility if that experiment fails. NOT fine to legislate such experimentation for all – especially when the legislators are never, ever held accountable for the results.

- If, at the end of the six years, IBM bought out a business that I had for $100 million, a large proportion of that would automatically go to the workers. I would keep for myself 5%…
That’s cool by me. And extremely altruistic. However, if you’re a “serial entrepreneur” like most small business owners (large ones too), if the start-up costs on your next company exceed $5M, then you’ll have to cede a portion to VCs to get going. Your pursuit of happiness wouldn’t take this path – you’d retire to a farm. Others might wish to build bigger businesses, provide more jobs. They are not required to live by your moral framework. Likewise, the fedgov has no place defining a profit or salary cap in this regard – that will only suppress economic growth in the long run.

In fact – back on topic – the government has no business imposing salary (or any other sort of) caps even if they’ve decided to pump money into a company. If they do, then they’re lying about why they’re bailing out the firm. In a rational world, federal money should only be provided to firms that would have been fine absent the sudden “change in rules” created by the governments’ collective mistakes (i.e., burning down the housing market). If they weren’t being managed well, they should go under and be absorbed by companies that were. And that has happened. As such, the gov’t has no business micromanaging a company’s operation simply because it needed a cash infusion due to government’s mistakes.

- I will partially agree with you on this point. If the said person’s decisions do double the earnings, then they do deserve “reasonable” compensation.
My point exactly. And when YOU own, or are responsible for running the company, YOU get to decide what’s reasonable. But if you’re some bean-counter in the organization who simply covets the CEO’s salary (but isn’t willing to take the risks necessary to work for it), and who doesn’t fully comprehend how the company functions, you don’t get to make that decision. And that goes double if you’re some elected or un-elected gov’t official who’ll never be held accountable for any decision you make affecting the company’s future. It goes triple for some couch potato on welfare, sitting cow-eyed staring at BHO preaching socialism on television muttering, “right on!”

- I’m not going to take the bait and try to argue this point with you.
There’s not much to argue. You already answered the question earlier when you were trying to figure out who contributes to what in any given enterprise. The Dark Knight, at the end of the day, is a product sold to consumers. How much the consumer is willing to pay depends largely on who’s starring in it. Bale’s box office draw was a large part of what made the film successful. So based on his contribution (as you discussed earlier) the contract defining his compensation should reflect that. It’s no different with CEOs.

- I don’t think that (in most cases) they contribute any real benefits to society as a whole. Again, my personal take.
One’s contribution to society rarely has anything to do with what their efforts are worth in any given enterprise. In Bale’s case – as with most highly paid celebrities – what he does with that $38M after he gets it – and NOT the work he did on the movie itself – will determine his contribution to society. Although some folks would argue that the character he portrayed contributed to our literary icons and, thus, our national identity. That’s a whole different topic.

- … the astronomical gap between the two is obscene and unjust.
So you’re saying that Oprah Winfrey’s income and net worth is obscene and unjust? She worked her way up from less than nothing, in a ‘hostile’, prejudiced environment, to become one of, if not the wealthiest woman in the world. Are you saying she didn’t earn what she has? The gap exists only for those who aren’t willing to put out some percentage of the effort Oprah did. She’s proof that anyone can become a billionaire if that’s what they want. The problem is that most folks’ aspirations don’t soar that high.

But there are those with political agendas who are trying desperately to convince people that someone like Oprah doesn’t deserve to have so much more than others. THEY are the ones creating social unrest, not her.

- Employee free choice act (that’s going to be rammed down our throats pretty soon) is going to result in a lot more union membership which will raise up some of the worker bees…
No, it won’t. Unions are in the process of destroying the American auto industry. And the only reason they haven’t managed to do the same to the defense industry (e.g., Sikorsky and ilk) is because it’s harder to outsource a nation’s security infrastructure. But as the world continues to shrink, logistically, unions will do the same to every other industry they overrun. Competition – economic Darwinism – will see to it. This is why unions and socialism ultimately go hand-in-hand.

- … Obama and Geithner’s $500,000 limit on exec compensation that is already in effect for the bailed out banks
Watch for the Law of Unintended Consequences to take effect here. Executive management folks who command the big bucks will simply resign and go work for firms who aren’t subject to the cap. They’ll be replaced by people – likely selected by government bureaucrats (also see: Franklin Raines) – who will NOT manage those firms as well as before the “crisis” and they’ll fail unless the economy is left to correct itself without more damage through gov’t meddling. I’m convinced that, through this cap, this is exactly what BHO is hoping for (see Cloward/Piven).

- The definition of “live well” is the sticking point. On this point, I would bet that both of our definitions would be pretty close (because you agree that a person who owns three homes is living the high life.)
I think our definitions would be almost identical (I’d LOVE to retire to a farm), but that’s because I’m not a serial entrepreneur who needs a comfortable place to live in each of the three locations I do business. What you disparage as ‘living the high life’ is seen as something quite different to someone who’s responsible for the employment of 7300 people and a federal tax bill the size of some countries’ GDPs. My point is that it’s not your place to dictate to such a person how they can or should live. And it’s certainly not the government’s – not in a society based on individual liberty.

- The “masters of the universe” and the “captains of industry” have driven us into a ditch.
No. Wrong. The meddlesome federal government in its misguided quest for equal outcomes for all (read: buying votes) has done that. Corporate CEOs have done their best to keep their businesses going – and their employees employed – despite all that meddling. But last September the meddling finally achieved one of its critical milestones. Blaming “Wall Street” for the sins of meddlesome politicians will not fix the problem. We see this clearly if we look back at 1939 and see how FDR’s New Deal policies – many of which were ultimately deemed unconstitutional – prolonged the Depression. We see another lesser example of this in the way Clinton’s tax hikes prolonged the early 90s’ recession, leading to the Republican majority in Congress responsible for the economic boom Clinton takes credit for.

- The execs poked a large hole in the pail of water and now, without plugging the hole, the gubmint is pouring more in.
Again, no. If this is really what you think then you need to get out and study the issue more. This is NOT a problem that was created by “execs” working within the rules imposed by the government. The hole was fundamentally created by two things: sub-prime and CRA lending, which drove the housing market into a huge bubble, and constant, unnecessary Fed interest rate increases that popped it.

- Capitalism is the best system going to be sure, but now we’re all having to deal with the consequences of the flaws inherent in the system.
Flaws imposed by government meddling in markets they don’t understand – or which they DO understand, and are actively working to subvert. My money is on the latter. Again, you can’t point to any aspect of capitalism as the culprit in our current economic situation. Micromanagement of the economy by the fedgov is the primary villain here.

- In closing, this whole issure is really only a symptom of the fact that the folks who got really rich will, for the most part, remain so even through the depression that I believe is on the way while the little guy is going to be in a bread line living in a shelter.
IMHO, you have that situation backward. You seem to want to ignore how most wealthy people actually acquire their wealth – at least the ones who are able to keep it through the tough times.

- Maybe, after a few more of these spirited yet civil debates, we may even come to a consensus on how to go about preventing future economic collapses.
Oh, that part’s the easiest of all, though the most difficult to implement: start teaching economics and history in school again. Only a really ignorant populace can be whipped into a frenzy through the class- and race-baiting tactics used by BHO and other adherents to Saul Alinsky’s Rules.

Feb 7, 2009 - 8:17 am 106. HonestJon:

All right! Here we go!

“They are not required to live by your moral framework.”

Since the Dems have almost complete control of the gubmint, it is likely to devolve into them making the call on this stuff. Again, capping the exec’s compensation has us beginning the slide on the slippery slope.

“She’s proof that anyone can become a billionaire if that’s what they want.”

Not exactly true. A big shot of luck, in many cases, contributes more than hunger, striving, education, etc. does. I would call her the exception to the rule.

“So you’re saying that Oprah Winfrey’s income and net worth is obscene and unjust?”

