Who's really selfish?
David Harsanyi has a few good questions in response to Obama's continued harping on the selfishness of CEOs:
Sounds like selfishness is a trait that isn't limited to the business world.
Then again, what could possibly be more reckless than spending $1 trillion you don't have on a plan that you have no evidence will work?
What could be more irresponsible than doubling the generational debt for your partisan pet projects in a time of crisis?
And what could be more selfish than stifling debate by deploying fear to induce voters into supporting it all?
Sounds like selfishness is a trait that isn't limited to the business world.
posted by Helen at 8:47 AM
28 Comments:
Why are CEOs selfish, but not professional athletes or the Hollywood glitterati? Why is it OK to reap millions for jumping up and down and throwing a ball through a hoop, while simultaeously the rare individual who can increase the wealth of many thousands of shareholders by successfaully guiding a large corporation to sustained growth and profitability should be limited to $500,000? Why do liberal fools fall in love with failed precepts like central economic planning?
"... by successfaully guiding a large corporation to sustained growth and profitability should be limited to $500,000?"
----
The people who guide a large corporation to sustained growth and profitability are not limited to $500,000.
The executives who have driven their company to the brink of bankruptcy, and who then ask for billions of taxpayer money, are limited to $500,000 PLUS any amount of stock the company wants to give them, but the stock can only be redeemed after the company has paid back its debt. AND - that's only to the "primary" borrowers who have come back to the trough more than once (like Bank of America) AND it's not even retroactive, so the executives who nearly bankrupted the company can keep their $10 million bonus from 2008.
I tend towards the right wing / Milton Friedman / Paul Volcker / Ronald Reagan / Ayn Rand, but it amazes me how people want to try to shoehorn some distortion of those notions onto some of the present-day happenings.
The companies with awful management SHOULD be left alone - to go bankrupt. Then the salaries of the managers would be capped at $0 per annum with no stock options.
If a teenager is taking money from dad, I still think that dad gets a say. If the teenager wants complete control, the teenager better get a job.
Same with companies.
The managers should be lucky that a government is in power that wants to shove out taxpayer money like water.
Having their salaries capped at 500k is probably better than salaries capped at 0k (when company rightfully goes belly up).
Politicians are now indignantly comparing their own salaries with those of various excutives...but in reality, of course, the typical Congressman or President makes *far* more money than you would think by looking at his official salary. There are speaking fees, book royalties, consulting fees of various types, and, most important, legal/lobbying billing rates which benefit from the individual's time in "public service."
The wealth of the Clintons, for instance, is far more than their salaries would suggest, yet it is virtually all indirectly attributable to their government jobs. And even before winning the Presidency, Barack Obama had become a very wealthy man..probably more so than if he had pursued a career as a Wall Street lawyer.
Also, what do congressman produce besides more regulations? Whereas executives (usually) increase the value of the companies that they head.
The system breaks down though (like it has in this case) when government gets involved to "help". The driving force behind this current mess is a) the government push to get banks to make questionable loans to unqualified borrowers and b) the government's failure to oversee the two main businesses they empowered to run this house of cards. In both of these cases the main players in the government had (D) after their names and even went out of their way to prevent calls for investigation and oversight when it would have made a positive difference.
TO: All
RE: Heh
From 'Hope and Change' to 'Change and Fear'. All in the span of a fortnight.
That's some kinda 'change'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Statistically speaking, half of all change is not for the better. -- CBPelto]
Well....
.....ever people get the governance they deserve.....
how silly!
1. Obama is not "constantly harpiong."
2. it is our money used to keep alive companies that well-paid executives have helped to fail. Why should we not have a say in what they receive not only from us in money but also in reward? I give my child an allowance so long as he meets certain requirements.
3. the "muzzle" at 500,000 is not exactly overly stringent! (need we mention all the perks that any company can make available if it wants?)
4. It is a temporary cap till the companies get back on their feet...it is not a govt run company that will not revert back to the private sector.
5. Don't like the restraints? alternative: don't accept them and go down the tubes!
God knows what Obama really thinks behind that "swave and deboner" facade. His fear tactics threaten to do tremendous damage that will last for decades.
I say let the weak companies go under and the strong survive. In the future I will avoid as much as possible doing business with companies that receive bailout funds.
The politicians seek office because they seek power, not money. This is one of the biggest power grabs in our country's history and their using our (and children's and grandchildren's) money to do it. Money is a side benefit but power is their main goal. As such, politicians should always be considered a threat to our freedom.
