Alternatively, I suppose that the government could simply hire people to run these companies directly until they are back in the black, though I don't know if that would work out better.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
How can they be bonuses if you always get them no matter how shitty a job you're really doing?
Isn't that just, you know, a salary?
I know that in my job, bonuses are treated as salary (we have an equation which determines everyone's bonuses, proportional to normal salaried income), but a portion of it which is effectively performance-based for the company. In other words, our bonuses are what bonuses should be.
"I think President Obama painted everyone with a broad stroke," said Brian McCaffrey, 55, a Wall Street lawyer who was on his way to see a client. "The way we pay our taxes is bonuses. The only way that we’ll get any of our bailout money back is from taxes on bonuses. I think bonuses should be looked at on a case by case basis, or you turn into a socialist."
That, indeed, was a recurring equation: Broad strokes + bonuses = socialist.
"It’s a very slippery slope to go down," said another insurance broker as he waited to be seated for lunch at Cipriani Downtown. "A blanket statement like that borders on" — you guessed it — "socialism."
It's great when the government bails out their companies, but take away their personal money? Then it's socialism. Fuck them.
Yeah, those guys don't seem to get that the socialism part of the equation is when the government stepped in to save their sorry asses from going under. If they want to swim in bonuses, then make sure it isn't getting propped up by the government bailing them out.
"I think President Obama painted everyone with a broad stroke," said Brian McCaffrey, 55, a Wall Street lawyer who was on his way to see a client. "The way we pay our taxes is bonuses. The only way that we’ll get any of our bailout money back is from taxes on bonuses. I think bonuses should be looked at on a case by case basis, or you turn into a socialist."
That, indeed, was a recurring equation: Broad strokes + bonuses = socialist.
"It’s a very slippery slope to go down," said another insurance broker as he waited to be seated for lunch at Cipriani Downtown. "A blanket statement like that borders on" — you guessed it — "socialism."
It's great when the government bails out their companies, but take away their personal money? Then it's socialism. Fuck them.
Yeah, those guys don't seem to get that the socialism part of the equation is when the government stepped in to save their sorry asses from going under. If they want to swim in bonuses, then make sure it isn't getting propped up by the government bailing them out.
Whatever happened to a fool and his money being soon parted? Because these dumbasses still seem to be pretty rich.
What would stop experienced execs from moving to another country and starting a career there? That's the real reason all those doctors and engineers fled Cuba when Castro took over - brain drain due to lack of fat paychecks.
Nothing, but i doubt its going to happen and if it does, we may be better off since these are the guys that ran the companies into the ground in the first place.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
I think when the government steps in and all but buys your company, the rules of business are thrown out the window. Fuck their contracts and termination clauses, they don't mean shit when they wouldn't have gotten a penny if their company went under. We literally own them. And if I'm wrong and they were going to get $texas after their company went under, bankruptcy laws are fucked up and we need to look into changing them.
I think when the government steps in and all but buys your company, the rules of business are thrown out the window. Fuck their contracts and termination clauses, they don't mean shit when they wouldn't have gotten a penny if their company went under. We literally own them. And if I'm wrong and they were going to get $texas after their company went under, bankruptcy laws are fucked up and we need to look into changing them.
If the companies declared bankruptcy, they wouldn't need to pay them. Which is probably what should happen.
I think when the government steps in and all but buys your company, the rules of business are thrown out the window. Fuck their contracts and termination clauses, they don't mean shit when they wouldn't have gotten a penny if their company went under. We literally own them. And if I'm wrong and they were going to get $texas after their company went under, bankruptcy laws are fucked up and we need to look into changing them.
If the companies declared bankruptcy, they wouldn't need to pay them. Which is probably what should happen.