Not at all. Mainly because she is well-known to be at the very least generous, if not altogether altruistic concerning her employees and even charities. I’d be willing to bet that just about all of her long-time employees are wealthy (by my definition of it)-I’m sure that she took them along for the ride. Her personal story is truly an American success story-a real rags-to-riches dream come true. No doubt that she earned every penny! Personally, I can’t stand even a few minutes of her show because of her race-baiting propaganda and complete focus on “black issues.” Yuck!

And also, I never mentioned Oprah to begin with. This discussion began as a general one about businesses and executive compensation and you are bringing forth specific examples of specific people. I did mention John Thain above didn’t I. Oops.

“The problem is that most folks’ aspirations don’t soar that high.”

Of course. A large subset of our population doesn’t even have the wherewithal to finish high school. For them, I have no sympathy.

“In a rational world…”

It’s not a rational world-as evidenced by who our president is. Even Greenspan didn’t see this disaster coming. And he’s a pretty smart guy. He wrote in his memoir, “I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk.” A world-altering mistake. Catastrophic fail.

“No, it won’t. Unions are in the process of destroying the American auto industry.”

Along with poor management and a lack of vision. As much as I hate to say it, those companies should be allowed to fail so that they can renegotiate the contracts with the unions. So should the banks. Chapter 11 is there for a good reason. Unions amount to a ponzi scheme, IMHO. They were necessary at the turn of the 20th century, perhaps, but have outlived their usefulness. That’s not going to stop the Dems from jabbing us with the EFCA.

“No. Wrong. The meddlesome federal government in its misguided quest for equal outcomes for all (read: buying votes) has done that.”

The gubmint should shoulder a large proportion of the blame. There was some ridiculous crap going on concerning considering welfare or unemployment benefits as gainful employment. That having been said, the businesses that agreed to lend to unworthy borrowers (even under gubmint, minority, and rights groups pressure), packaged that bad paper and sold it as securities (sort of ironic to have insecure securities isn’t it?) must shoulder at least a portion of the blame.

“Again, no…”

Added to the end of that comment needs to be that rampant speculation by greedy folks enhanced the inflation of the bubble as well as the fallout when the bubble finally popped. And also, the whole theory that with enhanced risk comes enhanced reward. It is undoubtedly true. But the banks et al were allowed to massively overleverage themselves-just like the homebuyers who knew they couldn’t afford payments on the homes. Again, I’m not an economist, and my knowledge of financial jargon is shaky. But the gubmint isn’t the ONLY one to blame.

“Again, you can’t point to any aspect of capitalism as the culprit in our current economic situation.”

Sure I can. Rampant greed. Greed is an essential component of capitalism. Let us face the fact that very few, if any folks (excepting the government) start a business just to give people jobs. The object is to make money. Greed may be too strong a word, but currently I’m at a loss for a better one.

“Oh, that part’s the easiest of all, though the most difficult to implement: start teaching economics and history in school again. Only a really ignorant populace can be whipped into a frenzy through the class- and race-baiting tactics used by BHO and other adherents to Saul Alinsky’s Rules.”

Bad news, brother. A majority of the population voted for BHO-thereby declaring themselves ignorant.

I seem to recall (John Paine, maybe (in the Federalist papers (if memory serves))) that a democracy will be brought down when the population finally figures out that it can vote itself into prosperity and thereby vote others out of it. That may have very well happened on 11/04/08.

regards

Feb 7, 2009 - 10:16 am 107. goy:

@106. HonestJon: - Since the Dems have almost complete control of the gubmint, it is likely to devolve into them making the call on this stuff.
True. And just as we saw with FDR’s New Deal, I have every expectation that the most damaging aspects of the agenda they want to implement will ultimately be found unconstitutional – including micromanaging business operations of companies forced (through government mismanagement) to accept government funds. Definitely a slippery slope.

“She’s proof that anyone can become a billionaire if that’s what they want.” Not exactly true. A big shot of luck, in many cases, contributes more than hunger, striving, education, etc. does. I would call her the exception to the rule.
You can call her anything you like, HJ, but the fact is that she’s not the only one who’s managed to raise herself up well beyond any expectations based on her origins. Such people make their own luck. And they’re only the “exception” because they have exceptional aspirations and exceptional willingness to persevere. Wealthy people ARE the exception, almost by definition.

Like millions of others, I’m a lesser example. Came from nothing, given nothing – not even a college education. I was discriminated against as a minority as well, though far more subtly than Oprah. I left home with exactly $0 at age 18, and now earn around a million dollars every 7-8 years. Though I could have gone much, much further, I live what I consider “well enough”. It wasn’t easy, but I did it all myself. So I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine like babies about an income “gap”. People come to America by the millions because they know this is the one place where you can go as far as your aspirations and willingness to work will take you.

- “So you’re saying that Oprah Winfrey’s income and net worth is obscene and unjust?” Not at all. Mainly because she is well-known to be at the very least generous
Uh-oh! We have a bit of a problem here. Remember my comment about Bale, and how his contribution to society was determined by what he DID with the money he earned? You’re talking about what Oprah has DONE with the money she’s earned, not how she earned it. So now you want to say that someone is deserving of wealth only to the extent that they’re willing to give it away?? Sorry, you get no points for a rational argument here.

- And also, I never mentioned Oprah to begin with. This discussion began as a general one about businesses and executive compensation and you are bringing forth specific examples of specific people. [But] I did mention John Thain above didn’t I. Oops.
Yeah… “oops”. See, you can’t actually discuss this topic rationally without addressing each individual case. Everyone’s different. And in case you didn’t know, Oprah made a lot of her money as CEO of her own production company. You’d prefer not to address Oprah’s success, and want to see her as an “exception”, because she doesn’t fit the class- or race-baiting narrative that would support your “spread the wealth around” moral view. I understand that. Unfortunately, she and many not-quite-so-filthy-rich individuals like her have shown that the sweeping generalizations you tend to rely on are not valid.

- Even Greenspan didn’t see this disaster coming.
Are you sure? The facts don’t support his claims in this regard.

- He wrote in his memoir, “I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk.” A world-altering mistake.
Sorry, not a “mistake”. That attitude is more accurately described as irrational. And Alan Greenspan simply isn’t an irrational individual. This leaves one explanation: he knew precisely what would happen when he followed up this “altruistic” attitude – an attitude that risked everyone’s welfare but his own – by raising the prime rate 17 times… until the housing market crashed under the weight of his decisions.

- The gubmint should shoulder a large proportion of the blame. … That having been said, the businesses that agreed to lend to unworthy borrowers (even under gubmint, minority, and rights groups pressure), packaged that bad paper and sold it as securities (sort of ironic to have insecure securities isn’t it?) must shoulder at least a portion of the blame.
They have, in spades. What do you think all this “Wall Street vs. Main Street” hype and “income gap” hype and demonization of CEOs and all the rest of it is all about? The problem is that the government hasn’t shouldered ANY of the blame so far.

And you should do a little more research on this topic, HJ. Businesses didn’t “agree” to lend to unworthy borrowers (many of whom were NOT “unworthy” at the interest rates their paper was originally written on) – they were forced by federal regulation to make these loans. And when they didn’t make enough of them, they were sued by shyster attorneys – like BHO – to force them to do so.

There’s absolutely no question that competing lending organizations, trying to get their piece of the lending pie through sub-prime loans, were also part of the problem here. That’s called competition. And even so, sub-prime lending based on rational rules (not social engineering) could not have caused this problem all by itself. You have to recognize what instigated that competition and, more importantly, how the prime rate hikes caused the subsequent meltdown once such a large portion of the market had so heavily leveraged the securities based on these “riskless” loans.

- But the banks et al were allowed to massively overleverage themselves
Only in the context of hindsight. And again, they weren’t “allowed” to, they were legally required to. If interest rates hadn’t been raised so precipitously, for no good reason other than to cap GDP growth of the Bush Economy, this fiasco would never have happened and no one would be talking about anyone overleveraging anything. Reality would have dawned on the market gradually, as it always does when government stays out of the way, and the leveraging situation would have corrected itself just as it has in the past.

