Obama limits exec pay to $500,000 for bailed-out firms
"President Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on executive pay for companies that get federal bailout money."
I wonder how many will leave for other companies.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
"I wonder how many will leave for other companies."
Good riddance!
The problem with that thought is that you may lose the guy who made a billion while retaining the guy who lost two billion.
Nah, it's the "greedy" ones who will move on to their next "mark".
I think we should do with the banking system like we are going to do with the health care system, that is, nationalize all the failed banks and let them compete with the private banking sector. We'll see who does better, not at making a profit (as gov't is non profit) but at giving the best deal to the customer. If the private bank wants to retain customers it will have to give a better deal to the customer than the government and still make a profit, if in health care and banking the private sector is better, more quality and cost efficient for the consumer, than government, then the private sector will win , private health insurance and banking will retain and gather more customers (small business and home buyers) than the gov't ...let the government and private sectors compete... let the consumer choose... this will keep a healthy dynamic for things the consumer wants, the lowest costs on things like health care and interest rates for borrowing money and credit cards. In short anywhere Gov't thinks it could do a better job for the consumer, the citizen, than the private sector, it should try...let the two compete that is the best system. This is the essential difference between democrats and republicans, democrats want competition amongst suppliers thus lowering profits for providers yet increasing quality and lowering costs for the consumer, republicans want consumers to accept lower quality and higher costs so the private sector can make more profit.
If the private sector thinks it needs to pay billions in bonuses to compete against gov't who caps CEO salaries..let them, they are still free to do so... the cap only applies to bailed out companies.
Joe what is your comment on my above comment, again if you don't comment on my comments, I quit the blog. Do you agree or disagree with what I said above and why? Msanthrope and Anonymous can comment as well.
Dan, you want a comment, here it is: You are a socialist/communist and do not understand capitalism. Anytime the government competes with the private sector, the goverment wins. Why? Because they can tax. They have unlimited resources. And they make the laws and thus the rules. It would be irresponsible for any private business to try compete against the government.
Believe it or not I believe in free trade and free enterprise, I don't believe in Communism, I believe in capitalism but with regulations/laws and accountability, for example, I believe that a coal plant should have to pay for toxic spills and mercury and CO2 emissions before it can take a profit, if it can't make a profit without polluting than it should be nationalized and made non profit. This only makes common sense. The same for chemical, oil production, agriculture etc...private great if they can make a profit without gov't subsidies and paying to clean up the pollution they cause otherwise they should probably be nationalized if necessary to the country, it not necessary they should not be helped by gov't.
You are so wrong about Gov't winning all the time, Government can't compete against a company like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Genetech, FirstSolar, GE, and thousands of other private sector companies, Gov't is too slow, not creative enough and not motivated or passionate enough to compete in innovative technologies and services. Even in the Postal Service game it looks like Gov't is losing out to FED EX, DHL, etc.,
Gov't controls some of the people's money by taxing according to how much the people wish to be taxed and then redistributes and invests it according to the people's wishes, in a Democracy, otherwise the gov't officers are fired in the next election or impeached. If they are not it is the people's fault in a Democracy for electing the wrong people.
I and many economists believe that in certain areas Gov't can do a better job than private like in banking and insurance...including and especially healthcare insurance. I'm not saying nationalize all banks/insurance companies just the ones that were incompetent and corrupt the ones we have to bail out. I'm not saying nationalize all health insurance just create a gov't alternative to compete and let the people choose. You give no logical or common sense arguments on why gov't will always win in a Democracy where the people have the power, in a Tyranny you are right, but in a Democracy you are wrong. If the people are free, and free to choose they will choose what is best for them, gov't healtcare insurance or private insurance...same with banking...and energy production, let gov't and private compete see who wins, if your theory is correct that gov't will always win than we would vote for communism but we don't because gov't doesn't always win, it wins at some things but not at others...the main purpose of Gov't is to protect the majority of weak people from the minority of strong people, to protect citizens who want non-violent commerce from the mafia, thugs and gangs. To protect pension funds from investment bankers like Madoff...to protect our children's food from companies like Monsanto and McDonald's, to protect our water and air from companies like Exxon and the coal industry...the function of gov't is to protect the common good...our money supply is much better off in the hands of government as long as we elect honest people of integrity. We got into this mess because we elected Bush and Republicans, we'll get out of it, and eventually prosper again because we are now starting to elect more people like Obama, Pelosi, Franks, Boxer and Feingold.
Your example of Fed Ex proves the point. Fed Ex cannot carry first class letters by law. No one is allowed to put anything into your mailbox except the USPS.
There are rules to protect the environment. But the government can declare C02 a pollutant without any proof, driving up the cost of operations. Of course if the government releases C02 they just pay the fine to themselves. Any if they have to clean up a mess, like on military bases, they just tax the taxpayers more. So yes, the government can always win.
WE have a democratic Republic that protects the rights of the minority. In a Democracy, the poorer would transfer all the wealth from the very rich. In Democracies, those that speak the best often sway the non-thinking crowd.
