Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
One year after the global banking system collapsed the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) 16th Annual Executive Excess report -- "America's Bailout Barons" -- shows that the perverse system of executive compensation which contributed to the financial meltdown is still thriving for top bailout recipients.
President Obama had it right in April when he delivered his "economic Sermon on the Mount " and said, "We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock." And, as the IPS report notes, even earlier in the year Obama spoke out against excessive executive compensation, saying, "In order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust. And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street."
But the fact is we haven't learned -- or haven't acted on -- the lessons we must heed if we're going to build a more just, sustainable economy that works for the real economy rather than Wall Street. The IPS report focuses on the twenty banks that have received the most bailout money from the federal government and shows that the banks and bankers are still acting and being rewarded as if they are Masters of the universe -- abetted by a government that is failing to take on the status quo.
Sure, some steps have been taken to rein in compensation for TARP recipients -- but they are timid ones. And IPS's valuable report makes clear, "Lobbying armies from corporate and financial trade associations are energetically doing battle behind the scenes to keep even modest changes in pay rules off the legislative table."
As a result historic inequality in pay is still prevalent and the neo-Gilded Age tycoons are raking it in. According to the report, a generation ago top execs rarely earned more than thirty to forty times the pay of the average American worker. But now top execs make an average of 319 times more than the typical worker. For the top twenty financial industry execs the divide is even greater -- 436 times more than the average worker in 2008. In the past three years, the top five execs at the twenty US financial firms receiving the most Bailout Bucks took home pay packages worth a staggering $3.2 billion -- an average of $32 million each. In 2008 those cats averaged nearly $14 million each--even though their twenty firms laid off more than 160,000 people since January of that year.
While a new and smart economic populism has fueled plenty of talk about compensation reform, good proposals haven't been seized. Senators Bernie Sanders and Claire McCaskill tried to cap compensation for employees of bailed-out firms so that it wouldn't exceed that of the President of the US, $400,000. The amendment was passed but then stripped in conference committee. In April, Progressive Caucus member and Chief Deputy Whip Jan Schakowsky introduced the Patriot Corporations Act to extend tax breaks and contracting preferences to companies that meet certain benchmarks, including not compensating any executive at more than 100 times the income of the company's lowest-paid worker. That bill has been referred to committee. Hedge fund managers are still only paying 15 percent capital gains rate on the profit share they get for managing investment funds rather than the 35 percent income tax they should pay. And unlimited amounts of executive compensation are still shielded in deferred accounts--at an annual cost of $80.6 billion to taxpayers--in contrast to the limits placed on income deferred by normal taxpayers via 401(k) plans.
There is no shortage of opportunities to curb this unjust and unproductive growth in unequal pay. As IPS senior scholar and Nation contributor Chuck Collins put it, "Public officials in Congress and the White House hold the pin that could pop the executive pay bubble. They have so far failed to use it." It's time to use it.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Ayn Rand would not have any of this - for her and Clear Channel and neoconartists, these superheroes EARN these superbonuses through superstar smarts and courage and ingenuity, through getting up earlier, working harder, having superior intellect and abilities. To deny them their due is leftist socialist bitterness.
Not only did these superstars achieve stellar heights at stellar speeds, they did so not with the help of gubmint. They did so in spite of leftist big freedom-hating bureaucrat regulations.
Posted by winyahn at 09/02/2009 @ 3:37pm
Bailed-out bankers to get options windfall: study By Steve Eder Steve Eder Wed Sep 2, 7:16 am ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) – As shares of bailed-out banks bottomed out earlier this year, stock options were awarded to their top executives, setting them up for millions of dollars in profit as prices rebounded, according to a report released on Wednesday.
The top five executives at 10 financial institutions that took some of the biggest taxpayer bailouts have seen a combined increase in the value of their stock options of nearly $90 million, the report by the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies said.
"Not only are these executives not hurting very much from the crisis, but they might get big windfalls because of the surge in the value of some of their shares," said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the report, "America's Bailout Barons," the 16th in an annual series on executive excess.
The report -- which highlights executive compensation at such firms as Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N), Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N) -- comes at a time when Wall Street is facing criticism for failing to scale back outsized bonuses after borrowing billions from taxpayers amid last year's financial crisis. Goldman, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley have paid back the money they borrowed, but Bank of America and Citigroup are still in the U.S. Treasury's program.
Excerpt - Yahoo News
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 3:49pm
this is just the latest in Katrina's class warfare tirades.
While I don't personally believe that anyone NEEDS to earn the levels of compensation these people receive, capping their compensation WILL NOT create jobs or restore the economy. Executive compensation is such a small percentage of the expenses for a large corporation.
Capping their pay will not create more jobs. Demand for goods and services creates more job opportunities.
Capping their pay will not stimulate the economy.
I'm not writing this to support executive compensation or even corporations. I'm simply pointing out that Katrina's thread does nothing to help, it only further promotes class warfare.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 3:49pm
Bear in mind, OneVote, that a typical option grant has a 5 to 7-year vesting period. All of the stock option grants they earned over the last 4 to 6 years are practically worthless. A typical comp program will target about 15% of total compensation in options.
There income has a tremendous amount of volatility. It's that whole risk/reward thing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/02/2009 @ 4:01pm
KvH: ".... a generation ago top execs rarely earned more than thirty to forty times the pay of the average American worker. But now top execs make an average of 319 times more than the typical worker...."
And how much are Hollywood stars and Obama buddy Oprah now makes relative to the average customer?
Could Dr. J ever envision the day when a Lebron James sign 9-figure contracts at age 20 (or thereabout)? Ex-Presidents speaking for $500k, just speaking? Handbags that cost like a house? $300 to $500 million Lotteries? Billion dollar ambulance-chasing bounties?
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 4:03pm
Executive compensation is such a small percentage of the expenses for a large corporation.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Tell us what percentage executive compensation comprises of net operating loss (EBDIT), and you will begin to see the point more clearly.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 4:05pm
Oh, if these bank executives ever deserved "Big Bucks", it is precisely these times by outfoxing the Gubbers to backstop their liquidity problems! But then again, they knew where to put their money, ahead of the Elections and we now know, it paid off BIG.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 4:08pm
Tell us what percentage executive compensation comprises of net operating loss (EBDIT), and you will begin to see the point more clearly.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 4:05pm
Still an irrelevant argument. It will not create jobs or stimulate the economy.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 4:21pm
There income has a tremendous amount of volatility. It's that whole risk/reward thing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/02/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, knowing that I am going to get bailout money to prop up my balance sheet, and also that the gov't is going to allow me to return to funny accounting rules for valuation of my balance sheet assets and reserves, I grant options at distressed prices, or even heaven forbid backdated prices. Later, after the government has pulled the wool over everybody's eyes at taxpayer expense, my stock price recovers, and although it is an "artificial" price, it has a definite market value that I can (and will) cash in on.