- Greed is an essential component of capitalism.
No. And you’re using a worn-out stereotype to confuse “greed” – actually avarice – with the desire to build something. The latter is what drives most capitalist activity. Get to know some successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs – you’ll find that the stereotype you’re carrying around is not valid.

- Let us face the fact that very few, if any folks (excepting the government) start a business just to give people jobs. The object is to make money. Greed may be too strong a word, but currently I’m at a loss for a better one.
See above.

A majority of the population voted for BHO-thereby declaring themselves ignorant.
This, unfortunately, we now know.

Feb 7, 2009 - 1:19 pm 108. Mongoose:

Daivd S; you have no idea of what is really going on with thatthe legislation. You are just drinking the cool aid and repeating the Domcrats spin. Agina, You also persist in evading or avoiding my points. THis is becuase you have not a leg to stand on. (BTW, I am not “casting aspersions”; I am articulatory the truth. You need to go out and look up what that phrase means.)

Again you just avoid everything I hit you with. You can not hold an honest, rational discussion with an informed, seasoned adult. You have no idea “how the legislation works” or what it “really means”. I’d bet that this was the first real presidential election you were ever even involved with and at that, most likely only as an observer. It is hard to imagine that you have involved in more that 2 presidential elections ever in your live from the way you talk. You are trying to explain how this stuff works to people how have been involved in politics for decades? What arrogant self importance. How in heavens’s name do you expect to accomplish anything real at all in your life with this sort of unearned self regard?

It is absolutely comic that someone at your level of experience thinks that they can explain anything about the government to any informed. mature adult. You do not know what you are talking about and you do not know how to talk about it. No matter what your political beliefs, you are challenged by just putting six or seven coherent, cogent sentences together to support “your thoughts”. Seriously, you need to understand that. You in general have such such incredibly poor command of facts, knowledge, language and logic that your postings are irrational.

I have children that were more accomplished in High School than you are, and more rational and in better command of English. That says more about you than it does about them.

You need to really grow up, Face you limitations and stop pretending that you are something that you are not. Nobody buys it. It is rough out there.

Feb 8, 2009 - 10:53 am 109. deguello:

I think it would be far more useful to have all the wall street plutocrats who created,abetted and benefitted, from the disastrous property boom be tried as economic criminals,and executed. However, that would mean shooting half of Obama’s appointees, and the major donors to the democratic party.Still, It’s a nice thought!

Feb 8, 2009 - 11:54 am 110. deguello:

David S: I suggest you return to the daily kos or othe r marxoid-cretinist blogs;people here know who caused this mess:The liberal banking plutocracy and its clownish stooges, excrement like Chris Dodd,and Barney Frank.

Feb 8, 2009 - 11:59 am 111. David S:

@108. Mongoose:

I answered your points. The legislation allows shareholders to override the limits, and also allows for other compensation. Your characterization of this legislation, and of me, is shamefully dishonest. I trust that your children are more tactful.

Peace.

DS

PS – Your assessment of my maturity and intellect is lacking in rigor. I am doing my best to be patient with you, despite your personal attacks and lack of attention to detail. The only thing comic here is how proud you are of your ignorant self.

Feb 8, 2009 - 1:54 pm 112. goy:

Great link Dave.

It reveals BHO’s much ballyhooed “salary cap” for what it is: more empty rhetoric from the empty suit.

In fact, with the loopholes described, the salary cap is just a plain, flat out lie – a ruse to mislead an ignorant public. We are to believe that BHO intends to “prevent all the bailout money from going into bankers’ pockets” when the legislation in toto, as constructed, will do absolutely no such thing.

Government strategy to date has been thus:

0. Create and then magnify socialist banking regulations ostensibly intended to provide “affordable mortgages” but which in fact are nothing more than a statutory obligation to write bad – and potentially toxic – loans. Check.

1. Carefully manipulate the credit and housing markets via CRA and interest rate adjustments. Check.

2. Force a meltdown of the credit sector, timed perfectly to hand BHO an unbeatable advantage. Check.

3. Blame “Wall Street” and Republicans/President Bush for the fiasco, conveniently ignoring the facts that

– a) Dem plutocrats (Frank, Dodd, et al.) were responsible for enabling policies that led to the largest defaults (FM and FM),

– b) the Democrats held the majority in Congress for two years and did nothing to avert the crisis and

– c) that Wall Street had been lending in accordance with Dem policies – later dubbed “predatory lending practices”.

Check.

4. Demonize Wall Street CEOs for their “predatory lending practices” (aka following Dem policies), for their belief that the Fed would not actively try to destroy the housing market (and with it, billion$ in leveraged securities) and for receiving salary and benefits their employers are contractually obligated to pay. Check.

5. Write legislation to increase the size of government and distribute billion$ from the Treasury to Dem-friendly constituents, misrepresenting it to the American People as economic “stimulus” required to “fix” the economy (which is actually fine except for the torpedoed credit sector). Check.

6. So the public doesn’t grow wise to #5, add B.S. clauses like ’salary caps’ which are in fact no cap at all, but which have the convenient benefit of setting a socialist legal precedent that allows government to micromanage business operations of private companies. Check.

7. Hope people don’t actually start paying attention. Pending.

Feb 8, 2009 - 3:05 pm 113. David S:

@112. goy:

Great link Dave.

It reveals BHO’s much ballyhooed “salary cap” for what it is: more empty rhetoric from the empty suit.

You’re welcome for the link, although what the “salary cap” really does is give shareholders some tools to control executive compensation. Just trying to help folks understand that it’s not the socialist legislation they are being told it is.

In fact, with the loopholes described, the salary cap is just a plain, flat out lie – a ruse to mislead an ignorant public.

Actually, the flat out lie is that Obama is implementing a strict salary cap. The salary cap is real, but it is flexible enough to be constitutional. I think the ruse is the GOP trying to claim that it will kill Wall Street.

Just a quick comment or two on your conspiracy theory. I have heard the same theory from both sides, with Republicans arguing that it was manufactured to make Bush look bad, and Democrats arguing that it was meant to blow up in Obama’s face, but exploded a little earlier than planned.

Personally, I just look at the numbers, and it is obvious that Bush’s SEC was asleep at the wheel. Subprime borrowing peaked in 2004-2005, and left a time bomb, just waiting for a recession to set it off. Rather than move proactively, Bush waited for the proverbial manure to impact the impeller. CDS were allowed to grow into a sleeping monster, and our real economy was abandoned for the sake of corporate profit-taking.

You can go on trying to point the finger at a Democratic Congress, but the damage was done before they came to power, and really should have been prevented by Bush and the GOP. The underlying problem is the lack of job and income growth in the US economy, and the GOP’s intention to outperform Clinton in growing the ranks of homeowners.

If you can tear yourself away from your historical revisionist tendencies, you’ll note that this crisis was no surprise. Please pardon the partisanship and take a look at the date and data. This burst bubble was a long time coming.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 3:53 pm 114. HonestJon:

106. HonestJon: “Since the Dems have almost complete control of the gubmint, it is likely to devolve into them making the call on this stuff.”

I hate to be the bearer of ill omens, but:

From HOTAIR.COM
“Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said. “There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.
He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.
The provision will be part of a broader package that would likely give the Federal Reserve the authority to monitor systemic risk in the economy and to shut down financial institutions that face too much exposure, Mr. Frank said…
Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”

Lube for the slippery slope, anyone?

Feb 8, 2009 - 6:00 pm 115. goy:

@113. David S: - You’re welcome for the link, …
Your misread. I didn’t thank you. Don’t assume.

- … although what the “salary cap” really does is give shareholders some tools to control executive compensation.
Take a remedial reading comprehension class and then read your own cite again. The salary cap is a salary cap. A fake one. The rest of the legislation associated with the fake salary cap gives shareholders – and management – loopholes to get around the cap. This makes the cap itself a farce. Its sole purpose is to mislead the public by appeasing anger which the government itself has fomented against “Wall Street” CEOs for doing what they were required to do by law based on Dem policies.

