If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Administration: 'maybe we shouldn't be paying billions of dollars to people who run corporations into the ground'. Wanna guess who has a problem with that?   (foxnews.com) divider line 123
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5776 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jun 2009 at 2:18 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-11 11:16:04 AM  
Fox news is having a full on epileptic fit about the whole deal.
 
2009-06-11 11:18:59 AM  
Here is the obligatory freeper link. Enjoy!
 
2009-06-11 11:22:17 AM  

I was thinking:

RON PAUL!
 
2009-06-11 11:25:08 AM  
Gwendolyn: I was thinking:

RON PAUL!


Actually, fox news isn't too fond of Dr. Paul. Nor is the Republican leadership for that matter. That should be reason enough to give the guy a break.

But i'm watching fox news right now and they seem to think that this news is just as important as covering that attack on the jewish holocaust museum yesterday.
 
2009-06-11 11:27:52 AM  
Hey, look - the president really is a commie.....
 
2009-06-11 11:31:20 AM  
LordZorch: Hey, look - the president really is a commie.....

No, what they're saying is that if you take a big risk then you shouldn't be rewarded if it fails.
 
2009-06-11 02:26:12 PM  
Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window. It's really up to the boards of public corporations to make this happen.
 
2009-06-11 02:27:16 PM  
Pravda?

Pravda
 
2009-06-11 02:29:13 PM  
slayer199: Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

yeah, but the people who currently benefit from the status quo are going to fight tooth and claw to keep us from changing things. That's a lot of money spent to keep things unbalanced to their favor. And a lot of the dumber rank and file Republican base will fall into line to help the very people who f*ck them over on a daily basis.
 
2009-06-11 02:31:34 PM  
Put taxes for the upper .5% back to Reagan era levels. You'll notice that higher taxes never prevented people in the 50s and 60s from achieving great wealth.
 
2009-06-11 02:35:50 PM  
If they gets tarp money, the government gets a say.

If they don;t get tarp money, it ain;t the government's business. Leave that shiat for the stockholders to figure out.

Part of the problem stemmed from a 1980 change to the tax code that capped what companies could deduct in CEO and executive salaries. That lead to stock option plans which culminated in Enron style debacles. They tried to cap executive salaries at a million bucks.

Unintended consequences was that execs were making 20 to 30 times that by the end of the 1980s via options and stock. Over time Exec got more and more short sighted, more and more willing to cook the books.

People need to be careful what they ask for. Just sayin.
 
2009-06-11 02:37:00 PM  
Weaver95:
Actually, fox news isn't too fond of Dr. Paul. Nor is the Republican leadership for that matter. That should be reason enough to give the guy a break.


To me it seems like some republicans last year were tolerating him, if not endorsing, because they figured that he'd attract some voters that would definitely not vote for McCain, but might vote for Obama.
 
2009-06-11 02:38:55 PM  
slayer199: Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window. It's really up to the boards of public corporations to make this happen.


Its been done, exec pay salaries are capped a 1 million by the tax code. They have been getting incentive pay, bonuses etc... for over 2 decades. Problem with incentive pay is that it is short term focused: one month, one quarter at bets one year horizons.
 
2009-06-11 02:40:03 PM  
finnished: Weaver95:
Actually, fox news isn't too fond of Dr. Paul. Nor is the Republican leadership for that matter. That should be reason enough to give the guy a break.

To me it seems like some republicans last year were tolerating him, if not endorsing, because they figured that he'd attract some voters that would definitely not vote for McCain, but might vote for Obama.


The shift in the Republican party has been away from fiscal conservatism and the support of the individual. it's been trending more towards collectivism - both in ideology and fiscal policy. The overriding concern of the Republicans isn't conservative values anymore, it's religious values. Ron Paul trends more towards actual conservatism and that's why he's barely tolerated.

I'm wondering when the Republican leadership will actually start ejecting 'rogue' members of the party. Not just Ron Paul but others who refuse to bow to the religious right wing.
 
npt
2009-06-11 02:44:38 PM  
Weaver95: finnished: Weaver95:
Actually, fox news isn't too fond of Dr. Paul. Nor is the Republican leadership for that matter. That should be reason enough to give the guy a break.