For executives that have been with a corporation (not new hires) are there any limits on vesting of options? That is not my impression.
I would be very curious to see the accounting of worthless options left on the table by these CEOs prior to the crash. Do you have a cite with the stats? My guess is that alot of these options were exercised and sold prior to the crash in earnest.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 4:27pm
'Not only did these superstars achieve stellar heights at stellar speeds, they did so not with the help of gubmint. They did so in spite of leftist big freedom-hating bureaucrat regulations,' said "winyahn."
'Oh, if these bank executives ever deserved "Big Bucks", it is precisely these times by outfoxing the Gubbers to backstop their liquidity problems! But then again, they knew where to put their money, ahead of the Elections and we now know, it paid off BIG,' said "Happy."
One person's bitter sarcasm is another person's sincere ideology.
By the way, it doesn't take much financial brilliance for plutocrats to know where to "put their money." There are only two viable political parties. Give about 50% of your disposable surplus income to Democrats and 50% to Republicans, and you've got your bases covered.
As usual, here are the solutions to the problem of plutocracy, from the short-term to the long term:
(1) Enact strict campaign-finance reform, such that each individual can give only $10 per candidate. Supplement this with public campaign financing and free air time for multi-partisan debates.
(2) Regulate campaign ads (and all other ads) as follows: Each ad must display the number of people who have contributed money to it. Do not impose any other restriction.
(3) Demand voter-verifiable paper copies of all ballots.
(4) Implement instant-runoff voting in all elections, thereby increasing the accuracy of elections and the number of parties.
(5a) Abolish the filibuster.
(5b) Change the Senate so that its members represent populations, as the House of Representatives does.
(5c) Restrict the Senate's powers to special cases, or abolish it altogether.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 4:31pm
'While I don't personally believe that anyone NEEDS to earn the levels of compensation these people receive, capping their compensation WILL NOT create jobs or restore the economy. Executive compensation is such a small percentage of the expenses for a large corporation.
Capping their pay will not create more jobs. Demand for goods and services creates more job opportunities.
Capping their pay will not stimulate the economy.
I'm not writing this to support executive compensation or even corporations. I'm simply pointing out that Katrina's thread does nothing to help, it only further promotes class warfare.'
Actually, "antisocialist," I can agree with everything you wrote except for your last sentence. Capping salaries is silly. We need to re-regulate the banks and restore progressivity to the tax system.
As for "class warfare," Al Franken, now the junior Senator of my fair state, had the best rejoinder to that lame accusation (from his classic LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM):
'In her book A DISTANT MIRROR: THE CALAMITOUS FOURTEENTH CENTURY, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her dead husband and then killed her.
That is class warfare.
Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.'
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 4:48pm
The wealth inequality has gone too far. At this point, the entirety of the American middle class has been subject to class warfare from a rapacious plutocracy for decades. Some would even argue that what we call "middle class" is at this point a tenuous illusion maintained by unsustainable levels of household debt, a currency imbalance with China, and the corporate exploitation of workers in impoverished countries. The entire middle class is being prevented from having secure, paid access to health care by a plutocracy that doesn't want to face a tax picture that it would face in the rest of the civilized world. They'd rather buy their new second 400+ long yachts, enhance their art and wine collections, and buy lavish new properties in foreign locations. The scumbag rich are so craven that, even faced with a tax picture that is the envy of the rich in all other civilized nations, they still pay high-end lawyers to find ways they can evade the taxes they still owe. Enough is enough.
Posted by syfriendly at 09/02/2009 @ 4:51pm
...Give about 50% of your disposable surplus income to Democrats and 50% to Republicans, and you've got your bases covered.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 4:31pm
You know this was NOT TRUE for the last election. WS traditionally favored the GOP but this past campaign, swung heavily to the Dems....
While WS in general, have more sheeps than herders, the elites among them, the Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and such, have powerful manipulators....the smart money set....they went to the Dem side this past election for reasons that are now, at least, fairly clear to me....enough smoking guns for me!
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 4:52pm
And as for the bankers? To hell with them. They nearly collapsed the global economy, they were so unrestrained, unregulated, and driven by short-sighted greed. There is now a hell of a lot of economic misery both inside and outside of the US as a result of American bankers. Furthermore, they were basically treated without question to the hard-gained national wealth we needed for years and years to come. They then proceeded to buy granite toilet seats and treat themselves to gazillion dollar bonuses for laying people off and driving their banks to bankruptcy.
And the money that they were lent via the Fed at effectively zero interest? Well, they basically just used it for more speculation, or to buy US bonds at 3%+ interest rate, forcing the USG to pay tens of billions of dollars to the banks for the privilege of getting back the money the USG lent in the first place.
Bankers are the ultimate scum on Earth.
Posted by syfriendly at 09/02/2009 @ 4:58pm
From the IPS report: Layoff Leaders: Since January 1, 2008, the top 20 financial industry recipients of bailout aid have together laid off more than 160,000 employees. In 2008, the 20 CEOs at these firms each averaged $13.8 million, for a collective total of over a quarter-billion dollars in compensation.
I suspect that capping executive pay will not create more jobs, but might likely have saved a few. It's hard to see execs continue to get significant compensation when wage workers--often the low-level non-professional staff --get laid off, losing their health and other insurance, as well as economic security in a market where there are few work opportunities.
Really, before arguing about the review essay, it's worth reading the IPS report.
Posted by moonmarked at 09/02/2009 @ 4:59pm
No surprise, it seems that there is some discrepancy between what KVH reports and what the records reveal.
<Stock and option awards remain huge pieces of C.E.O. pay. But their values are based on the dates when they were granted, so there is no guarantee that executives will actually realize these amounts; in many cases, the values have declined with the market.
Citigroup, of course, was one of the most closely watched and most deeply troubled companies last year. Its stock price plunged amid concerns among investors and the public about its viability, which led the federal government to give it bailout money. Amid those woes, Mr. Pandit earned a base salary of $958,333 and no bonus. But his stock awards were valued at $28.8 million and his option awards at $8.4 million. (A large chunk of his equity awards were incentives from his appointment as C.E.O.)