- Just trying to help folks understand that it’s not the socialist legislation…
Your misread of the legislation. To the extent that it allows any government control over salary decisions in a private enterprise, it’s socialist.

- Actually, the flat out lie is that…
Deflection. Doesn’t address the empty rhetoric from the empty suit.

- … your conspiracy theory.
Your misread. I enumerated historical reality. Your blind obeisance to Rule #5 can’t change that.

- You can go on trying to point the finger at a Democratic Congress, …
There is no try. Dem policies are extremely well documented. When Republican leadership attempted to enforce oversight, Dems ran interference.

- … your historical revisionist tendencies, …
My personal observation is that it is/was the government’s strategy. The list itself, however, is documented fact. No revision was necessary.

- you’ll note that this crisis was no surprise. … This burst bubble was a long time coming.
Your misread. I never claimed it was a surprise. On the contrary, I stated clearly up above that I believe Greenspan lied when he claimed the event was a surprise. The conditions leading to the crisis itself were carefully nurtured. It miraculously bloomed just as BHO’s numbers began dropping in September. Coincidence? Uh… sure. That it was a long time coming is exactly my point, and your statement supports that point.

- … pardon the partisanship …
Heh. Translation: “… pretend this isn’t propaganda …”.

Feb 8, 2009 - 9:39 pm 116. goy:

Probable typo in the ‘Dems ran interference‘ link. Enjoy.

Feb 8, 2009 - 9:42 pm 117. Freddie Funky:

Agreeing that all caps can be avoided. I have no problem with the government setting limits on compensation. But why stop with these bailouts? How about FNMA and FMAC ? How about the $26 Million that Jamie Gorelick earned ( stole) as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. During that six-year period (from 97 to 2003), she took home over $26 million.

Feb 9, 2009 - 9:53 am 118. David S:

@115. goy:

I believe a company taking public handouts should abide by the restrictions imposed. If you don’t like the cap, don’t take the money.

Given the massive unemployment numbers, these executives should be happy to have a job – and to leave more money in service, rather than lining their pockets at the expense of unwilling shareholders.

I got your point that you don’t like government regulations. Personally, I’m a big fan of some government protection. Minimum wages and overtime rules are a great benefit to workers and the economy. Not all socialism is bad. Public roadways are great. Just calling something ’socialist’ doesn’t mean it has no value. Capitalism is strongest when public and private interests are well balanced.

Here is a brief explanation of how Bush and Greenspan built a crisis.

The crisis began with a toxic mix of easy monetary and fiscal policy during the Bush-Greenspan era.
…
In response to the recession that began in 2000 and to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan lowered short-term interest rates to 1% and held rates adjusted for inflation at or below zero for nearly four years.
…
By 2006, the credit boom was starting to fade.
…
Asset values that had been supported by ultra-cheap capital started correcting, and borrowers began a process of de-leveraging. Their asset sales drove down asset values further.

Again, you keep blaming the Democrats, but Bush and the GOP held the levers of power when this mess was being created. Blaming the minority party is disingenuous at best. I don’t ask you to hold the Democrats blameless, but I do ask you to recognize the absurdity of asserting that Bush and the GOP Congress are blameless. If you can’t manage that, have fun in your alternate reality.

Peace.

DS

Feb 9, 2009 - 4:26 pm 119. goy:

@118. David S: - I believe a company taking public handouts should abide by the restrictions imposed.
Don’t think that’ll be a problem since – as already demonstrated – the ‘cap’ is a farce.

- these executives should be happy to have a job – and to leave more money in service, rather than lining their pockets at the expense of unwilling shareholders.
You really don’t understand the concept of a contract, do you.

- I got your point that you don’t like government regulations.
Straw man. I didn’t make this statement.

- Just calling something ’socialist’ doesn’t mean it has no value.
Straw man. I didn’t make this statement.

- Capitalism is strongest when public and private interests are well balanced.
Straw man. I haven’t given any indication that I disagree with this statement. You, however, don’t seem to understand what the word ‘balanced’ means in the context of capitalism. It doesn’t mean ensured equality of outcomes. It doesn’t mean arbitrary redistribution of wealth for the purposes of “fairness”. And it doesn’t mean allowing the government to create a huge problem and then being allowed to blame it on the businesses who follow their rules.

- Here is a brief explanation of how Bush and Greenspan built a crisis.

LOL!!! Nice selective editing of a flawed explanation, Zippy. Just a piece of advice: you might do better if you spent some time actually learning about and understanding these issues instead of Googling until you can mindlessly copy-and-paste something that tells you what you want to hear.

Your source ignores the fact that MILLIONS of mortgages written under the low interest rates were based on lending rules – pushed through and then later amplified by the Dems – that guaranteed defaults totaling hundreds of billions once interest rate cycles rolled on. Consumer debt has not typically threatened the economy because sane lending rules helped to ensure against defaults when interest rates rose. Insane lending rules destroyed this model and also helped propel the housing market into an unsustainable bubble that burst when interest rates were precipitously increased for no reason other than to “throttle back” the growing Bush economy, which had experienced consistent growth since 2001, had been producing all-time-record federal tax revenue and, until early 2007, had the federal government on track for a balanced budget by October of last year.

Your source doesn’t know how to calculate the debt-to-GDP ratio, which in reality is closer to 75% – up only about 10% since the manufactured “crisis”. He disingenuously blames Americans’ borrowing binge on low interest rates – rates that were needed to recover from a recession which he pretends didn’t occur under Clinton.

Your source ignores the fact that, instead of supporting the lending institutions that were in the best position to offer credit post-TARP, the first $350B in TARP funds was spread evenly over solvent and insolvent institutions, virtually guaranteeing that only a minimum of that cash would finds its way into the economy via renewed credit. This is what happens when you ram gargantuan spending bills through Congress with little or no planning, just to “do something”.

Your source offers nothing but a nebulous, questionable plan for fixing the economic mess by “overhauling Soc. Security” (no specifics), “Medicare” (no specifics) and apparently downsizing the military (no specifics). He was apparently in a coma on 9/11, and doesn’t seem to understand that “principal” and “remote” threats are not mutually exclusive.

Your source is simply regurgitating BHO’s “we inherited a mess” propaganda while ignoring pertinent facts about what triggered the meltdown: hundreds of billions in toxic securities forced by the Dems’ quest for “affordable mortgages”.

So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t consider your source a very credible “expert” on this topic.

- I do ask you to recognize the absurdity of asserting that Bush and the GOP Congress are blameless.
Keep backpedaling, Zippy, you’re doing fine. Remember that remedial reading comprehension course I suggested? You really should follow through on it.

Afterward come back and read what I wrote again: “Government strategy to date has been thus…”. Nowhere have I asserted that Bush or the GOP Congress were “blameless”. Bush’s leadership on domestic issues has been abysmal. The fact, however, is that when the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration attempted to enforce oversight of FM/FM in 2004, the Dems on the Banking Committee ran interference for Raines, et al. This allowed the crisis to build. So the upshot of your position is that Bush and the GOP were “at fault” for acting in a bipartisan manner, i.e., not simply overruling the Dem Fifth Column during a time when the Dems and the entrenched media were daily attacking the Bush administration for everything from Joe Wilson’s lies to Richard Armitage’s non-crime. You are a major piece of work, Zippy.

Feb 9, 2009 - 7:26 pm 120. David S:

@119. goy:

Keep up that “blame the democrats” mantra. I like how you keep pretending that the Bush economy was doing great, and that excessively low interest rates should have been extended to create an even larger and more catastrophic bubble.

I’ll give you some specifics for reform. Make payroll tax apply to all earned income, and means test benefits = Social Security no longer unfunded. Make medicare a single-payer insurance system modeled on congressional health care = Lower health care costs, improved productivity. Get our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other overseas bases, and rebuild our national guard instead, spending less money while we put them to work rebuilding the USA.

There is a lot of common sense that has been ignored because of thirty years of GOP dominance. The time has come to make some real progress on addressing the needs of our nation.