To me it seems like some republicans last year were tolerating him, if not endorsing, because they figured that he'd attract some voters that would definitely not vote for McCain, but might vote for Obama.

The shift in the Republican party has been away from fiscal conservatism and the support of the individual. it's been trending more towards collectivism - both in ideology and fiscal policy. The overriding concern of the Republicans isn't conservative values anymore, it's religious values. Ron Paul trends more towards actual conservatism and that's why he's barely tolerated.

I'm wondering when the Republican leadership will actually start ejecting 'rogue' members of the party. Not just Ron Paul but others who refuse to bow to the religious right wing. Did you guys hear about Colin Powell?
 
2009-06-11 02:44:56 PM  
crazytrpr

Exactly. If they are getting government money, by all means set restrictions on pay. The government, after all, is a shareholder.

If no government involvement, then setting executive pay would infringe on the right to enter into contracts.

In any event, the whole "executive pay is at fault" is just government refusing to acknowledge their role in this whole mess and indulge in a little class warfare.
 
2009-06-11 02:46:26 PM  
KarmicDisaster: Pravda?

Pravda


Pardon me, where's the rest of this moose?

/nothing is obscure.
 
2009-06-11 02:47:52 PM  
Moridion: In any event, the whole "executive pay is at fault" is just government refusing to acknowledge their role in this whole mess and indulge in a little class warfare.

Or alternatively, it's the government that sees a massive imbalance that is unfairly enforced on a public powerless to do much about it. Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose. But it's pretty clear that wages for us shiat kicking peasants hasn't moved much in the past 15 years, meanwhile executive pay is off the charts and the stock market continues to tank.
 
2009-06-11 02:52:51 PM  
Weaver95

Do I like the fact that an incompetent executive gets a much larger salary than me? No. I also do not like the fact that KKK can hold marches in towns. Just because I do not like something does not mean the government should step in an regulate. The right to enter into contracts is just as fundamental as our right to free speech.

You are also forgetting one crucial point. The companies who allowed these executives to make outrageous salaries would have been punished by the free market and failed, except for the government stepping in and giving them our money. There was already a system in place to punish incompetence, it was just ignored.
 
2009-06-11 02:56:18 PM  
Moridion: crazytrpr

Exactly. If they are getting government money, by all means set restrictions on pay. The government, after all, is a shareholder.

If no government involvement, then setting executive pay would infringe on the right to enter into contracts.

In any event, the whole "executive pay is at fault" is just government refusing to acknowledge their role in this whole mess and indulge in a little class warfare.


Am I missing something? It looks like they are presenting guidelines that they are going to recommend that companies adopt - at that point it is up to shareholders to adopt them as company policy. Did I miss something?
 
2009-06-11 02:56:51 PM  
Weaver95: Moridion: In any event, the whole "executive pay is at fault" is just government refusing to acknowledge their role in this whole mess and indulge in a little class warfare.

Or alternatively, it's the government that sees a massive imbalance that is unfairly enforced on a public powerless to do much about it. Depends on how you want to look at it I suppose. But it's pretty clear that wages for us shiat kicking peasants hasn't moved much in the past 15 years, meanwhile executive pay is off the charts and the stock market continues to tank.


Supply and demand. 'Shiat kicking peasants' aren't in demand.
 
2009-06-11 02:59:22 PM  
Moridion: Weaver95

Do I like the fact that an incompetent executive gets a much larger salary than me? No. I also do not like the fact that KKK can hold marches in towns. Just because I do not like something does not mean the government should step in an regulate. The right to enter into contracts is just as fundamental as our right to free speech.

You are also forgetting one crucial point. The companies who allowed these executives to make outrageous salaries would have been punished by the free market and failed, except for the government stepping in and giving them our money. There was already a system in place to punish incompetence, it was just ignored.


The system in place should have prevented the companies from getting so large as to necessitate a bailout. That was the failure.
 
2009-06-11 03:00:32 PM  
OldGrover

I think the issue is that guidelines have a way of becoming law. Or the government will use the guidelines to punish companies that do not follow them. Which actually I do not have a huge problem with. Missing out on government contracts or whatever because you did not follow the government's guidelines is just a risk of doing business.
 