If the gubment is going to dish out money like that, here might be a beter idea:
Why not use the money to promote small, up-and-coming businesses in new technologies? They may be able to replace the jobs that are lost from the big, old, crusty companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. And it would be a better use of that money to push the United States ahead technologically.
Todd asked: "Also, what do congressman produce besides more regulations?"
Hot air?
Dangerous green house gasses?
Bovine scatology?
Good point, they are not producers.
Trey
JG.."Why not use the money to promote small, up-and-coming businesses in new technologies?"
You can be certain that almost all the money would go to companies that were either (a)politically well-connected or (b)in fields that are highly fashionable at the moment. For example, in 1999, a big government technology-funding program would have surely directed billions to the fashionable Internet, and almost nothing to the boring energy industry.
See my post leaving a trillion on the table.
BTW - I find it ironic that the oil industry and Wal-Mart, both greatly hated by the left, don't seem to need any hand-outs. Wal-Mart announced increased profits yesterday.
Why is it OK to reap millions for jumping up and down and throwing a ball through a hoop, while simultaeously the rare individual who can increase the wealth of many thousands of shareholders by successfaully guiding a large corporation to sustained growth and profitability should be limited to $500,000? Why do liberal fools fall in love with failed precepts like central economic planning?
It's the golden rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules. If they don't want the salary caps, they they can stop coming to the trough for tax payer money. As I have said before, do you really want a third world-style redistribution of wealth (public by taxes->government->connected cronies and businesses)? Why should any CEO whose business is on the dole get to make a big salary?
I'll tell you why, in general, it's ok for sports players to make outrageous salaries: the actual business that pays them is private and supported by its own revenues. The most government subsidies they get are some subsidized stadiums which state governments could easily ban and force them to repay to the local government. In fact, as a libertarian, I'm very much in favor of the states doing precisely that to all subsidized businesses, in part to discourage anyone from ever asking for a subsidy.
When one olil company announced the biggest profits ever and gas buyers were paying close to 4 bucks per gallons I suspect that even those to the right of center got a bit peevbed. Wal-Mart? I ususally shop elsewhere but do not find my liberal friends "hating" that store. I do not eat at McDonalds either. But I do not hate them. Fact: when money is tight for most people, they shop the cheapest way they can, and that means Wal-Mart and fast food places and less expensive drinks etc.
Why are we talking about CEOs increasing the value of their companies and at the same time asking for the tax payer, via the govt, to bail them out lest they fail?
Furthermore, the argument that these businesses need the freedom to give outrageous salaries to management are specious. There is no correlation between extremely high executive pay and performance that favors the meritocratic argument. If anything, the people demanding tens of millions of dollars in compensation have tended to be parasites that harm their companies.
It's none of the government's business what privately funded businesses do in this respect, but any business that is on the dole deserves to have the federal government's hand up its ass like a puppet for taking tax payer money rather than having the decency of going bankrupt.
...and, jist in, under Bush and his pal Paulson, the taxpayers took another beating and got screwed royally
http://www.newser.com/story/50120/panel-paulson-overpaid-for-bank-stocks.html
Why so many comments upon being in govt? If CEO's prefer that, let them run for office. All I know is that guys that take home money in the millions are now asking me (taxpayer)for help because they couldn't run their companies profitably.
Fred wrote: "When one oil company announced the biggest profits ever and gas buyers were paying close to 4 bucks per gallons I suspect that even those to the right of center got a bit peeved."
Fred, do you know the biggest profiteer from oil? Our governments. They do nothing to produce it, but tax it more than the companies that actually make it profit from it.
And why the windfall profits? Because of speculation betting that the price would go up because we are so depending on foreign sources for our energy needs. As those forces (not under the control of the companies) raised the cost of oil through the roof the percentage profit rose with it.
And who benefitted? The CEOs? Yep. And so did millions of people's IRA accounts and other retirement accounts. See, these big companies have shareholders. And the shareholders got some money, and it may have been you! If you have a money market or IRA account, you may have been a party to the obscene profits.
Don't worry, we won't tell.
Trey
And the oil companies aren't asking for handouts that our grandchildren will be paying for.
If we will remember, one of Hillary's famous speeches contained a statement (this is not exact), "Exxon made 32 billion in profits last year. I want that money!" The crowd to which she was speaking roared its approval. What she failed to mention is Exxon had already paid 44 billion in taxes that same year.