Peace.

DS

Feb 10, 2009 - 12:40 am 121. goy:

@120. David S: - Keep up that “blame the democrats” mantra.
No prob’, Zippy. I will. It’s the best way to wake people up to the deliberate destruction the left has visited on our Constitutional Republic.

- .. that excessively low interest rates should have been extended to create an even larger and more catastrophic bubble.
Uhm… “excessively low” is your opinion (or one you copy/pasted into your brain from someone else). Of themselves, these rates did not create a “catastrophic bubble” any more than they have in the past. The “catastrophic” aspect was caused by billion$ in toxic debt directly contributed by lending regulations foisted upon banks by the Dems. Absent all that toxic debt there would never have been a “credit crisis” or devaluation of the real estate backed securities leveraged by so much of our financial institutions.

- I’ll give you some specifics for reform.
Keep ‘em. Your suggestions are based on leftist drivel, not common sense. A lot of real common sense has been ignored during 85 years of creeping socialist influence.

You want specifics for reform based on the common sense that – in less than 200 years – propelled America to superpower status and created the highest median standard of living on the planet for a population of any significant size? Here:

- Eliminate payroll taxes and implement a flat tax. Eliminate so-called “tax credits” (federal welfare) entirely. Let EVERYONE feel the burden of income taxes – not just a quarter of the population. This will help eliminate the class-baiting and divide-and-conquer tactics the left have used to foment class-based and race-based hatred in this country to further their social engineering agenda.

- Cut capital gains tax rates to jump-start the economy and keep it strong.

- Instead of seizing Americans’ money for wealth redistribution schemes, seize assets of arab countries known to be actively supporting terrorism, like Saudi Arabia. Redistribute THAT wealth to the so-called “poor”. Then see how long the terrorists get a pass in the Middle East. That single action would do more to reduce our defense requirements than anything. And think of all the Multi-tuplet Moms you could support!

- Allow poorly managed companies – and especially those whose competitive position has been destroyed by union greed – to go into receivership and have their assets redistributed to companies that are well-run and profitable. This goes for banks, investment firms, auto manufacturers and anyone else looking for a handout from bond purchasers or taxpayers. That’s the ultimate (and real) “salary cap”.

- Phase out the ponzi scheme Social Security scam foisted on us by FDR’s largely unconstitutional New Deal, which prolonged the Depression for almost a decade. Let people control their own retirement funding as they see fit, not in a way that provides a huge slush fund for the political agendas of those in government. Sorry ‘Boomers – you broke it, you bought it.

- Enforce term limits on Congress to eliminate the suicidal, one-party plutocracy currently in power. There’s been a lot of reasoned debate on this issue, but BHO’s election has just overridden any potential objections. He has exactly zero experience applicable to the job of President (or any other executive position, for that matter). Forcing new Senators and Representatives every two terms is justifiable based on that precedent and would eliminate the career criminal/politicians we’re saddled with now.

- Phase out the comprehensive health insurance scam. Allow the consumer to pull quotidian health care costs back down in line with other commodities – instead of the current scheme, which forces health care costs to skyrocket at rates multiple times that of inflation via proxy monopolies created by comprehensive health insurance companies.

- Use the billion$ saved by eliminating wasteful entitlement programs – like SSDI benefits for food, housing, transportation, clothing and therapy paid to individuals who are “too depressed to work” or “unable to work” due to past illegal drug abuse, etc. – to further modernize our Armed Forces. Deploy them wherever they’re needed or requested to finish the job on islamist terrorists so that we don’t end up with tens of 1000s more dead civilians and billion$ more in lost economy when they regroup and use nukes on the next 9/11 attack.

- Drill, baby, drill – especially on the utterly barren North Slope of Alaska – end the moratorium on new refining facilities, end the moratorium on new, modern nuclear power plants (hey, you wanna be like France, right??!!) and start funneling some of the trillion$ in federal windfall fuel taxes – which dwarf oil company profits – to companies that are developing hybrid and all-electric transportation technology (Aptera, Tesla, et al.) to get them into production immediately.

All of these are doable during BHO’s administration – guaranteed to be one term at the rate he’s already screwing up. So you’d better get to it.

Feb 10, 2009 - 8:13 am 122. David S:

@121. goy:

I hope you won’t ignore the damage done to our Republic by the GOP in your zeal.

Of themselves, these rates did not create a “catastrophic bubble” any more than they have in the past.

Of course not. Only in some parallel universe would interest rates have an impact on credit markets. Keeping the fed rate low for years was a sure way to create a housing bubble, regardless of any other activity you may critique in the housing market. The impact of CRA vanishes to zero when put into the context of Greenspan’s Fed.

- Eliminate payroll taxes and implement a flat tax.

There is no reason to believe this would help the economy.

Cut capital gains tax rates to jump-start the economy and keep it strong.

Again, no reason to believe this would help. Tax cuts usually end up being counter-productive.

Instead of seizing Americans’ money for wealth redistribution schemes, seize assets of arab countries known to be actively supporting terrorism, like Saudi Arabia.

Yes, I suppose another world war would provide an economic stimulus. This is more of the same thing that got us where we are.

Your line about unions destroying companies is the same old BS with no basis in fact.

Phase out the ponzi scheme Social Security scam

I like how you completely ignore the social consequences of impoverishing the elderly and disabled. Just remember, the GOP only has one reliable voting bloc, and they are all collecting on this “ponzi” scheme. Maybe instead of fixing the government, we should just disband it, and save all our tax money.

Term limits would only speed up the revolving door, and prevent actual public servants from doing their best to represent their constituents. Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.

The best way to fix the health insurance scam is to eliminate it. Make the system single-payer. So long as health care is provided by for-profit companies, costs and quality will be compromised.

Our Armed Forces are the largest and most modern in history, yet you would like to throw the disabled onto the streets to buy more fancy weapons systems? In order to provoke even more hatred of the US among islamic countries? Do you not understand that this is a sure way to spark a thousand year jihad? Our economy suffered much more damage from pursuing an illegal war than 9/11 ever caused. Our response to 9/11 has created a golden age for islamic terrorists – the best recruiting tool we could have offered.

Your energy policy suggestion is pointless. Drilling and refining oil is a stop-gap, and not necessary. Nuclear power is dangerous and produces toxic waste. I don’t want to be like France. Why not clean power? Do you have a pollution fetish, or an allergy to sustainability?

All you seem to want is to reverse any efforts toward social justice in order to allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the rest of the world. Pardon me, but I don’t think that this is the best way forward. It’s as if you slept through the past three decades.

Peace.

DS

Feb 10, 2009 - 7:41 pm 123. goy:

@122. David S: - I hope you won’t ignore the damage done to our Republic by the GOP in your zeal.
Troll comment, Zippy. This time – begging the question. Pull out your old Logic 101 text and review, assuming you didn’t sell it to buy a keg. Damage to our Republic has been almost universally contributed by leftist ideologues destroying and/or pushing our nation away from the principles on which that Republic was founded. FDR’s largely unconstitutional New Deal programs are a perfect example.

- There is no reason to believe this would help the economy.
Do you really want to put yourself into the position of having to prove a negative, Zippy? No reason?? Anywhere?? This sounds like more of your leftist opinion to me. You ignore the volumes of debate and support that exists on this issue, which – like Haidt’s comprehensive research – I’m sure you’ve never bothered to study. And it’s not intended simply to “help the economy”. It’s intended to ensure that everyone contributes to society based on what they consume and the burden they impose, not based on how hard they work or how productive they are.

- Again, no reason to believe this would help.
Only if you ignore their effects, for instance, in ‘97, of which I’m sure you’re blissfully unaware. What do you think led to the “economic boom” Clinton takes credit for? Pixie dust?

- Yes, I suppose another world war…
Only a foreign policy know-nothing like you, Zippy, would assume that seizing assets would lead to a war – let alone a world war. What would Saudi attack us with, camel turds? Oh wait – you’re probably dumb enough to believe the seizure would lead to escalation of the conflict. You probably also believe the islamist terrorists are “winning” in Iraq.