2009-06-11 03:02:19 PM  
slayer199: Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window.

Heh. I love it when people use this word in relation to executives. "Talent". People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have talent. They helped build empires from practically nothing. Most of the other yahoos are just folks born into privilege who think they can do no wrong simply because of their upbringing.

I'd be willing to bet that a medium-sized company looking for new executives can get better results by looking farther down the company ladder than by hiring "talent" from outside.
 
2009-06-11 03:02:37 PM  
Supply and Demand? The ROI on the janitor at AIG was significantly better than what they got for the CEO.
 
2009-06-11 03:02:46 PM  
Moridion: Weaver95

Do I like the fact that an incompetent executive gets a much larger salary than me? No. I also do not like the fact that KKK can hold marches in towns. Just because I do not like something does not mean the government should step in an regulate. The right to enter into contracts is just as fundamental as our right to free speech.


but was it a fair contract? I certainly don't think so. That's what the government is saying - the system as it currently stands is inherently unfair to the consumer.

You are also forgetting one crucial point. The companies who allowed these executives to make outrageous salaries would have been punished by the free market and failed, except for the government stepping in and giving them our money. There was already a system in place to punish incompetence, it was just ignored.

Oh it wasn't ignored - the very people who destroyed those companies used their influence to get Congress to bail them out. Again - an unfair situation to the consumer (in this case the voters, but still).
 
2009-06-11 03:04:26 PM  
DeathByGeekSquad: 'Shiat kicking peasants' aren't in demand.

Highly-trained kineto-fecal reassignment specialists possessing equality-based genetics, however, might do okay for themselves.
 
2009-06-11 03:04:46 PM  
Moridion: OldGrover

I think the issue is that guidelines have a way of becoming law. Or the government will use the guidelines to punish companies that do not follow them. Which actually I do not have a huge problem with. Missing out on government contracts or whatever because you did not follow the government's guidelines is just a risk of doing business.


I think it is likely that companies that don't follow the guidelines will miss out on opportunities or may even be punished by shareholders, but that's fine.

Government advice (which is all guidelines are) is a perfectly valid (and capitalist) approach to the problem.
 
2009-06-11 03:06:23 PM  
rppp01a: Put taxes for the upper .5% back to Reagan era levels. You'll notice that higher taxes never prevented people in the 50s and 60s from achieving great wealth.

I have a theory that the old pre-Reagan tax levels actually discouraged looting the company. If you only kept 10% of your vast fortune it wasn't worth making as much so more was reinvested in the company. Of course I'm not an economist and could be wrong.
 
2009-06-11 03:06:37 PM  
slayer199: Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window. It's really up to the boards of public corporations to make this happen.


then what happens is you get companies like ENRON, who lie cheat and steal in order to inflate their stock price, then jump ship when the card house falls down.
 
2009-06-11 03:06:55 PM  
crazytrpr: If they gets tarp money, the government gets a say.

If they don;t get tarp money, it ain;t the government's business. Leave that shiat for the stockholders to figure out.


Ding ding ding! Don't want a limit on your pay? Take care of your shiat. If you are good at your job, you'll get paid accordingly. If you suck at your job, and you need the government to help you reverse course, you're lucky you don't get fired - take your pay cut and shut the fark up.
 
2009-06-11 03:10:25 PM  
netweavr: The system in place should have prevented the companies from getting so large as to necessitate a bailout. That was the failure.

which is a separate, yet linked issue - the executives knew that they could outright buy enough political influence to force regulatory agencies to back off and let them rework the corporate pay structure to benefit themselves at the expense of the consumer AND investor. And Congress allowed themselves to be corrupted by all that free money (all they had to do was sell out the voters). now the executives are arguing that there's nothing wrong with the system (which from their perspective is certainly true enough), and Congress is in full on obfuscation mode over who's more corrupt than the other guy.
 
2009-06-11 03:14:05 PM  
Weaver95: netweavr: The system in place should have prevented the companies from getting so large as to necessitate a bailout. That was the failure.

which is a separate, yet linked issue - the executives knew that they could outright buy enough political influence to force regulatory agencies to back off and let them rework the corporate pay structure to benefit themselves at the expense of the consumer AND investor. And Congress allowed themselves to be corrupted by all that free money (all they had to do was sell out the voters). now the executives are arguing that there's nothing wrong with the system (which from their perspective is certainly true enough), and Congress is in full on obfuscation mode over who's more corrupt than the other guy.