You can't protect people from Greed. Madoff was successful because he said he produce returns the were unrealistic. You can't protect people from laziness. The investors who lost their money were lazy. The government crested Social Security to protect the people and spent every single dime in the trust fund. The government (Frank and Dodd) forced the banks to give loans to people who would not have otherwise qualified. And then had Fannie Mae (by putting their people in charge) buy those loans. So no, the government would not be better at running the banks.
The government should monitor business to protect the public. But the government can not even do that job well. For two years tainted peanuts got into market. The government runs the TSA, yet fails to catch items in tests. The government controls the streets, yet we have pot-holes and falling and failing bridges. The government gives money to foreign nations that are wasted and stolen. The government is in charge of passports and takes weeks to process them. The government is in charge of the military, yet the military is forced to buy things they do not want. Yes, the government has to do somethings but I doubt you can many examples where the government does anything better than the private sector.
The reason government has been screwing up so much is because we the people have been electing Republicans for so long, so what do you expect??? The job of Republicans is to screw up gov't to the point that it can't function, that is their mandate by the Industrial lobbies that pay for their elections and re-elections, if we the people are stupid enough to keep putting Republicans at the top of power we deserve screwed up gov't and poison peanut butter! We need to elect more Democrats like Feingold and Boxer to get gov't accountability but look who we just re-elected in Kansas??? That was stupid! Now that we have competent and less corrupt people in gov't again things should get better...yet we need to keep adding more honest and competent people to government and weeding out the bad ones still in there. If we have competent people in gov't , gov't works and works well, it is cheaper for the people than private because what we pay the gov't in taxes is far less than what we pay private in profits, just look at health care a perfect example, other countries do it why can't we! The same for education.
When we elect people like Bush and Cheney and like Roberts and Brownback we should expect incompetent screwed up corrupt gov't!!! Maybe that's why Fed Ex can't deliver letters now, yet I think you're wrong there because I received letters documents from Fed Ex in the past, anyway under Obama that could change.
Why not let gov't and private compete on all fronts that is the best way, it will eliminate, eventually, wasteful gov't and wasteful private, only the most efficient will survive in both that is real capitalism...since Bush we've had socialism for the rich and large corporations at the expense of small business and the people, capitalism works better when social programs are directed to the poor rather than to the rich!
When the rich were taxed at 90% during the 50s and 60s the American middle class boomed in America and the rich still stayed rich, your premise that the poor will take all the money from the rich is nonsense, they'll just take up to 90% of new wealth, let them keep old wealth and leave lots of loopholes to boot.
For me it makes common sense to nationalize the banks that fail and compete against banks that don't and see who does a better job and let the customer choose, same for health insurance and education.
Madoff got away with what he did because we elected Republicans who put bank cronies at the head of SEC Treasury etc , people who invested with him were not lazy they were naive in thinking Republicans would better regulate banking than democrats, they were just naive not lazy. Same for protection of our food water etc Americans are naive in thinking Republicans will do a better job at this by letting industry regulate itself this is naive! Business is there to maximize profits not care about the public health!!!That's why chemical factories dump toxic waste into rivers unless they're told they'll go to jail if they do. Common sense says we need more gov't regulation not less!
The government of France allowed AIDS tainted blood through, NO Republicans there. Most big cities are run by Democrats. California, which is going broke, it's congress is run by Democrats. The Post Office is not run by Republicans. Your hatred of Republicans has derailed your logic.
As for FedEx, an envelope I dropped off would cost me $12.00, not exactly competitive with USPS. The unions run the USPS and would not allow Obama to change things even if he wanted to.
The marginal tax rate was 90%, with lots of loop holes. And again, it wasn't a democracy back then. The economy did a lot better after the tax cuts.
California and New York traditionally run by Democrats probably make up half the GDP in the USA, they have the best education and health care systems in the country...the US without California would lose an economy bigger than France's. It seems the democrats are a bit more productive than the Republicans.
If the unions run USPS and they can deliver your letter faster than FEDEx than maybe gov't or union run organizations are more efficient than private or hierarchal run organizations in some areas.
As for tax cuts I'm all for tax cuts, in our Constitution income tax is forbidden!... I think families making less than 50K per year should not pay any taxes at all of any kind, 50 to 200K taxes should be minimal and proportional, and more than 200K taxes should proportionally go up until a top rate of 80 or 90% with loopholes for domestic charity and third world development. This seems reasonable and common sense to me. Most extreme wealth is inherited or gained through financial speculation not earned. Those who earn great wealth through business creation in most cases use a disproportional amount of the country's natural resources which belong to everybody, as well as a disproportional amount of tax paid for services like police and firefighters, teachers, electric grid, roads, garbage collection... and in some countries like in Europe, health care and higher education as well, so these businesses profit off of free social services to them and should pay higher taxes proportionally since they use a higher percentage of collective services.