- Your line about unions destroying companies is the same old BS with no basis in fact.
On the contrary, we know that one of the worst effects of FDR’s New Deal policy involved unions destroying company productivity and thereby prolonging the Depression for almost a decade. So yeah, there is basis in fact. It’s documented through scholarly research you’d already be aware of if you’d actually studied the issue instead of spending your time trolling comment threads with adolescent jabs and leftist nonsense based on nothing but meth-and-O’kool-aid rhetoric.

- I like how you completely ignore the social consequences of impoverishing the elderly and disabled.
Wow – begging the question AND irrelevant thesis all in one pass. Kudos. Phasing out SS will enrich people, Zippy, since they’ll be keeping more of their own money and using it for their own retirement – if they choose to retire. The entity this will impoverish is the government. I know that might smart a bit for someone like you whose god is the State, but that’s just the price of real progress.

- Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.
LOL!!! You just elected an utterly inexperienced empty suit to act as CiC of the most dangerous military force in human history and run the federal government of the only superpower on the face of the earth, so it’s pretty obvious THAT statement is a flat out lie.

- The best way to fix the health insurance scam is to eliminate it.
That’s precisely what I just wrote, Zippy.

- So long as health care is provided by for-profit companies, costs and quality will be compromised.
Wrong. Dead wrong. So long as health care costs are controlled by commercial entities with no accountability and which benefit, through enormous conflicts of interest, when costs increase – that would be comprehensive health insurance companies – costs and quality will be compromised. That’s the situation we have now.

You’re a couple of decades too young to remember it, but people used to actually pay providers directly for commodity health care – care that was, even back then, among the highest quality in the world. And they didn’t go broke in the process because the laws of commodity economics kept the costs down. Catastrophic policies prevented them from going broke on the non-commodity products and services required.

The point at which comprehensive insurance was introduced is exactly the point at which health care costs began to skyrocket at rates much higher than inflation. Interestingly, it was also the point at which all manner of pharmaceutical prescriptions began to skyrocket – culminating in what we have now: preventative drugs for nominally healthy individuals and $300-per-month, prescription-only “sleep aids” marketed directly to consumers who care about nothing but their co-pay. Guess who pays the rest, Zippy.

Handing the comprehensive insurance mechanism over to the government will definitely result in Change™. It will make the process about 10 times less efficient and about 100 times more expensive because the government will have a monopoly on comprehensive health care insurance (at least now there are ostensibly competing insurance companies).

To keep costs down, the government may attempt to use the same socialist hokum they’ve invented in the form of so-called “salary caps”. That is, telling people how much they can charge for a given product and how much they can earn when providing a given service. This of course will drive the best and brightest in medicine out of that field and into other endeavors where they can make a better living, at which point we’ll have the worst, most expensive health care on the planet.

But more likely they’ll see fit – as the guarantor of your health – to begin legislating and regulating any and all aspects of your personal behavior and lifestyle that might burden the health care system, barring you from receiving care if you don’t comply. I’m quite sure that’s what you want, because you’ve demonstrated that you can’t think for yourself, but the rest of us aren’t interested. Don’t think it’s plausible? Check out trans-fat legislation. Check out smoking laws for bars (where smokers used to hang out). Check out fast-food zoning ordinances. Check out how the Japanese are fining people based on the government’s definition of a “normal” waistline. Only the beginning, Zippy.

You really haven’t given this topic any thought or study at all, have you.

… you would like to throw the disabled onto the streets to buy more fancy weapons systems?
Straw man. Not what I wrote. You’ve obviously not had any first hand experience regarding what social security benefits attorneys are able to get classified as “disabled” these days. More fail for you.

- Drilling and refining oil is a stop-gap, …
Wrong. Dead wrong. It’s transitional, and in a way that makes us less dependent on foreign supply, helps keep the price down generally, and doesn’t force economy-crushing Change™ while we move to better energy sources.

- Nuclear power is dangerous …
You can not possibly be that stupid, Zippy. Apparently you’re pretty ignorant on this topic and haven’t heard of Hyperion. Currently available nuclear technology could provide a nationwide energy grid that would eliminate our dependence on oil and coal within a decade or two. Luddite leftists like you who’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed into considering only some nebulous notion of “sustainability” don’t seem to realize that their pipe dream technologies aren’t capable of providing even a fraction of the current energy needs (or that people like Boone Pickens are only interested in enriching themselves). It’s clear your solution to that is to drag us back down to Third World status, so we’ll all “consume less”, but that’s simply not going to happen unless your “experienced representatives” destroy our economy completely – which they seem to be well on the way to doing.

- All you seem to want is to reverse any efforts toward social justice…
Economic justice is earning what you have and not expecting to have it “redistributed” to you from someone else’s bank account, courtesy of the government. When you can adequately define “social justice” in any way that acknowledges that fact, and which is not functionally equivalent to socialism, give us a ring, Zippy.

Feb 11, 2009 - 10:51 am 124. Honest Jon:

Come on guys! It’s like Rush Limbaugh debating James Carville. Like Ann Coulter debating Arianna Huffington!

“Nuclear power is dangerous …more fancy weapons systems”

But the argument has now devolved to where its not only off point, but also complete and total digression from the original question.

You two guys are beginning to be like two reverse mirror images of Dr. Spock. GOY has become the absolute Spock with no heart-All facts without a damn in the world for humanity; David S. being the exact opposite: the absolute Spock concerning humanity, but with no basis in factual information, only in emotion.

Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

regards

Feb 11, 2009 - 6:49 pm 125. David S:

@123. goy:

I am dismayed that you can say so little while writing so much.

Damage to our Republic has been almost universally contributed by leftist ideologues destroying and/or pushing our nation away from the principles on which that Republic was founded.

Given the last eight years under Bush, why should I believe this? It’s just your opinion, based on nothing.

To paraphrase your own hyperbole:

you’d already be aware of if you’d actually studied the issue instead of spending your time trolling comment threads with adolescent jabs and [rightist] nonsense based on nothing but meth-and-O’kool-aid rhetoric.

if they choose to retire

Won’t be much of a choice for folks who got the short straw in life – they’ll work until they die, just like the good old days. Or starve to death. Nice plan.

Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.
it’s pretty obvious THAT statement is a flat out lie.

I happen to think Oregon has a superb congressional delegation that should do well for our state, and that the CIC we now have is ten times the man his opponent from the GOP pretended to be.

Handing the comprehensive insurance mechanism over to the government … will make the process … about 100 times more expensive

Can you say “hyperbole”? I knew you could. Did you even pay attention to the nonsense you were typing, or is that part of your “intuitive” mind? You need to think through your talking points more critically.

You really haven’t given this topic any thought or study at all, have you.

Oh, just a little more than your average straw man. Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, as the proven reserves available in your North Slope fantasy would not even meet the needs of Alaska, and would take a decade of more to come online – valuable time and resources wasted to defile a national treasure, rather than move our economy toward sustainable energy. Always trying to prevent the future from being an inconvenience.

Nuclear power is dangerous …
You can not possibly be that stupid

I see – Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were no big deal, and a little domestic nuclear terrorism doesn’t really bother you. Good to know. You reveal your complete ignorance of energy solutions when you foolishly declare ” leftists … pipe dream technologies aren’t capable of providing even a fraction of the current energy needs”. Take away the “pipe dream” and replace it with something that isn’t a strawman. Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro are already here – ditching coal and nuclear is not so hard when you stick with proven technology. Have you been asleep since 1959?

Economic justice is earning what you have and not expecting to have it “redistributed” to you from someone else’s bank account, courtesy of the government. When you can adequately define “social justice” in any way that acknowledges that fact, and which is not functionally equivalent to socialism, give us a ring,

Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor. I don’t think much redistribution would be needed if people were paid the true value of their labor. Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, and that those who cannot labor through no fault of their own have a last line of defense against poverty and hopelessness.

You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People. Think about that.

Peace.