Not surprisingly, the largest declines in executive pay in 2008 came in financial services, which in past years produced some of the highest-paid executives. Total pay last year in the sector nose-dived 40.1 percent.
For example, John J. Mack, who took the helm of Morgan Stanley in 2005 and started an aggressive move into high-growth but risky areas like mortgages and leveraged loans, last year saw his pay fall 97 percent. He received $800,000 in base salary, no bonus, $435,097 in perks and no stock or option awards.
Kenneth D. Lewis of Bank of America last year received a base salary of $1.5 million, but no bonus. He also got $275,125 worth of perks and stock and option awards that brought his total pay package to more than $9 million, down 56 percent from 2007.>
http://tinyurl.com/kpb6q3
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 5:19pm
great, the loony-right kook is going to copy-paste spam the thread now
Posted by syfriendly at 09/02/2009 @ 5:26pm
After reading this article and the post's I think it may be time to set up the Guillotine's
Posted by artistcain at 09/02/2009 @ 5:28pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/02/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Option abuse has three major adverse impacts:
Oversized rewards given by servile boards to ineffective executives - During the boom times, option awards grew excessively, more so for C-level (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) executives. After the bubble burst, employees, seduced by the promise of option package riches, found that they had been working for nothing as their companies folded. Members of boards of directors incestuously granted each other huge option packages that did not prevent flipping, and in many cases, they allowed executives to exercise and sell stock with less restrictions than those placed upon lower-level employees. If option awards really aligned the interests of management to those of the common shareholder, why did the common shareholder lose millions while the CEOs pocketed millions?
Repricing options rewards underperformers at the expense of the common shareholder - There is a growing practice of re-pricing options that are out of the money (also known as "underwater") in order to keep employees (mostly CEOs) from leaving. But should the awards be re-priced? A low stock price indicates the management has failed. Repricing is just another way of saying "bygones", which is rather unfair to the common shareholder, who bought and held their investment. Who will reprice the shareholders' shares?
Increases in dilution risk as more and more options are issued - The excessive use of options has resulted in increased dilution risk for non-employee shareholders.
PS: I checked a source that indicated that the typical "employee" option vesting period is 2 to 4 years. These rules of thumb hardly apply to officers, who get grants out of any "program."
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 5:42pm
Still an irrelevant argument. It will not create jobs or stimulate the economy.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 4:21pm
Really? How many bank tellers could be employed based on average CEO compensation? I am doing alot of waiting in line lately.
Could interest rate spreads be lowered if CEO pay didn't need to be supported by interest rate spread. Lower interest rates are stimulative, ask the government. Problem is all those that government subsidy of lower interest rates is going to increase the interest rate spread for banks rather than proportionately lowering the cost of borrowing for consumers loans and mortgages.
What about bank fees? What about credit card rates?
What about home prices? Higher the interest rate, lower the values. Why haven't bank's cost of funds translated into lower mortgage rates for consumers?
How many homes could be salvaged from foreclosure based on average CEO pay?
-Year CMT, 3-Month LIBOR
Time Period: September, 2008 - September, 2009
Date 1-Year CMT 3-Month LIBOR - far right column
Sep 2008 1.91 3.0652 Oct 2008 1.42 4.1032 Nov 2008 1.07 2.3195 Dec 2008 0.49 1.8489 Jan 2009 0.44 1.2223 Feb 2009 0.62 1.2386 Mar 2009 0.64 1.2700 Apr 2009 0.55 1.1165 May 2009 0.50 0.8426 Jun 2009 0.51 0.6235 Jul 2009 0.48 0.5178
versus
1-Year CMT, Natl Avg Contract Mtg Rate
Time Period: September, 2008 - September, 2009
Date 1-Year CMT Avg Contract Mortgage Rate - far right column
Sep 2008 1.91 6.17 Oct 2008 1.42 6.16 Nov 2008 1.07 6.18 Dec 2008 0.49 5.51 Jan 2009 0.44 5.12 Feb 2009 0.62 5.04 Mar 2009 0.64 5.06 Apr 2009 0.55 4.88 May 2009 0.50 4.88 Jun 2009 0.51 5.09 Jul 2009 0.48 -
You have got be joking.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
September 2008 - 3 month Libor at 3.0652%
July 2009 - 3 month Libor at 0.5178%
83% decrease in Libor rate.
September 2008 - Average Mtg. Rate 6.17%
June 2009 - Average Mtg. Rate 5.09%
17.50% decrease in average mortgage rate.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 6:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
You are creating a hypothetical that isn't a reality.
Companies don't hire simply because they have more budget available. You still have to justify the hiring. And if you don't have greater demand, there is simply no reason to hire. It is not the responsibility of Business to create jobs. Jobs are created when the demand requires it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 6:48pm
Companies don't hire simply because they have more budget available. You still have to justify the hiring. And if you don't have greater demand, there is simply no reason to hire. It is not the responsibility of Business to create jobs. Jobs are created when the demand requires it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 6:48pm
How about provision of better service to customers as a goal to increase demand versus paying a lard assessed CEO to run a bank into the ground while under cover of FDIC insurance?
Your assertion is more hypothetical than mine - to wit:
There is no relation between CEO pay and a company's budget for employees. That is pretty far-fetched Larry.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 7:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There are misunderstandings about the express purpose of a corporation's existence, and that is to serve the public good. NOT as some would believe to be a shield against accountability for a tiny number of people who think that they have the right to rule over the economy. The corporate system has developed into a class mobility blockade. A lot of that is fueled by the culture generated by the small number of people wielding more power that they were supposed to obtain by being part of an American corporation. Class mobility has defined our economy since the creation of the U.S. It made this a great nation, revered and respected, dreamed of and longed after by people around the world.
Whether or not decreasing top executive pay to say, 4 times what the lowest paid worker in the company makes (some countries laws are this strict) would directly create jobs is in fact irrelevant, antisocialist. What is relevant is that the corporate system relies heavily on the protection of the government to exist, and at the same time those corporations are being exploited to generate a permanent ruling class. That would-be permanent ruling class in the antitheses of everything American. We cast off class rule over 200 years ago to create a more perfect union. I don't think there is anything wrong with getting rich, everyone who works hard and makes smart decisions should have that chance. However, you full well know that people become corrupted by the prospect of wealth, and that's fine for them, as long as they don't use a corporate charter that gives them special protections from the government to support their greed. And that is where we have arrived, it is damaging our entire way of life.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/02/2009 @ 8:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Put down your AR-15! Medicare *is* a government program!
Posted by syfriendly at 09/02/2009 @ 9:24pm
Wow these boys all look like a type cast for a movie about the mafia. ROULETTE ANYONE?