Supposedly they got around that in the 80s during the savings and loan. And I agree with the method they used
Buy the Bank, remove the bad assets to a nationalized holding bank, sell assets to pay off debts. Fire all the managers that caused the mess(nullifying their contracts). Sell the bank back to the market clean(within 2 year or so)
The point of the TARP funds is to increase lending across the country. Government is giving banks this money with the instructions: "lend this money like no tomorrow."
It is not in any bank's individual interest to increase lending now (because it is very risky). Therefore, assuming the banks have to pay their bailout funds back, it is not necessarily in a bank's interest to actually take the bailout money.
So this could be why the idea of capping executive pay hasn't come up before (and why Obama seems reticent)—it seems obvious, insanely obvious even, but if the government is essentially asking banks to take bailout money and lend it out against their own interest, the government may not have leverage to even ask this of banks.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Meh, pay caps are iffy, but like multiple people have pointed out this isn't money they've earned. This is fucking welfare. Don't buy a cadillac with it. Or in this case it'd be a gold-plated chariot hauled by middle-class working families.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Because the government (which is different from that government) will do such a horrible job that we'll go into the worst Recession in 80 years, unlike letting private enterprise run them? And we have done this before with the Savings and Loan crisis. Sweden took even further draconian steps via nationalization, I think.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Meh, pay caps are iffy, but like multiple people have pointed out this isn't money they've earned. This is fucking welfare. Don't buy a cadillac with it. Or in this case it'd be a gold-plated chariot hauled by middle-class working families.
Basing the capabilities of government on the Bush administration is a little like basing humanity's ability to do math on Paris Hilton.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
What? The problems with Katrina were because of crony appointments to FEMA that transformed it from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to "Here's an easy job worth $60k a year for all my friends, oh, yeah, we have to do some work, occasionally, too." Iraq had problems for a variety of reasons, not least of which was:
1) The people we used in Afghanistan to force out the Soviets with we armed and then abandoned after the USSR left, leaving a country with half its population 15 or under and little education and less infrastructure, leading to terrorist factions.
2) Iraq is a unique country with a mix of Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as a sizable Kurdish population, highly unlike most other Middle Eastern countries, and with their gov't toppled, infrastructure destroyed, and terrorist factions recruiting around the blocks, a lot of internal fighting broke out.
And both of those situations (Iraq and Katrina) developed as a result of mismanagement by Bush, not by gov't in general. In case you hadn't noticed, new guy at the top now. Just because your last representative did a piss-poor job doesn't mean that any representative inevitably would.
I'd like to point out that within the federal (and, IIRC, each state) government, no employee may have a higher salary than the President.
When these banks accept federal bailout money, they become de facto government-sponsored enterprises, so I don't see why they shouldn't follow that same rule. It's not like this is involuntary, anyway: if you want to keep paying people more money than the President makes, simply don't accept our taxpayer dollars. I mean, there must be some banks out there that are financially sound enough to get by without, right?
Sidenote: I am still unconvinced that the best way to handle this economic crisis is to hand out vast gobs of money to groups of people who have proven themselves incapable of competently handling vast gobs of money.
I'd like to point out that within the federal (and, IIRC, each state) government, no employee may have a higher salary than the President.
When these banks accept federal bailout money, they become de facto government-sponsored enterprises, so I don't see why they shouldn't follow that same rule. It's not like this is involuntary, anyway: if you want to keep paying people more money than the President makes, simply don't accept our taxpayer dollars. I mean, there must be some banks out there that are financially sound enough to get by without, right?
Sidenote: I am still unconvinced that the best way to handle this economic crisis is to hand out vast gobs of money to groups of people who have proven themselves incapable of competently handling vast gobs of money.
I'm with you. If a bank wants to benefit from the (admittedly SOCIALIST) practice of the government saving their asses with vast wodges of cash, they have to play but the government's rules when using that cash. If they don't want to go all socialist, then they have to play by the rules of the CAPITALIST free market - i.e. pay your CEOs whatever the fuck you want, but don't come crying to anyone when you have to declare bankruptcy for your goddamn fuckwitted business choices.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Meh, pay caps are iffy, but like multiple people have pointed out this isn't money they've earned. This is fucking welfare. Don't buy a cadillac with it. Or in this case it'd be a gold-plated chariot hauled by middle-class working families.