DS

PS – You forgot to leave your number.

Feb 11, 2009 - 11:05 pm 126. goy:

@125. David S: - I am dismayed that you can say so little while writing so much.
And you’ll continue to be dismayed until you finish that remedial reading comprehension course you so desperately need.

Given the last eight years …
The last eight years are best characterized by the relentless lies, media attacks, political back-biting and 24/7/365 demonization of Bush, Republicans and conservatives by sore losers in Congress and their lapdogs in the entrenched media following Al Gore’s pathetic failure to carry his own home state in 2000. If you want to look for a reason for anything you don’t like about the last eight years, start there.

- the CIC we now have is ten times the man his opponent from the GOP pretended to be.
Again, your delusional opinion, based on facts not in evidence. BHO was coddled by doting white grandparents from the time he was born. He was subsequently handed everything he has and nurtured into a radical marxist-socialist activist by fanatics who subscribe to the same failed ideology as you. He’s a pathological narcissist and a liar, just like Slick Willy was, and for mostly the same reasons.

- You need to think through …
Already done long before you were even exposed to this topic, Zippy. Which is the reason for the utter lack of substance in your response.

- Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, …
Uh… that was your false claim, Zippy. Try to keep up with your own B.S., m’kay?

- … to defile a national treasure, …
I have been there, Zippy. Have you? Your delusion of what the North Slope of Alaska looks like comes from the disgruntled Marxists you’ve been listening to, not actual life experience. Take a trip up there sometime. Don’t go in November, like I did, because it’ll be way too cold for your whiny constitution. Try “summer”. You’ll get at least some idea of what endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs look like. If that’s your notion of a “national treasure” then it’s no wonder you want to turn America into a Third World socialist backwater.

- Three Mile Island and Chernobyl …
I know you can’t possibly be that stupid, Zippy. You’re talking about nuclear power technology that is numerous decades old. Try learning at least SOMEthing about contemporary technology before you write things that demonstrate how pathetically and willfully ignorant you are.

- Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor.
Nope. The whole notion of “living wage” is completely subjective, and relies on the State to determine the standards. I know you prefer this arrangement because you’re incapable of thinking for yourself, and like it when others do it for you. But as we’ve seen with CRA, and the 1.5 million lost jobs caused by precipitous minimum wage hikes, the State has no business whatsoever determining standards for anything.

- Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, …
Then we already have it. You earn the wage you agree to earn. Nobody’s responsible for guaranteeing you don’t live in poverty, Zippy. You need to do that yourself. Just like Oprah did.

- You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People.
No, I have observed that socialism is a bad thing, by virtue of having seen it fail, or watching it fail, everywhere it’s ever been tried. The reason it fails – something you won’t recognize until you’ve actually lived a real life for a while – is that it completely ignores fundamental human nature and the manner in which societies evolve, demonstrated repeatedly throughout human history about which you’re so completely ignorant. And you’ve obviously never studied anything at all about the formation of the Republic. If you do a little research on the prevailing definition of “welfare” in late 18th century America, you won’t find anything about wealth redistribution or any other failed socialist ideology.

Contrary to the fantasy you share with BHO, the Constitution guarantees individual freedom, but it does not require the government to ensure ANY outcome for any particular individual, nor should it. General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish. It does NOT mean providing YOU with a “living wage”.

@124. Honest Jon: Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

HJ, there is considerable value in the ability to discern fact from fantasy.

Spock is a fictional character from a television series. The person whose philosophy was behind those words was closet Communist Gene Roddenberry, whose Federation was the closest thing to an all-powerful State, governing a virtually classless society, as any portrayed in science fiction. A close second would be The Alliance, from the mind of Joss Whedon – another leftist whose characters’ sensibilities give him the outlet needed to assuage the cognitive dissonance of his beliefs.

Feb 12, 2009 - 11:54 am 127. David S:

126. goy:

You are a reliable source of entertainment. Cheers!

The last eight years are best characterized by the relentless lies, media attacks, political back-biting and 24/7/365 demonization of Bush, Republicans and conservatives … If you want to look for a reason for anything you don’t like about the last eight years, start there.

Apparently you really do believe that there is a massive conspiracy to paint GWB as a bad guy. I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. However, what I don’t like about the last eight years has everything to do with how Bush governed. Even if the media had been kissing his ass on a daily basis for eight years, I would still be staunchly opposed to his misguided policies on surveillance, privacy, torture, taxes and war, just for starters.

Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, …
Uh… that was your false claim….

So sorry – you used the term transitional, which is a synonym for stop-gap. Semantics are fun.

Your delusion of what the North Slope of Alaska looks like comes from the disgruntled Marxists you’ve been listening to, not actual life experience.

You think I would oppose drilling on the North Slope because of what it looks like? You certainly are a rare one. Endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs are more important than you realize, despite your foolish November visit. Also, lay off the personal attacks. You make yourself look like an idiot every time you post. You know nothing of my constitution. Thanks.

You’re talking about nuclear power technology that is numerous decades old. Try learning at least SOMEthing about contemporary technology before you write things that demonstrate how pathetically and willfully ignorant you are.

I was trying to explain SOMEthing about contemporary technology for your benefit, but you are so self-aggrandizing you failed to notice. Your loss, not mine. Nuclear power still relies on highly radioactive elements that are hazardous to humans and other living things. Not a long-term solution.

Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor.
Nope. The whole notion of “living wage” is completely subjective, and relies on the State to determine the standards. … But as we’ve seen with CRA, and the 1.5 million lost jobs caused by precipitous minimum wage hikes, the State has no business whatsoever determining standards for anything.

Apparently you don’t Care to cite a source for that job loss? As far as the state setting some standards, I’m okay with that. I like the 40 hour work week, overtime, and minimum wage laws. You obviously don’t – but these are laws promoting the general welfare, and they have increased the health and prosperity of our nation. It’s likely we will never agree on this point because your ideology does not allow it.

Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, …
Then we already have it. You earn the wage you agree to earn. Nobody’s responsible for guaranteeing you don’t live in poverty, Zippy. You need to do that yourself. Just like Oprah did.

If you really believe that everyone is currently fairly compensated for their labor, there is no reason to continue discussing this issue with you. Your intuitive ethics obviously prevent you from thinking clearly about the reasons for our nation’s economic difficulties.

You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People.
No, I have observed that socialism is a bad thing, by virtue of having seen it fail, or watching it fail, everywhere it’s ever been tried.

I guess you really get around. Funny that the scandinavians seem happy with their democratic socialism. Maybe you should let them know that it is a failure.

Contrary to the fantasy you share with BHO, the Constitution guarantees individual freedom, but it does not require the government to ensure ANY outcome for any particular individual, nor should it. General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish. It does NOT mean providing YOU with a “living wage”.

I don’t expect the Constitution to guarantee outcomes, but I do think your idea of “an environment where anyone…can flourish” is much different from mine. You may not think this environment involves a “living wage”, but the “minimum wage” has been a huge success – I just think it would be better for our country and economy if that wage were high enough to meet the basic needs of a person. You are obviously not concerned that the minimum wage is so low that full-time laborers can still be below the poverty line, or that the poverty line is actually about 1/3 of the true minimum cost of living.

We have a basic philosophical difference here on what the role of government should be – it will not be resolved in this comment thread.

Peace.

DS

Feb 12, 2009 - 9:58 pm 128. David S:

@126. goy:

General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish.

Your list includes a string of failures for the GOP… After 14 years of GOP dominance in Congress, and two terms in the White House, commerce is anything but flourishing, law and order have been redefined to the detriment of both, peace has become war, and security against foreign threats includes an exception large enough to admit jetliners.

Anyway… Sorry about your dead horse.

Peace.

DS

Feb 12, 2009 - 11:44 pm 129. Honest Jon:

126. goy: “HJ, there is considerable value in the ability to discern fact from fantasy…”

Oh come now. An attempt to make a funny observation is degraded by the anti-spock!