If I grossed 76 bucks a week and the government kept 44 and allowed me only 32 and wanted more...well. What about pay raises, maintenance, new equipment, growth, stock holders, (401K's for instance). If you have a well managed diversified 401K, it's a cinch you own Exxon stock.
This melt down has slapped me wide awake. All efforts are re-doubled. Regardless of the outcome, even if we explode into growth (HA!) I am done spending a penny not absolutely necessary to spend for the rest of my days. Me thinks, perhaps, that I am not the only one now upon that road. It is also my belief the government knows that. And since I won't spend it, they're taking it from my future, my kids' and their kids' futures - for today. I think it is despicable.
Sorry Tmink. I didn't read your post above dadvocate's before posting. I just sort of repeated what you just said.
The real scam that is going un-noticed is the gap that is increasing between our aristocratic elites, and the rest of us shmucks still forced to live in the free market.
Gee, the government shows us their graciousness by, GASP!, agreeing to a pay freeze! Well, good golly, every free enterprising job I've had I've been at had a "pay freeze." I didn't get an inflation adjusted wage increase each year. You hustle your ass and beg the boss for a raise every couple of years. How nice of the government aristocrats to give up this benefit in tough times!
Also, many government employees recieve VERY generous pensions - inflation adjusted ones - while the rest of the "free market class" has to hustle their ass to eat when they retire. A $60,000/yr pension from a government job is, of course, the equivelant to having $1,000,000 invested at 6%. Is your free market employer going to kick in a million dollars after 20 years so you can take it easy?
Notice what is happening during this "crisis."
We, the free market people, are being told by Hopenchange that tough times are ahead, and we are all going to have to tighten our belts.
Yes, there is going to unemployment... but, FOR WHO?
Certainly not the government employees. Nope. THEIR jobs are secure! In fact, government is EXPANDING during this crisis (and it WON'T shrink after the crisis). So... who is it, REALLY, that Obama is telling to tighten their belts? Yes, again, those working in the free market, whose wages will drop, or those who will lose a job - THEY will have to tighten their belts.
But government employees? Nope. Their jobs and even payscale is guaranteed (albeit, frozen). They WILL NOT cut back on government services and, in fact, government services/spending is being considered as STIMULUS (Good thing!). Of course, government does not make profit. Free enterprise makes profit. So who is it that is DOUBLY suffering? It certainly must be the people who actually provide the money to the government to "welfare out" to its secure government employees.
It is a complete plan to enact class warfare on society.
And for one, I hope that all of us soon to be impoverished free market people, start treating all of these government aristocrats with same contempt and hatred they have stirred up to white males - given that such hatred was only sustainable through the tax dollars the white males provided.
Perhaps a few once normal white men being forced to live under a bridge while watching government funded politically correct teachers, politicians, policeman and so on, carry on with secure above average GDP/Capita jobs, will finally motive the white male to start attacking back against those who have so targeted him with hatred and derision.
I work for a company whose President/CEO/founder has worked for ten years to make it a success. We are now on the verge of monumental growth. Who is to say that any salary this man gives himself is unfair?
I ran my own company for five years in the 90s and ultimately failed. Had I succeeded, though, I would have deeply resented anyone telling me that after scraping by for years, going without health insurance, selling my house, going deeply into debt, that I could give myself a very nice salary and bonuses.
Yeah, there are executives that are worthless. I've worked for more than a few. But there are many that are worth every penny and more.
Our Host said: "What could be more irresponsible than doubling the generational debt for your partisan pet projects in a time of crisis?"
I dunno. Let's ask George W. Bush., who took it from 6 Trillion(!) dollars to 10 Trillion (!!).
Rob Fedders said: "Also, many government employees recieve VERY generous pensions - inflation adjusted ones - while the rest of the "free market class" has to hustle their ass to eat when they retire."
Maybe you should unionize.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
qq 視訊交友qq 視訊交友免費 msn 視訊交友 0982免費 msn 視訊交友 0982club 意難忘視訊交友club 意難忘視訊交友免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室546 視訊聊天室546 視訊聊天室uthome 視訊聊天室uthome 視訊聊天室168 視訊聊天室168 視訊聊天室0401 影音視訊聊天室0401 影音視訊聊天室
Post a Comment
<< Home