My understanding of the typical role when government steps in and nationalizes banks is that it guts them, chops off some limbs, then sells what's left back to the private market once things have calmed down. This is somewhat different than having Bank of America permanently being the Bank of America.
Well, regardless of how this all pans out, in a few years time when the dust has settled and the economy is working again I have a feeling that there'll be some trust busters rising to prominence. It's sort of funny given that the new liberal movement calls itself progressives as we really are kind of are reliving the Progressive era in drips and drabs.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
They're hoping people do that, Goum. That means their termination clauses kick in, which is basically jackpot day for them.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Meh, pay caps are iffy, but like multiple people have pointed out this isn't money they've earned. This is fucking welfare. Don't buy a cadillac with it. Or in this case it'd be a gold-plated chariot hauled by middle-class working families.
My understanding of the typical role when government steps in and nationalizes banks is that it guts them, chops off some limbs, then sells what's left back to the private market once things have calmed down. This is somewhat different than having Bank of America permanently being the Bank of America.
That's something I whole-heartedly support. Just because Obama would be in charge if we did decide to nationalize an industry doesn't mean things could drastically change in 4 years. Even though Republicans tell us to be afraid of socialism our government still has a very long history of involvement with industry, usually at the lower classes' expense. I don't believe Americans have as much to fear these days, but that's merely because the buck as been passed to even poorer countries due to globalization.
He was referring to the $30k that Qingu as talking about. Which I assume has about a 50% chance of being hyperbole.
It was hyperbole.
But if we could actually and fairly determine who was especially complicit I'd have no problem putting them on food stamps. Or just throwing their asses in jail.
Here's a hyperbole.
A guy is sitting in a wheel chair protesting at the side of a building, shouting "Kill the rich!" while holding a sign that says "Kill the rich!", to all those who pass him by on the sidewalk. Just then, a top business exec with the darkest suit you've seen, a blood red tie and slick black hair walks by, reaches into the inner pocket of his coat and throws down a cool wad of bills onto the protester's lap; A million dollar bills.
The protester exclaims "Oh Thank You! Thank you! I'm rich!"
Then, just as coolly as before, the exec reaches into the other inner pocket of his coat, pulls out a snub-nose and blows a bullet through the protester's head and into the wall behind him. Then the exec picks up the wad of bills from the guy's lap and walks away, successfully robbing him.
He was never fined.
I just found this masterpiece from Quid's randomized sig, and I am now experiencing some new kind of emotion, a mad cross of uncontrollable mirth and complete awe. Should this be reported for Awesome? It really is something that should be preserved.
Posts
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
These people should be in fucking prison. A salary cap is such a slap on the wrist its insulting.
I know that in my job, bonuses are treated as salary (we have an equation which determines everyone's bonuses, proportional to normal salaried income), but a portion of it which is effectively performance-based for the company. In other words, our bonuses are what bonuses should be.
Yeah, those guys don't seem to get that the socialism part of the equation is when the government stepped in to save their sorry asses from going under. If they want to swim in bonuses, then make sure it isn't getting propped up by the government bailing them out.
Whatever happened to a fool and his money being soon parted? Because these dumbasses still seem to be pretty rich.
Posting to confirm that this will not work. I could put you in contact with some good actuaries though.
Good thing this isn't a pay cap then.
Nothing, but i doubt its going to happen and if it does, we may be better off since these are the guys that ran the companies into the ground in the first place.
Frankly they are lucky we don't take our preferred shares and fire them because we own their sorry asses.
What's the problem with nationalizing them, again? No, really, someone give me a link that tells me why, other than
Socialism!