Mr. Goy, with all due respect, and with all due respect to conservatism, capitalism, free markets, and what have you, I feel that a major change is coming to this country. You may wish to call it Marxism or communism or leftism or socialism or whatever, but whatever moniker you wish to place on it, it’s coming. It may, in fact, already be here. And, whatever the exacerbating factors of this new difference in this country could possibly be, one of, if not the most-consequential factor is the tremendous separation of the classes. And that all boils down to the greed (or avariciousness, if you prefer) which has promulgated and intensified this separation. It just seems that some folks feel that they are better, entitled, smarter, or more patrician than others.

All of the peoples who have usurped their rulers were, at least, poor in reference. They all saw, on a daily basis, the rich ride by on their horses, or in their carriages, or lately, in their limousines and wondered to themselves, “Why not me?” Or, “Why him?” The answer (in this greatest of all countries) has nothing to do with race, gender, intelligence, ambitiousness, willingness to work, or, lastly, ability.

It has to do with connections. Influence. Money. It is the absolute reverse of equality. If you’re born poor monetarily, poorly educated, poorly treated, poorly respected, it is a very tough road to make it to anywhere near the top, much less to the top. No matter how hard you strive within your personal limitations, you are a very lucky individual if you make more monetarily than you need to actually just exist on. You’re very lucky if the malefactors of great wealth smile down on your homely countenance with the grace of wealth.

What I have proposed, in the above paragraphs, does not limit the upper wages that may be earned by the top echelons within our society, but enhances the compensations that are rendered to the “man in the ditch.” Wouldn’t it be better for the entire society as a whole for there to be no more poor, people who work hard and get educated as much as the education system that they are exposed to allows? What I have proposed allows for the enrichment of the hard-working and educated masses (which constitute multiple millions in this country) without seriously degrading the ability of the truly wealthy to remain so.

What I believe will end up being the case, with consideration to the present government (and future projections of a democratic majority), is that they will appropriate (steal, if you will) money from the rich to give to the poor. What I have proposed would alleviate these measures: by making those who are exorbitantly compensated compensate the others who are not a bit more appropriately. (The CEO doesn’t have to pay his sectreart a million dollars a year, but that would be NICE).

So, at this juncture, with the administration dictating wages for bankers (and starting us all on the slippery slope), don’t you believe that the businesses should have nipped this in the bud (10 years ago) and paid their workers more instead of paying their top executives the most outrageous salaries that could possibly be expected this side of VOL? If you don’t agree, then please make sure you live in a right-to-work state, ’cause the unions are going to take over!

I ask you, Goy?

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:05 pm 130. Honest Jon:

Liberalism of the fingers: sectreart=secretary.

To clarify: A large majority (I at least want to believe) of the people who are losing their houses today could have been paid more by their (avaricious) employers resulting in a small blip in the housing market, instead of the worldwide financial devastation that we are now experiencing.

It all, Sir, boils down to greed.

regards

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:19 pm 131. goy:

@127. David S: - Apparently you really do believe that there is a massive conspiracy to paint GWB as a bad guy.
Deflection. You’ve obviously been in a coma up until last summer. Bong- or mushroom-induced, no doubt. The entrenched media is overwhelmingly registered Democrat. They went apoplectic from the day Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in 2000 and lost the election. They’ve been attacking Bush because of that ever since. They have gone to the greatest lengths to destroy confidence in the Presidency, though the heavens fall, all for purely political reasons. Political greed. No conspiracy required.

- So sorry – you used the term transitional, which is a synonym for stop-gap.
No. YOU used the term stop-gap, Zippy. I corrected you. Drilling and refining oil is not an ad-hoc, improvised “fix” to replace something that’s missing. It’s technology that has existed for decades – and will continue to be used for decades, as we transition to more intelligent power sources, like nuclear energy.

- Endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs are more important than you realize, …
Not at all. Been there. Talked to the experts. They disagree with you. So does the history of the existing facilities there. You just make yourself look like an idiot every time you you pretend to know something that you don’t.

- I was trying to explain SOMEthing about contemporary technology for your benefit, …
Hardly. Chernobyl and TMI used nothing like the technology availble today.

- I like the 40 hour work week, overtime, and minimum wage laws. You obviously don’t …
Another sad straw man. Your life would be so empty without them, wouldn’t it.

- If you really believe that everyone is currently fairly compensated for their labor, …
It doesn’t matter what I believe, Zippy. When someone accepts a job, knowing the wage involved, they have agreed that the compensation is fair. QED.

- I guess you really get around.
Far more than you have, based on the pathetic little jaunts you discuss on your site, Zippy.

… the “minimum wage” has been a huge success…
Apparently you don’t Care to cite a source for that success.

- We have a basic philosophical difference here on what the role of government should be – it will not be resolved in this comment thread.
Yet you keep… on… posting. It’s a mystery.

- … commerce is anything but flourishing…
Consistent growth, record federal corporate tax revenue and trends leading to a balanced budget (interrupted by the Dems’ majority in Congress) notwithstanding.

- … law and order have been redefined to the detriment of both …
Not in the slightest.

- … peace has become war …
On the contrary, the only significant war has become peace.

- … and security against foreign threats includes an exception large enough to admit jetliners. …
You’re confused – you’re thinking about Clinton’s failures now.

@129: HJ: - An attempt to make a funny observation is degraded by the anti-spock!
I have nothing against Spock. I simply don’t pretend television “philosophy” is automatically valid.

- … whatever the exacerbating factors of this new difference in this country could possibly be, one of, if not the most-consequential factor is the tremendous separation of the classes.
Well, if that’s what you really believe, then I suggest you think long and hard about who has the most to gain by creating and perpetuating a separation of the classes. Who does all the class-baiting? Who benefits by pitting the so-called “poor” against the so-called “wealthy”? It’s not the so-called “wealthy”. And the only reason you could possibly think so is if you subscribe to David S’ idiotic, thoroughly debunked zero-sum notion that there’s a limited amount of wealth on the planet that will never change, and that one person having more means someone else having less.

That notion is utterly absurd on its face.

Did Oprah become a billionaire by taking wealth from others? By making others poor? No. She built a media empire that employs hundreds and has even given away million$ in the process. She started with nothing but a fun personality, imagination, and willingness to work her ass off. And she’s far from the only one. Did I get to a point where I can earn over a million dollars in 7 or 8 years by taking anything from anyone else? Hardly. I volunteered for military service so I could learn a trade. I worked my ass off later in school – working full time while going to school full time – and then through a series of completely shitty jobs to get to where I can now name my rate for the work I do. I wanted to earn more. Was that “greed” in your mind? If I’d continued on to where I make 2… 3… 100 million every 7 or 8 years, would that be “greed” in your mind? Where’s the dividing line? And who said YOU get to decide where it is? If I took my savings and invested it in a company so that the company could grow and hire more employees or pay better benefits, and I could earn a profit on my investment… is that “greed” in your mind? You can’t possibly be that cynical. Or that stupid.

Wealth is created, HJ, it’s not already out there sitting in some bank account, or in Ft. Knox (or wherever they keep gold these days). And humans’ ability to create wealth is infinite as long as imagination and willingness to work are in good supply. Humans have been demonstrating this throughout recorded history.

You have been duped, my friend. Just like David S. You have been fooled into believing that economic greed somehow causes poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Economic greed – at the very worst – creates entrepreneurs, creates credit, inspires the creation of buildings and all manner of businesses and services and products, all of which create jobs… all of which create wealth. And not just for the entrepreneurs, not just for the banks loaning the money, but for everyone who gets involved.

Your problem is that you have been duped into thinking that just taking part in an enterprise means that you should have an equal share of all profits, or a larger share than what you agreed to, if the enterprise turns out to be wildly profitable for the people who dreamed it up, financed it, took the risks and worked the 100 hour weeks to make it so. Sorry to tell you that you’ve been misinformed. And that misinformation is the very heart of the fallacy of socialism.

In a just world, people get what they earn, not what someone else, looking for political power, tells them they “need”.

Feb 16, 2009 - 4:17 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: