this is the exact equivalent of a discussion where i say "yunno, baseball organizations should sign players based on OPS or the runs created stats, and not really consider the counting stats like RBI or pitching wins." and that would be simply a fan's opinion. and that opinion would be mine, and my only power to enforce it would be to stop buying tickets and caring about my team when they lose. but red likes to use the term "we", as supafan points out. but there is no "we". "we" have no right to make these decisions. "we" need to stop thinking every issue is something we need to call in the gestapo to solve, because most of the time our solutions are the problems. like was mentioned earlier, the market would be more than happy to bankrupt a mismanaged company and allow the market to evolve companies that are run well. but interventionist "we cannot allow them to fail" policies are crushing the ability of the market to regulate itself and make progress. we need to be aware that most systems tend to self-regulate if you let them, and intervention is a risky proposition that will often lead to more problems and more intervention.
If we are seeking to punish poor management shouldn't we be addressing congressional pay/perks and "campaign contributions" first?
Highly paid Execs didn't get that way by being unable to turn a profit. The good ones won't let the government dictate their compensation and will go elsewhere, leaving the company in the hands of incompetent management and will, ironically, fail. Is it coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, which owns NBC which got a $140B bailout, is not on the Pay Czar's hit list? You won't hear that on MSNBC.
Not in the fuld Excessive executive comp plans are just how the top 25 guys/gals loot the company for their own benefit. By this example, it is proven that very high comp plans don't get great executives, nor secure great success. This proves the compensation committee does not have the shareholders best interests at heart. Its a scam. Fuld was taking out huge bucks, looting the company from the shareholders, and the risky behavior using junk securities and high leverage was wrecking the company, delivering higher short term profits while placing the company on riskier footing, until the risks caught up with it, and it died. But Fuld walked away with his 350 million and all the other shareholders lost everything in bankruptcy. Total incompetency from a corporate perspective, but very accomplished thieves! It happens over and over, usually on a smaller scale.
does it hurt your feelings? why are you concerned? simply dont like when companies are run poorly? then dont associate with those companies. i dont understand people who say that person x is overpaid. person x is paid what he is paid and is of no consequence to you unless you are paying the salary. and nobody is forcing you to pay anyone's salary except government employees. it is, once again, none of your business. red often says "we" need to do this or "we" need to do that. and that is a meaningless statemtnt coming from any individual, unless he means that "we" are the government. and when questioned, red will deny he means the government. which begs the question why even bother saying what "we" need to do? especially after lecturing me repeatedly for speaking for others. what red should say is "i dont like large salaries". or "i think i need to save energy and the environment." when you say what "we" need to do, that is lefty speak for "the government needs to grow and manage more things with more tax dollars and less freedom for taxpayers and humans and a worse overall world for human beings".
You profess to be the voice of reason, but you constantly deliver the rhetoric of the fringe right wing. Where would you be, and lots of others, if the government didn't buy 80% of AIG? They didn't do it to be nice to AIG, they did it to preserve insurance for the good of American business. Corporate greed was behind the mortgage crisis and the banking crisis that almost bankrupted us. There are rare circumstances that the government has to put the greater good of the nation above cooperate profiteering.
You speak for martin and you and your imaginary army can ignore me if you really don't care. I find it interesting that you made TWO separate lengthy replies to the same post! Sounds like interest to me. :grin:
Probably right where I am now, or retired. P&C side of AIG would not have gone down with the Financial product side, though there would have been cuts. Truth be known, they did it to save Goldman Sachs. CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd are at least equally culpable. I subscribe to the "give 'em an inch..." philosophy. Your "corporate profiteering" is my "Free Market".
But they are not my ideas, what is your point? Missing the point once again. The problem is too widespread. I actually have sold stock because of grossly overpaid executives, but none of us can sell everything just because we dislike corporate policies that place executive compensation too high on the priority list. Shareholders have a right to influence policy through initiatives and voting, but the votes are too diluted to be effective in anything but the smallest corporations. I have sold Oracle and Disney because executive compensation is way out of line with corporate norms and with profits for stockholders. I have not advocated government action, but stockholder action. Pay attention.
Because I can be. I own a lot of stock and I'm concerned about how corporations run themselves. If you don't care, that's fine with me. Just stop trying to tell me that I shouldn't care. None of your business.