However what I was looking for from you was why you are against letting gov't compete with the private sector, keep the private sector free and the rules fair, but let them compete, so what if gov't has greater resources, if they can give a better deal to its citizens than the private sector, the large majority wins...only a few fat cat banking and oil execs will lose...I'm not going to cry or defend them...what is your motivation for doing so? Why do you want to keep a system that only benefits the very rich, like feudalism????
In short I think gov't most probably can do a better job than private it all areas collective like education and health care, probably insurance and banking as well, probably energy production and distribution too. Let private sector alone for innovation and technology but anything collective like garbage collection and police let government compete...and if we want gov't to compete well we better keep lobbies out of congress to avoid corruption and unfair playing fields! You as of yet given any rational or common sense arguments against letting gov't compete with private sector in so far as how it effects society on the whole. You've yet to explain why, for example, banking wouldn't be better off totally in gov't hands like Jefferson, Lincoln and Jackson (and some say Kennedy) thought it should be!
Oh forgot on France, they have their Republicans too, but they call them the UMP, who've been ruling for the last 15 years or so and the society in France has been going downhill ever since...just a coincidence??
That a government has unlimited resources means it can sustain losses, pay more for things, etc. Why would you think the government would play fair. And why do you think the people running things under the government would run it better than running it for a corporation? Since the people who work for the government don't have to fear losing their jobs from competition or not making a profit, what incentive would they have to do a better job?
People can and do lose their jobs working for gov't it's just harder to fire some one on a whim, that's all. When Republicans rule gov't workers don't get fired for corruption and working with lobbies, this is less so with Democrats especially liberal democrats, they fire workers for corruption much faster than republicans. In gov't, under democrats, corruption is fired at the top of the pyramid, in private, corrupt CEO's get to keep their bonuses and jobs after their incompetence makes their company or bank tank, its the lowly usually productive workers that get axed first in private not the expensive usually incompetent (relative to salary) top brass.
Second who cares if gov't has unlimited resources and an unfair advantage it just makes it tougher for incompetent private to compete, only competent private will be able to compete, in many sectors of the economy... who cares!!!... as long as gov't can give us a better service than private at a lower cost, which it usually can and does in most areas but not always. Private police are much more expense than gov't police, private military are much more expensive than gov't military, private insurance is much more expensive than gov't insurance...however private telephone and internet service may be cheaper than gov't telephone service, if monopolies in private are consistently broken up, it depends on the service and sector...let them compete and see who is better that's all!
You've yet to give me even one rational argument where it is better for the majority of the people, the citizenry, to prohibit gov't from competing with private in any area of the economy.
It seems to me that the whole point of the Republican party is to break down gov't to such a point that it allows incompetent private to finally compete with gov't and turn public benefit for many into private profit for few, like we saw under Bush with health insurance and our military, our prisons, our national security, education, social programs, pollution, food safety etc....yet when this happens private turns any cost, and thus quality reductions, into profit instead of passing them on to the people.
Where gov't is prevented by public pressure from destroying our resources, food, land and water...private does not hesitate to dump toxic chemicals into a river, if it can get away with it by Republican deregulation,... public pressure has little affect on private in the petrochemical industy. Even in the food industry where you would think public pressure would have an affect on private, it doesn't... just look at the recent peanut butter debacle.
You are an adamant supporter of the Republican party thus you must support reducing the possibility of gov't to regulate against and compete with the private sector yet you can't give one rational argument as to why? Why is that? Why do you want lower quality and pay higher prices? Why do you want to endanger our food and water supplies and send our job base overseas because private can use slave labor and practically non-existent restrictions on pollution and safe decent working conditions in India and China. It just doesn't make common sense???
Democrats never fire people for working with lobbies: try to find one example. You act as if Democrats are as pure as snow. People may get fired for doing things illegal but when where they fired for lack of performance? They just shift people into do nothing jobs. And when are there massive layoffs or closers, as in private business? There are programs on the books the get funded year after year despite not producing any results. At best, they have a hiring freeze, with just doesn't replace people who leave.
That executives that get paid for poor performance is a scandal. Part of it is cooked board of directors. Other times it is written in contracts to hire away the executives from other companies. It is one of the reason I always vote against the board of directors in proxies. But, until recently, bad performing executives hurt the shareholders, not the taxpayers.
"as long as gov't can give us a better service than private at a lower cost," : when has that happened? You say: private insurance is much more expensive than gov't insurance. Why is that? Because the taxpayers are picking up the costs. None of your examples are valid.
And your peanut butter example, the government knew about the tainted product and didn't shut it down. They hid the knowledge. Were they people fired, no, they use it as an excuse that they are "overworked" and need more people.
BTW, I am not an adamant supporter of Republicans. I have never given them a dime. I have not worked on a campaign. That they better in certain things than Democrats is why I support them when they are right. I was against their massive spending (they became just like Democrats, who have doubled down when the current congress). I have never supported the religious right agenda.
Post a Comment