Posted by julien38 at 09/02/2009 @ 9:29pm
President Obama had it right in April when he delivered his "economic Sermon on the Mount "
•• and then he hired summers.
and said, "We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."
•• and then he hired geithner.
And, as the IPS report notes, even earlier in the year Obama spoke out against excessive executive compensation, saying,
•• and then he sidelined volcker.
"In order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust.
•• and then he rehired bernanke.
And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street."
•• and then he shovelled a whole bunch of power the fed's way.
OBAMAGARCHS UNITE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:28pm
'...Give about 50% of your disposable surplus income to Democrats and 50% to Republicans, and you've got your bases covered.'
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 4:31pm
You know this was NOT TRUE for the last election. WS traditionally favored the GOP but this past campaign, swung heavily to the Dems....'
It is probably never true in ANY election that the plutocrats divide their money fifty-fifty between Democrats and Republicans. During the early years of George W. Bush's prodigal reign, I'm sure they gave more of their money to Republicans than to Democrats, because they were more likely to win. When Democrats are more likely to win, as in 2008, they give more money to Democrats. But it all averages out over time.
And even if it doesn't balance out exactly, my main point - which I notice you haven't touched upon - is that it's easy to cover all your bases as a plutocrat, because there are only two. Since there are only two viable political parties, a plutocrat never has to shop around much to purchase a winner. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that the plutocracy always wins. Our primitive electoral system makes it easy for them.
What our electoral system SHOULD do is make it easier to VOTE FOR a winning politician than it is to BUY one. The electoral reforms I have proposed above should accomplish this.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 10:28pm
What hogwash KVH's thread represents;
The Magic Messiah of the left the Obamanation that makes desolation and his denizens of the left are such a greedy materialistic bunch!
The lust for anything they have not, and the covet "other peoples" money and possessions which is almost humorous; pathetic as it is.
Laughably they talk of "income redistribution" like good socialist and marxist. However, all they really desire is the real "power trip" wealth and control of it by their elitist leaders could bring them. True hypocrits one and all!
Such jealousy and covert lieing about it is truely inspired by their god of this world they ignorantly serve. Cain is their brother and they would willing murder others if needed for their own gain.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/02/2009 @ 10:30pm
ms. vanhalen noodle:
this is just a distraction.
look at THESE numbers, madame taxpayer:
http://blogs.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/red-hot-energy-and- gold/files/2009/07/tarp24trillion.gif
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:31pm
Thank G-d we are not listening to R-verend Happy's (the Bradgelina of Neocons) beloved Palin as V.P. as they so hoped. I'm sure she understands derivative swaps
Posted by winyahn at 09/02/2009 @ 10:33pm
The electoral reforms I have proposed above should accomplish this.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 10:28pm
i didn't know you worked at goldman sachs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:33pm
Thank G-d we are not listening to R-verend Happy's (the Bradgelina of Neocons) beloved Palin as V.P. as they so hoped. I'm sure she understands derivative swaps
Posted by winyahn at 09/02/2009 @ 10:33pm
does anyone?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:34pm
Thank G-d we are not listening to R-verend Happy's (the Bradgelina of Neocons) beloved Palin as V.P. as they so hoped. I'm sure she understands derivative swaps
Posted by winyahn at 09/02/2009 @ 10:33pm
maybe not, but secretary gramm sure would(ish).
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:35pm
rant on, brother!
http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2009/ 08/31/forbes-polls-the-wackosphere-and-gets-an-earful/
"Right now, thanks to the Fed, the dealer community, particularly the Fed's Primary Dealers who dominate not only the Treasury market but the stock market as well, are rolling in oceans of cash, pumped directly to them by the Fed. They are using most of it to pay down debt by selling much of their questionable assets to the Fed, particularly mortgage debt and corporate debt, but they are using some of it to manipulate stocks higher. They do that because, one, it's easy for them to do it, and two, because it's much easier to get the suckers, oops, I mean the buy side institutions, to take the other side of the trade when prices are rising.
So as long as the Fed pumps this cash to them, stock prices will go up. It has nothing to do with the economy. It has nothing to do with discounting the future. The idea that stock prices discount the future is ridiculous. Stock markets are comprised of people, or at least the people who wrote the computer programs that do most of the millisecond trading that dominates price action. People, by and large, are not very good at predicting the future. That's especially true of economists, pundits, and most of all, portfolio managers, whose only real interest is in not doing anything different than what the majority of portfolio managers are doing. How in the world can a portfolio manager properly manage money when one of the mandates of the industry is to stay fully invested. The best they can hope for is to do better than their peers. They can do nothing to protect your assets in the event of systemic collapse, such as we are now facing."
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:42pm
USA Conservatives are NOT conservative with their or other people's money. They are Free Market Libertarians, and that is why they fail every time they get to their "Ayn Rand" fruition state of being "totalitarian trauma reactionaries" as she was.
USA Liberals are much more cautious with many financial and societal issues from Banks, to Business and Healthcare.
That is why the current Republican brand of Conservatism is DEAD ON ARRIVAL. They haven't learned the fact that you can't exploit your constituents/customers and stay in business for very long.
David J.Lynch said it in a USA Today article titled: U.S. regulators could learn from Canada's banks. (www.usatoday.com/money/world/2009-07-01-canada-bank-regulation_N.htm)
"Along with a consolidated regulatory system, Canada also boasts a more conservative executive-suite culture. Canadian bankers act less like Wall Street's masters of the universe and more like sedate, green-eyeshade types. Regulators aren't the enemy; they're an early-warning system that signals financial problems before they blossom into catastrophe.
In the U.S., some blame the financial debacle on the 1999 repeal of a Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from owning investment banks. But Canada notably allowed such mergers for more than a decade without incident before the U.S. scrapped its Glass-Steagall law. Conservative management made the difference."
Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/02/2009 @ 10:48pm
From "The Age of Turbulence" by Alan Greenspan...
"Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, shareholders, in many instances controlling shareholders, actively participated in governing U.S. corporations. They appointed the board of directors, who in tun hired the CEO and other officers and, in general, controlled the strategies of the company. Corporate governance had the trappings of democratic representative government. But ownership diffused over the following generations, and the management and entrepreneurial skills of company founders were not always inherited by their offspring. As financial institutions evolved over the twentieth century, shareholding became a matter of investment, not active ownership. If a shareholder did not like the way a company was managed, he sold his stock. Only rarely was the management of reasonably profitable corporations challenged. Imperceptibly corporate governance moved from shareholder control to control by the CEO. Aside from the outspoken concern of a few academics, the change occurred quietly and largely by default.