Supposedly they got around that in the 80s during the savings and loan. And I agree with the method they used
Buy the Bank, remove the bad assets to a nationalized holding bank, sell assets to pay off debts. Fire all the managers that caused the mess(nullifying their contracts). Sell the bank back to the market clean(within 2 year or so)
The point of the TARP funds is to increase lending across the country. Government is giving banks this money with the instructions: "lend this money like no tomorrow."
It is not in any bank's individual interest to increase lending now (because it is very risky). Therefore, assuming the banks have to pay their bailout funds back, it is not necessarily in a bank's interest to actually take the bailout money.
So this could be why the idea of capping executive pay hasn't come up before (and why Obama seems reticent)—it seems obvious, insanely obvious even, but if the government is essentially asking banks to take bailout money and lend it out against their own interest, the government may not have leverage to even ask this of banks.
Yeah, just look at the spectacular job they did of running things in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina. As we now know these banks are just too big to fail, which is exactly why I don't want the government running them.
Meh, pay caps are iffy, but like multiple people have pointed out this isn't money they've earned. This is fucking welfare. Don't buy a cadillac with it. Or in this case it'd be a gold-plated chariot hauled by middle-class working families.
Because the government (which is different from that government) will do such a horrible job that we'll go into the worst Recession in 80 years, unlike letting private enterprise run them? And we have done this before with the Savings and Loan crisis. Sweden took even further draconian steps via nationalization, I think.
Basing the capabilities of government on the Bush administration is a little like basing humanity's ability to do math on Paris Hilton.
What? The problems with Katrina were because of crony appointments to FEMA that transformed it from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to "Here's an easy job worth $60k a year for all my friends, oh, yeah, we have to do some work, occasionally, too." Iraq had problems for a variety of reasons, not least of which was:
1) The people we used in Afghanistan to force out the Soviets with we armed and then abandoned after the USSR left, leaving a country with half its population 15 or under and little education and less infrastructure, leading to terrorist factions.
2) Iraq is a unique country with a mix of Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as a sizable Kurdish population, highly unlike most other Middle Eastern countries, and with their gov't toppled, infrastructure destroyed, and terrorist factions recruiting around the blocks, a lot of internal fighting broke out.
And both of those situations (Iraq and Katrina) developed as a result of mismanagement by Bush, not by gov't in general. In case you hadn't noticed, new guy at the top now. Just because your last representative did a piss-poor job doesn't mean that any representative inevitably would.
EDIT: Alternatively, what enlightened said.
When these banks accept federal bailout money, they become de facto government-sponsored enterprises, so I don't see why they shouldn't follow that same rule. It's not like this is involuntary, anyway: if you want to keep paying people more money than the President makes, simply don't accept our taxpayer dollars. I mean, there must be some banks out there that are financially sound enough to get by without, right?
Sidenote: I am still unconvinced that the best way to handle this economic crisis is to hand out vast gobs of money to groups of people who have proven themselves incapable of competently handling vast gobs of money.
I'm with you. If a bank wants to benefit from the (admittedly SOCIALIST) practice of the government saving their asses with vast wodges of cash, they have to play but the government's rules when using that cash. If they don't want to go all socialist, then they have to play by the rules of the CAPITALIST free market - i.e. pay your CEOs whatever the fuck you want, but don't come crying to anyone when you have to declare bankruptcy for your goddamn fuckwitted business choices.
My understanding of the typical role when government steps in and nationalizes banks is that it guts them, chops off some limbs, then sells what's left back to the private market once things have calmed down. This is somewhat different than having Bank of America permanently being the Bank of America.
That's something I whole-heartedly support. Just because Obama would be in charge if we did decide to nationalize an industry doesn't mean things could drastically change in 4 years. Even though Republicans tell us to be afraid of socialism our government still has a very long history of involvement with industry, usually at the lower classes' expense. I don't believe Americans have as much to fear these days, but that's merely because the buck as been passed to even poorer countries due to globalization.