All of which depicts a situation where we cannot trust ourselves to follow the rules we've laid down.

Leading to the necessity of hard and fast rules which, though spartan and overbearing, are much more difficult to ignore and/or evade.
 
2009-06-11 03:14:11 PM  
Well, we wouldn't want those pesky shareholders having rights.
 
2009-06-11 03:16:55 PM  
Weaver95: Moridion: Weaver95

Do I like the fact that an incompetent executive gets a much larger salary than me? No. I also do not like the fact that KKK can hold marches in towns. Just because I do not like something does not mean the government should step in an regulate. The right to enter into contracts is just as fundamental as our right to free speech.

but was it a fair contract? I certainly don't think so. That's what the government is saying - the system as it currently stands is inherently unfair to the consumer.

You are also forgetting one crucial point. The companies who allowed these executives to make outrageous salaries would have been punished by the free market and failed, except for the government stepping in and giving them our money. There was already a system in place to punish incompetence, it was just ignored.

Oh it wasn't ignored - the very people who destroyed those companies used their influence to get Congress to bail them out. Again - an unfair situation to the consumer (in this case the voters, but still).


Hey, using all that money and power to buy influence in Congress is just Free Speech. Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?
 
2009-06-11 03:17:41 PM  
Moridion: Weaver95

Do I like the fact that an incompetent executive gets a much larger salary than me? No. I also do not like the fact that KKK can hold marches in towns. Just because I do not like something does not mean the government should step in an regulate. The right to enter into contracts is just as fundamental as our right to free speech.

You are also forgetting one crucial point. The companies who allowed these executives to make outrageous salaries would have been punished by the free market and failed, except for the government stepping in and giving them our money. There was already a system in place to punish incompetence, it was just ignored.


The problem is that this system, if allowed to function, would have resulted in global financial collapse.

It's like watching your kids playing with matches and saying, "Fine, let them make their own mistakes", and then the house catches on fire, and you say, "Let it burn down, that will teach those darn kids!"
 
2009-06-11 03:17:53 PM  
Weaver95: No, what they're saying is that if you take a big risk then you shouldn't be rewarded if it fails.

Is it still "a big risk" if I'm gambling with other peoples' money?
 
2009-06-11 03:19:55 PM  
Barricaded Gunman: Weaver95: No, what they're saying is that if you take a big risk then you shouldn't be rewarded if it fails.

Is it still "a big risk" if I'm gambling with other peoples' money?


so long as those people get to eat your liver if you lose their money, sure.
 
2009-06-11 03:22:45 PM  
Weaver95: so long as those people get to eat your liver if you lose their money, sure.

Hmm... I hadn't taken the Lector Gambit into account. Carry on.
 
2009-06-11 03:25:31 PM  
Tim Geithner = Wesley Mouch
 
2009-06-11 03:26:04 PM  
The government has NO business getting involved in what a private business does with their money. If they choose to let the CEO use a million dollars a day as toliet paper, the company will suffer at the end of the day. Even if said CEO crashes the company and leaves wealthier than when he joined, the individuals who allowed such actions to occur in the name of short-term gains will be taught a valuable lesson that will not occur if the government steps in to play Mommy in this nanny state.

Truly the middle of the end. Once our free market dies, there's nothing left to keep the values we hold dear in play.
 
2009-06-11 03:26:18 PM  
tortilla burger: slayer199: Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window.

Heh. I love it when people use this word in relation to executives. "Talent". People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have talent. They helped build empires from practically nothing. Most of the other yahoos are just folks born into privilege who think they can do no wrong simply because of their upbringing.



[Citation needed]

I'd be willing to bet that a medium-sized company looking for new executives can get better results by looking farther down the company ladder than by hiring "talent" from outside.

That depends entirely on what field the company is in and how similar their systems are to competitors.
 
2009-06-11 03:28:00 PM  
purple helmet: Tim Geithner = Wesley Mouch

not quite. It was Bush who started us down this road. I blame him - and ONLY him - for what's been happening to wall street.
 