As shareholders became ever less engaged, the CEOs began to recommend slates of directors to shareholders, who were soon rubber-stamping them. Periodically this paradigm went astray when a company or its management got into trouble. But such episodes were relatively rare. Democratic corporate governance had morphed into a type of authoritarianism. The CEO would enter the boardroom, explain the corporation's new capital investment program, and turn to his chief financial officer for corroboration. Then, without meaningful deliberation, the board would approve the project. The CEO of a profitable corporation today is given vast powers by the board of directors he essentially appoints."
Posted by ttr at 09/03/2009 @ 12:47am
Why haven't bank's cost of funds translated into lower mortgage rates for consumers?
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 6:27pm
The interest rate paid is the sum of two things: The risk free rate plus a provision for credit default (sometimes called credit spreads).
Risk free rates are down but credit spreads are through the roof, especially on homes. The risk of default on a home is related to the loan to value ratio. If the loan is 90,000 and the home is valued at 100,000 the LTV is 90%. clearly if the loan was 50,000 the LTV would be 50% and the would carry a much, much smaller risk that the bank would lose money if the loan defaulted. LTVs are up, which is one of the reason credit spreads are up.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/03/2009 @ 06:08am
Think about it. These 5 top fat cats combined contributed $28,600 to the Social Security fund. That's 7.65% on the 1st $106,800 by both employer and employee. If they had been required to pay FICA taxes on the their total salaries, they would have paid $489,600,000 into the SS trust fund. Get rid of this ceiling.
Posted by drogers803 at 09/03/2009 @ 06:10am
The solution to out of this world executive pay is through the stockholders and Proxy Ballot box..... Taken from Joe Keefe's article: "Shareholder Access to the Proxy Ballot The United States is one of the only developed countries that prevent shareowners from placing director nominees on the proxy ballot of publicly held companies. In fact, the election of directors to corporate boards somewhat resembles the "elections" that were once held in the Soviet Union: in Soviet elections there was only one candidate for each office, backed by the party; in U.S. corporate director elections there is only one candidate for each board seat, backed by company management. Shareowners can't even vote "no" - they can only withhold their vote. If shareowners wish to nominate their own directors, they must undertake the costly, burdensome process of a separate proxy solicitation -- so costly and burdensome, in fact, that it is almost never done. This process is undemocratic and is quite an anomaly, as directors are supposed to represent the shareholders, not management. " Corporations are special entities give rights by the government, let's make some of those privileges answerable to the people.
Posted by Ted_Brudzinski at 09/03/2009 @ 06:38am
#Think about it. These 5 top fat cats combined contributed $28,600 to the Social Security fund. That's 7.65% on the 1st $106,800 by both employer and employee. If they had been required to pay FICA taxes on the their total salaries, they would have paid $489,600,000 into the SS trust fund. Get rid of this ceiling.
Posted by drogers803 at 09/03/2009 @ 06:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
It's worth looking into, the thing to wiegh it against is that they will immediately start screaming bloody murder for a flat tax, which harms the poor, and it would be hard to argue against. If the net effect was a higher tax base which delivered much better social services then I would support it.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/03/2009 @ 07:03am
A typical comp program will target about 15% of total compensation in options. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/02/2009 @ 4:01pm |
In the world of the Big 5, it's more like 80% options (or granted shares) with a token $2-4M salary for golden toilets or whatnot. They also don't have the long vesting rules (which I believe are key to avoiding moral hazard)...more like 1-2 years tops.
I would not care one iota if Blankfein made $200M in a year....as long as his janitor can pull down $700k and he pays 35% on $199M of it.
I also recommend a surtax on salaries and other compensation above some limit, if a company has a top to bottom earner ratio above 250X (or a tax credit for keeping below 100X).
The taxing of hedge manager's compensation for fund management as cap gains IS a moral hazard.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 07:22am
Anybody surprised our right-wing friends will talk out of both sides of their mouths?
They'll attack the bailouts and blame them on Obama (ignoring who started it)....
but if anybody attacks the guys GETTING the bailouts....they defend them!
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 07:32am
To Droop and Santi-If you two are so gung ho for these deserving pillars of industry who have the connections to be the biggest "Pigs at the Trough". I think there would an acceptance to let common Americans to have affordable health care. Perhaps that would be wrong though because these same people should be able to play all off the advantages they have for personal gain. I want to know where all the derivatives went and who is going to pay for them. This is the question to be asked. I know Droopy thinks the bankers gamed everybody and he is clapping. I want someone to explain to me and the American public the David Copperfield process that has allowed the so called "TOXIC ASSETS" to be allowed to disappear. This has led to record bank profits in a tottering economy. It has brought back a stock market that increasingly has been more speculative. You two guys are talking about "class" warfare. Well it has been in practice for a long time, it is now the time to scale it back. That is why you two are worried. You are just looking out for #1.
Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 08:09am
Risk free rates are down but credit spreads are through the roof, especially on homes. The risk of default on a home is related to the loan to value ratio. If the loan is 90,000 and the home is valued at 100,000 the LTV is 90%. clearly if the loan was 50,000 the LTV would be 50% and the would carry a much, much smaller risk that the bank would lose money if the loan defaulted. LTVs are up, which is one of the reason credit spreads are up.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/03/2009 @ 06:08am
Banks aren't loosening their purse strings at all. In fact, it looks like they've decided to put their pocket books away for the foreseeable future.
The Fed's quarterly report on bank lending standards was released today and it confirms what just about everyone knows, the banks are getting stingier. Here are some details from MarketWatch:
Banks were still clamping down on lending to businesses and consumers over the past three months, and they said they planned to keep their credit standards tight for at least a year, the Federal Reserve reported Monday.
In its quarterly survey of banks' senior loan officers, the Fed said lending standards got even tighter for almost every type of loan, from prime residential mortgages to commercial and industrial loans. The survey covered May, June and July.
Banks have been tightening their standards for various types of loans for more than two years. For residential mortgages, banks have tightened their standards for 11 straight quarters by increasing requirements for down payments, interest-rate spreads, or credit scores.
In the most recent survey, no banks reported easing their terms for residential real estate loans, commercial real estate loans, or consumer credit cards....
Seeking Alpha
Huh Darin???
Posted by OneVote at 09/03/2009 @ 08:39am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2009 @ 10:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BRILLIANT! well done.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:25am
but if anybody attacks the guys GETTING the bailouts....they defend them!
