I favor it for reasons that I clearly stated above and in other threads. Heaven knows why you imagine what you do. Having failed to answer my question, you answered some other question. :insane: Because I made it so. What a stupid question. Simply untrue. You just get hysterical when I force you to argue a issue logically, revealing your shortcomings. Then you steer the discussion to a personal criticism of me with accusations of "big government". It's the way you have chosen to lose an argument. I'm used to it. Search for the words big government and see whose posts they appear on. Yours. You see big bad government behind every tree, trying to steal your basket, Miss Riding Hood. Remember that. And the words are "certainly" and "whatever". Didn't you claim that you never misspelled a word? I've stated specifically that I haven't advocated that the government manuipulate salaries. I said that the owners need more say on this than the boards who are in on the cut. Don't misrepresent my position when I've stated it clearly already. It's dishonest and provably so. Then ignore me and find another thread. You appear to care a great deal. :hihi:
what i did was explain to you how poor your priorities are. if you care about human beings, you should care about economic development almost infintely more than the environment. well i wouldnt expect you to accuse yourself. yes thanks for telling me. those were not typos, i genuinely thought those were the correct words. i thought "whateve" was a word, it was exactly whta i meant to type. thanks so much. in fact i also think whta is a word. again, i think i can speak for the rest of us when i say nobody cares how red thinks businesses should run. it definitely is not a political issue. i care because of the inherent dishonesty of your position. because people like you and bush and barack think the government should take over companies and decide how they should be run. i care because this attitude is incredibly damaging to the economy. i dont come here and say "coke should make better flavors". that isnt a political issue. in the same sense as red saying "i think pay structures at companies are flawed". it simply isnt a political issue, and your discussing it in this venue reveals that you believe that it is. and that belief is dangerous.
I don't think you have stated this very clearly at all. I am not sure what you think on this issue. It should be noted that I am pretty dumb and do need things spelled out very plainly. Do you support a government pay czar dictating what private businesses pay their employees? Do you support government passing a law which requires shareholder approval of executive pay?
They aren't mutually exclusive. We can care about both. Yeah, yeah. Well certain is an adjective and certainly is a verb. Two words. You either misspelled it or you are grammatically incorrect. Possibly both. You speak only for yourself, as I must constantly remind you. Then you may ignore me. That's what I do when I don't care about some of your loopy notions. Others have responded, so stop trying to speak for anybody but martin. You don't know what I think, you only know what you think. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Just say what you think and move on. I'll contradict you if nessessary. Is God a political issue. We discuss it here. Is cow patties a political subject? Ask SF. Executive pay is in the news, Scooter. Any fool can see that. Even if it wasn't I can bring it up. And guess what? I didn't bring it up! I ain't the OP. There are no forbidden subject in Free Speech Alley, do you understand what free speech is? I can make a political statement out of anything I choose. You are making a fool of yourself on this track. But that's OK. I like to point at you and laugh. :lol:
No. I think the owners should dictate this, not the boards which have largely failed in this matter. Now, in the instance where the government is an owner of these bailed-out banks, they should have an owners prerogative relational to their shares. But since it made them a Super board member, they already have authority in those few cases. I'd prefer that the corporations require shareholder approval of executive pay. We are willing to pay bonuses and award stock for exceptional work. But we are not willing to pay them when results have been lousy. This is a vital missing check and balance in my opinion. The boards are simply too cozy with management. This would be the only reason that I could see the government stepping in to right a situation that is bad for all American investing. The boards failure to hold management accountable for fiscal irresponsibility in the mortgage and banking crises reveals that something is rotten in Denmark. Owners must not be so divorced from the decision-making that they are powerless to influence their own company's direction.
thnaks that was hlepful i wont make any more typign mistakes. of course. maybe the biggest issue of them all. have any clue what causes the violence in the middle east? know who our president pretends to believe in? it was brought up the context that politicians think they should control it. so when you agree, or appear to, we question you about it. but it turns out you are merely stating your pesonal whims. well bully for you, but the topic is government control of salaries, which apparently you disagree with, which can be hard to reckon, because you desperately try to avoid position-taking most of the time, for fear that you will be categorized as what you are, a left wing big government type. i know. it is because we are buds that i make a fool of myself for your benefit.
So you are forgainst government control of salaries. What is all this we talk. You mean red55. There are plenty of activist shareholders who think CEOs should work for free or on some scale dependent on average salary at their corp. Those are insanely bad ideas. You already have all the say in executive pay. If you think is overpaid you can sell your stock. If you are not a lone nut other shareholders will sell their stock and the price will plummett and the overpaid CEO will be gone. This is called a market based soloution. Most individual investors are vastly unqualified to influence any kind of business decision. I am not qualified to decide what the CEO should make. I am qualified to know when a CEO is eroding my value as a shareholder, and at that point I can sell my stock. Owners should own and allow managers to manage. All government action to focrce mob rule on corps will lead to alot more company held stock.
This is where you miss the boat, Red. There is NO situation affecting the free market that warrants government intervention. Leave the government out of it. You profess to be a non-liberal yet you are always willing to have that government card up your sleeve.