2009-06-11 03:33:20 PM  
Weaver95: purple helmet: Tim Geithner = Wesley Mouch

not quite. It was Bush who started us down this road. I blame him - and ONLY him - for what's been happening to wall street.


How do you figure? The amount of reputable economists that have nothing but hatred for President Bush, but have never-the-less admitted that he came into power dealing with a recession created by Clinton, followed by the 9/11 attacks, is staggering and more reputable than arm chair Fark commanders spewing their bias against the right.

President Bush did a good job considering the circumstances; he nearly got us out of this mess until the Democrats sold out the public and allowed for this mess to happen as a means to grab power. We were on par to correct them until Obama took over the Whitehouse and qucikly put this economy into nose dive.

But hey, let your hatred of President Bush blind you.
 
2009-06-11 03:39:03 PM  
slayer199: Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window. It's really up to the boards of public corporations to make this happen.


That's nice in theory except Bob and Joe sit on Fred's board, who sits on Bob's and Joe's board and everyone's salaries are rubber-stamped because they take care of each other.

Call it Board Incest but it's really quite common if you read a bunch of annual reports.
 
2009-06-11 03:39:09 PM  
Was that sarcasm, weav? Lots of blame to go around on letting corporations get too large and make 'trickle down' go in complete and utter reverse.
 
2009-06-11 03:39:35 PM  
Nuup: Weaver95: purple helmet: Tim Geithner = Wesley Mouch

not quite. It was Bush who started us down this road. I blame him - and ONLY him - for what's been happening to wall street.

How do you figure? The amount of reputable economists that have nothing but hatred for President Bush, but have never-the-less admitted that he came into power dealing with a recession created by Clinton, followed by the 9/11 attacks, is staggering and more reputable than arm chair Fark commanders spewing their bias against the right.

President Bush did a good job considering the circumstances; he nearly got us out of this mess until the Democrats sold out the public and allowed for this mess to happen as a means to grab power. We were on par to correct them until Obama took over the Whitehouse and qucikly put this economy into nose dive.

But hey, let your hatred of President Bush blind you.


That's an... interesting take on the situation.
 
2009-06-11 03:39:37 PM  
crazytrpr: slayer199: Simple solution: Smaller base and pay more performance-based (as in stock) based on performance.

Then again, in a free market companies compete for talent so that goes out the window. It's really up to the boards of public corporations to make this happen.

Its been done, exec pay salaries are capped a 1 million by the tax code. They have been getting incentive pay, bonuses etc... for over 2 decades. Problem with incentive pay is that it is short term focused: one month, one quarter at bets one year horizons.


More specifically, it is not that executive compensation is capped by the tax code, but rather the deductibility of the salary expense. Thus, a corporation can still pay an executive a salary in excess of 1 million but the corporation will be unable to deduct the excess.

The treatment of the excess is a different question entirely and one I cannot answer.

Board members have a fiduciary duty to the corporation to act in the shareholders' best interests. If a CEO is paid 10 million cold, hard cash, that is 9 million of deduction the corporation loses which translates into 3,150,000 in additional federal corporate taxes. This is tax that could have been reinvested to grow the business or even distributed to the shareholders as dividends, if applicable.
 
2009-06-11 03:40:14 PM  
Nuup: President Bush did a good job considering the circumstances;.

No, he did a horrible job. he spent money like it grew on trees, started off 2 wars, and expanded a war on drugs that drinks down money faster than a beer swilling farker at an open bar. Then he gave tons of money (borrowed from china) to his wall street buddies with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Taxpayers are on the hook for that money, and we got nothing for it. Not a thing.

Ok, well - we started getting fired. but other than that, we didn't get anything,
 
2009-06-11 03:44:22 PM  
Weaver95: Nuup: President Bush did a good job considering the circumstances;.

No, he did a horrible job. he spent money like it grew on trees, started off 2 wars, and expanded a war on drugs that drinks down money faster than a beer swilling farker at an open bar. Then he gave tons of money (borrowed from china) to his wall street buddies with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Taxpayers are on the hook for that money, and we got nothing for it. Not a thing.

Ok, well - we started getting fired. but other than that, we didn't get anything,


Don't lie.

I got a tax rebate.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report