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 07:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
--like you with your "what will we do with all the auto workers in detroit?" line you repeated ad nauseum?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:32am
There income has a tremendous amount of volatility. It's that whole risk/reward thing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/02/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Durwood, Exactly what have these assholes risked? Last I checked, we were the ones losing money because the effed up, and we are the ones bailing them out because THEY effed up and now THEY are getting their huge bonuses? Even a fool should be able to see something wrong with this picture.....just not neocon fools because they'll believe whatever the corporate chieftains tell them to believe.
If the pay and risk were balanced, these jerks would be lined up in front of a firing squad for their complete inept stupidity with other peoples' money. Hey, they get rewarded greatly for a job well done, they should be rewarded greatly for a job poorly done. You see, these guys will accept responsibility only if the outcome is good, if the outcome is bad, it's someone else's fault, not theirs....the proverbial shit rolls downhill right Durwood?!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 09:34am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:32am
Gee, urmy...ya got me...
a concerned defense of auto workers is EXACTLY the same as a concerned defense of multi-millionaire CEOs.
Well played!
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:32am
Gee, urmy...ya got me...
a concerned defense of auto workers is EXACTLY the same as a concerned defense of multi-millionaire CEOs.
Well played!
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 09:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
--the money's given from the same source
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:39am
--why wasn't congress concerned with limiting executive compensation when giving bank bailouts?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:54am
This is how things work in our fledgling fascist country. Take from the citizens to give to the corporations. Mussolini would be so happy.
Posted by Citizen54 at 09/03/2009 @ 10:03am
Executive compensation is such a small percentage of the expenses for a large corporation.
I'm simply pointing out that Katrina's thread does nothing to help, it only further promotes class warfare.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Let just take United Health Group profits from 2006. Stephen Hemsley replaced William McGuire as CEO in 2006. McGuire's "Golden Parachute" was around $1.1 Billion. And Stephen Hemsley was hired for $128 Million a year and stock options that totaled about $750 million. If you add these two compensation packages together for 2006 thats about $1.8 Billion.
Gross Profits for United Healthcare Group in 2006 were about $17 Billion. Net profits were about $4.0 Billion. Total executive compensation for just these two executives is about 11% of Gross Profits or about 47% of Net profits.
I would not call these figures a "small" percentage of expenses.
That means that about 19,000 people had to die that year, from being denied treatment, in order to pay the salary of two social psychopaths.
And as far as Katrina's thread promoting class warfare, good on her. We need to be in the streets combating a class of evil psychopathic greedy monsters who care nothing for the welfare of anyone else other than themselves.
And to combat the self serving minions that support them in these forums.
Power to the People!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:04am
And as far as Katrina's thread promoting class warfare, good on her. We need to be in the streets combating a class of evil psychopathic greedy monsters who care nothing for the welfare of anyone else other than themselves.
And to combat the self serving minions that support them in these forums.
Power to the People!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
--start with the White House.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 10:12am
to use Mask's favorite line, those (democrats/liberals) complaining about executive compensation in companies that received bailouts...
you're politically irrelevant. even your own party did nothing to stop it...
next.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 10:16am
So... what is it that these guys produce... exactly...?
Where is the indisputable 'gain' to society... where is the 'better widget'... to whom is the 'trickle down' descending...?
I would be much appeased if these 'masters' were making the daily lives of Americans... qualitatively better... bringing a greater share of the world's production to our hallowed shores of freedom...
But they do not.
The flight of capital... and labor... has made a mockery of the common man's freedoms... only to line the pockets of those individuals more 'crafty' at lining their pockets with the governmentally sanctioned protections and endowments accorded to corporations never originally intended...
The basis for capitalistic self interest... must not bear any resemblance to collusion, graft, and corruption... and the government's purpose is not to protect corporations from the will and well being of the American people...
It is time to start cultivation America's prosperity from the bottom up... and prove to ourselves and the world... that prosperity is not betrothed to betrayal of the public... or indeed... the very public trust that this country was founded upon.
Posted by ttr at 09/03/2009 @ 10:22am
And as far as the failed CEO's who ran their companies into the ground and were rewarded with bailouts of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. They should have been tarred and feathered, not rewarded for their greed and incompetence.
How many generations of hard working decent people working in serfdom for these assholes will it take to pay all that back? How many of our children will live in poverty and economic hardship so that a few elitists can live like Kings?
This crap has got to stop. And if the "people" would get off their lazy ass and revolt, we may be able to save the generations to follow from slavery, misery and degradation.
But go ahead and get the latest cellphone where you will spend frustrating hours with bad connections, dropped calls and constantly asking, "Are You There"? Or buy that new big screen HD TV that freezes up on you and costs you over $100 dollars a month just to use. Or spend hours on Twitter telling people things like "I feel like a Nap!" or "BRB, Gotta Pee!".
We are in serious trouble here..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:25am
And as far as Katrina's thread promoting class warfare, good on her. We need to be in the streets combating a class of evil psychopathic greedy monsters who care nothing for the welfare of anyone else other than themselves.
And to combat the self serving minions that support them in these forums.
Power to the People!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:04am
Indeed! What amazes me is how naive some of the right wing posters here are. Liver is going on about how the CEO compensation is a but a drop in the bucket?! What planet has he been living on.
I've worked for several companies that had become over-managed meaning that the company was losing money. The morons running the company couldn't figure out why so they hired a consulting firm to come in and figure out what the problem was. As an engineer in the firm, I could see the problem as easy as day. The problem was a bunch of middle managers to senior managers making waaay more than they should while producing nothing towards the bottom line.
Anyway, back to the story, between the consulting firm and the managers, they put their heads together into a little rock pile and decided to "streamline" the company which means lay-off the dead wood. The dead wood in this case was assembly line workers, technicians and even janitorial folks. Did one manager get the ax? Hell no. So, less people were working which in turn meant less products being manufactured which in turn means less profit.
You don't need a business degree to figure this out folks, common sense works just fine. Unfortunately, the folks at the top of the food chain certainly won't cut the biggest problem out of the equation because they would have to fire themselves and a good portion of the management brothers in arms.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 10:34am
LTVs are up, which is one of the reason credit spreads are up.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/03/2009 @ 06:08am
Loan to value ratios on NEW loans are down....lucky to get 80% on appraised value. So, your credit spread theory applies to a bank's attempt to shift credit risk onto new loans because of bad loans in their portfolio - not really the fault of the current borrower is it.
Posted by OneVote at 09/03/2009 @ 10:49am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:39am
Again...equivalency in who receives it???
