We had a long thread on this. I think some action was necessary to protect the national economy, all developed nations took such actions. Businesses run on credit and it had disappeared. But the wall street bailouts were not done properly and I have never supported them. They were an overreaction to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy fallout and failed to hold the people in charge of the disaster accountable. Worse they permitted the banks to use the money to buy undervalued companies instead of buying up toxic assets and getting them off the books as was intended.
Because companies organize their own strategies, red doesn't. If a company wants to have salaries determined by a retard throwing at a dartboard, that ok, it called freedom, boss.
But executive compensation is rarely ever a ballot measure. My point is that the system exploits the weak posture of owners in a public company versus a private company. The irresponsible boards take better care of their few ephermeral executives rather than the thousands of perennial owners of the company and far better than they take care of any company employees below executive status.
Well, duuuuh! How do you think I have arrived at my conclusions. I have owned and studied a large number of companies and I see how they operate.