BTW, urmy, I supported the bail-outs but agree that Congress should have imposed limits on the exec compensation....we needed to return confidence to the financial sector, but it's our money these guys are getting. Dems and Dubya and Obama dropped the ball.
Any chance you'll want to offer YOUR opinion on this matter?
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 10:52am
It is time to start cultivation America's prosperity from the bottom up... Posted by ttr at 09/03/2009 @ 10:22am
Wow! Someone who get's it!
And when you ask, "So... what is it that these guys produce... exactly...?"
Absolutely nothing, but misery. It has been proven over and over that employee's run a company much better. Especially if they have a stake in the company as part owners or real participants in management.
A good early example of this philosophy is the "Lincoln Electrode Company". Check it's company history. James F. Lincoln and his 1961 book "A New Approach to Industrial Economics" were groundbreaking. Ayn Rand would have hissed with disaproval!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:53am
But go ahead and get the latest cellphone where you will spend frustrating hours with bad connections, dropped calls and constantly asking, "Are You There"? Or buy that new big screen HD TV that freezes up on you and costs you over $100 dollars a month just to use. Or spend hours on Twitter telling people things like "I feel like a Nap!" or "BRB, Gotta Pee!".
We are in serious trouble here..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
--or spend hours and hours on the interweb every day...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 10:57am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:39am
Again...equivalency in who receives it???
BTW, urmy, I supported the bail-outs but agree that Congress should have imposed limits on the exec compensation....we needed to return confidence to the financial sector, but it's our money these guys are getting. Dems and Dubya and Obama dropped the ball.
Any chance you'll want to offer YOUR opinion on this matter?
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 10:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
--the people who bailed out the people you wanted to be saved didn't bother to make sure the people in charge of the people you wanted saved wouldn't get rich off of bailouts...so...again...you're complaint makes your politically irrelevant...
next.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 10:58am
It is time to start cultivation America's prosperity from the bottom up... Posted by ttr at 09/03/2009 @ 10:22am
Wow! Someone who get's it!
And when you ask, "So... what is it that these guys produce... exactly...?"
Absolutely nothing, but misery. It has been proven over and over that employee's run a company much better. Especially if they have a stake in the company as part owners or real participants in management.
A good early example of this philosophy is the "Lincoln Electrode Company". Check it's company history. James F. Lincoln and his 1961 book "A New Approach to Industrial Economics" were groundbreaking. Ayn Rand would have hissed with disaproval!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
--maybe you can get your employer, the u.s. post office, to give you a stake...oh, wait, you're working for the gov't but telling the private sector how to operate...shocking!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:01am
Unfortunately, the folks at the top of the food chain certainly won't cut the biggest problem out of the equation because they would have to fire themselves and a good portion of the management brothers in arms.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 10:34am
Good post. You explained it in the simple terms that anyone who has ever worked in production knows. Management is dead weight and contributes little or nothing to the bottom line. In fact they are leeches on the bottom line.
A companies greatest contributors to success are the employee's. They see the problems firsthand, but nobody hardly ever asks them. Management asking a "lowly" production line worker anything? That would be admitting management doesn't have a clue. That would never do!
Management produces nothing, but takes the largest slice of the pie as far as wages.
They must somehow justify their salaries, and usually blame workers for the problems.
There are much better models to sucessfully manage a company.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:10am
There are much better models to sucessfully manage a company.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
--like the post office?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:12am
--the money's given from the same source
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:39am
the thinnest of air!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2009 @ 11:15am
--the money's given from the same source
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 09:39am
the thinnest of air!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2009 @ 11:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
--rarefied indeed...but barack's a liberal hero for The Nation I thought?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:16am
--maybe you can get your employer, the u.s. post office, to give you a stake...oh, wait, you're working for the gov't but telling the private sector how to operate...shocking!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:01am
As I have posted over and over. I am not a government employee. Although I wouldn't mind working directly for the USPS. They do a fantastic job. Just like Medicare and the Veterans Administration.
But as it happens I work in the private sector for a subcontractor for the USPS. I have stated this many times. And they suck. They treat their employee's like property and try and screw us every chance they get. That's why we need a Union. And that's why I'm proud to be a member of the APWU Local 44.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:21am
--maybe you can get your employer, the u.s. post office, to give you a stake...oh, wait, you're working for the gov't but telling the private sector how to operate...shocking!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:01am
As I have posted over and over. I am not a government employee. Although I wouldn't mind working directly for the USPS. They do a fantastic job. Just like Medicare and the Veterans Administration.
But as it happens I work in the private sector for a subcontractor for the USPS. I have stated this many times. And they suck. They treat their employee's like property and try and screw us every chance they get. That's why we need a Union. And that's why I'm proud to be a member of the APWU Local 44.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
--my bad, your postal posts gave me the wrong impression.
--why not start your own company and have it run the "right" way? be a shining example!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:23am
Any chance you'll want to offer YOUR opinion on this matter?
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 10:52am
Mask, Urmy doesn't have any real opinions on anything. "It" just attacks anyone who does, with the lame strategy of disagreeing with or taking cheap shots at anyone who does.
Kind of like a rabid dog who strikes out at anything that moves. "It" would fit in well with the rest of the rabid dogs who are lately appearing at town hall meetings.
Sadly, it is generally considered that nothing can be done with Rabid Dogs, other than putting them down.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:40am
I think a lot of posts here are way off. While I consider myself a Democrat and a Liberal, I am also in Middle Management and I do provide a valuable service to the company, as do most of the managers I work with (with one big exception).
I believe that overcompensation at the top is a problem but it is something that exists with fewer companies then some posts here might infer. I think overcompensation isn't "The" problem but as one poster (Mask?) suggested it might have an affect on confidence and trust so it does become a larger problem at that point with regards to recovery.
And just for the record, this is what I do on my lunch break that I take a couple of days a week.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 11:48am
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-735
Rangel Rule.
Posted by EconRob at 09/03/2009 @ 11:50am
--why not start your own company and have it run the "right" way? be a shining example!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
But gyroscooper, those nasty feds with their biz-builder killer taxes, unions & their recreational narcotic supply effect on the rank & file & the general breakdown of respect for authority. How can a blossoming biz succeed in a climate like that?
Surely you must be advocating relocation offshore or domestic hiring through League of Decency auspices?
Posted by Sorelish at 09/03/2009 @ 12:03pm
I am also in Middle Management and I do provide a valuable service to the company.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 11:48am
I have no way of knowing what your job entails or what "valuable service" you might provide. Or how your salary relates to the people who do real work. Or even if there is any "real" work involved.
We as a country don't really manufacture many tangible goods anymore. We mostly deal in what is called "intellectual property" or other such vacuous, hard to nail down services.
Perhaps you could expand on your job description a little bit. I'm curious. And don't wish to be critical unless I know more about what you do.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 12:04pm
And just for the record, this is what I do on my lunch break that I take a couple of days a week.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 11:48am
Here's the question, are you a working manager or just a manager? Managers who don't get their hands dirty truly don't know what is going on no matter what the company is. If you aren't in the trenches, it's hard to know how things are moving.
I have never had a problem with managers who actually worked, but what most people see is managers going to meeting after meeting after meeting, going to business lunches, going to management improvement seminars etc. Most management people are so removed from what really goes on that they rely heavily on what one or two people tell them.
As an engineer, we are semi-managers, but at the same time are designing, specking in parts, testing, validating and training other engineers or technicians. Managers should be (and used to be) the highest skilled workers who still worked but were the go to people. Now mangers are some ahole with a business degree who doesn't know squat aside from how to be arrogant, pretend they know what's going on when they don't and of course draw in that big salary with the guaranteed bonuses.
My apologies go to you if you don't fit the above, but in my roughly 30 years of experience, I've learned not to trust management nor managers. They are company ditto heads and nothing more.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:40am
Of course. And he attacks me for "never answering a question" (which I did above)....while he quite blatently did not.
He's a right-winger...but can't commit. Larry, Maasch, and HAPP atleast lay it on the line and take their lumps.
BTW, speaking of phoney right-wing nonsense....next "deficit hawk" "anti-Porkulus" Rightie who pops up....quote
"The Weekly Standard" and Dick Cheney to them-
http://www.weeklystandard.com /Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 12:46pm
Any chance you'll want to offer YOUR opinion on this matter?
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 10:52am
Mask, Urmy doesn't have any real opinions on anything. "It" just attacks anyone who does, with the lame strategy of disagreeing with or taking cheap shots at anyone who does.
Kind of like a rabid dog who strikes out at anything that moves. "It" would fit in well with the rest of the rabid dogs who are lately appearing at town hall meetings.
Sadly, it is generally considered that nothing can be done with Rabid Dogs, other than putting them down.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm a "he" (but in the blogsphere I suppose it's appropriate to call all anonymous commenters "it")
--the rest of your post you're an equal "transgressor"...hold up thy mirror to thy self chaoszen...oh wait, didn't you say your version of buddhism is meant to challenge opinions?...so what I do is actually very good...oh wait, you're here to challenge your own beliefs...so what you're doing is actually very bad...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 12:46pm
I avoid meetings like the plague. While I have been to some that are productive I find that most are a waste of my time.
I am for the most part a working manager and still code from time to time. I am afraid to say that while my department creates software that our clients and employees use the company that I work for does not create anything so tangible but rather provides insurance products/services for lending institutions.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 12:47pm
We as a country don't really manufacture many tangible goods anymore.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--including you mr. postman
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 12:48pm
wolfgang: "I have never had a problem with managers who actually worked, but what most people see is managers going to meeting after meeting after meeting, going to business lunches, going to management improvement seminars etc. Most management people are so removed from what really goes on that they rely heavily on what one or two people tell them."
--the thing is, much business is cultivated through upper management lunching with clients, etc. if the blue collar workers don't have a business to report to, they don't have a paycheck to bring home.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 12:51pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 12:17pm |
Reminds me of a joke:
A guy gets transferred to the hinterlands and finds he is among cannibals when he is offered brains in the open-air market. Curious about costs, he inquired about some of it, "How much for this?"
"300 quiqui per lb...worker brain, very fresh."
"And this?"
"4000000 quiqui per lb...manager brain. great delicacy."
"Why is it so expensive?"
"You know how many manager we need to kill to get one pound?"
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 12:51pm
--rarefied indeed...but barack's a liberal hero for The Nation I thought?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:16am
mr. obama is just another imperial manager.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2009 @ 1:01pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 11:40am Mask: "Of course. And he attacks me for "never answering a question" (which I did above)....while he quite blatently did not."
--so what's the best possible health care system in this country? what system should we be trying to attain? afraid to put your "eggs" in one basket? ;)
Mask: "He's a right-winger...but can't commit. Larry, Maasch, and HAPP atleast lay it on the line and take their lumps."
--do "right-wingers" (including the 3 you mentioned that post here) support gay marriage, abortion rights, universal health care, abolition of death penalty, specific timetable to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon execution of such, etc?...cause I do--I guess I'm a model "right-winger"!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
--rarefied indeed...but barack's a liberal hero for The Nation I thought?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 11:16am
mr. obama is just another imperial manager.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I concur...The Nation (and many posters here) don't see him that way though...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:03pm
I work for does not create anything so tangible but rather provides insurance products/services for lending institutions.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 12:47pm
Sounds like you do something similar to what my brother does. He's getting his masters in business, but is a programmer/manager. I have no problems with that, my beef is with the non-working managers....you know the ones who do nothing but meetings, take credit for what others do and yet take zero responsibility for when things go bad.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 1:07pm
you know the ones who do nothing but meetings, take credit for what others do and yet take zero responsibility for when things go bad.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--sounds like everyone in Congress and the President...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:16pm
the company that I work for does not create anything so tangible but rather provides insurance products/services for lending institutions.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 12:47pm
If you are working to provide software for the insurance industry and lending institutions that are currently using the software that you still occasionally "code" to steal from the American people. You are part of the problem.
And should be ashamed of yourself. You are taking home a paycheck that has the blood, sweat and misery of your brothers and sisters on it.
That must be a terrible liability of conscience to carry around. How do you sleep at night?
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 1:24pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:16pm
I have never yet put anyone on ignore. But you are beyond the pale.
Congratulations! You are the very first to make my ignore list...
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 1:24pm
I sleep fine. If I were not here then borrowers who signed contracts that said they would insure the collateral they purchased might not and the lending institution would be exposed to some very large loses.
These borrowers are not just working class individuals but wealthy businessmen and corporate entities.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 1:40pm
" Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her dead husband and then killed her.
That is class warfare.
Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.'"
exactly. i do so love it when people make antisocialist look stupid.
Posted by darladoon at 09/03/2009 @ 1:42pm
correction *losses.
Posted by !immutable at 09/03/2009 @ 1:43pm
"--do "right-wingers" (including the 3 you mentioned that post here) support gay marriage, abortion rights, universal health care, abolition of death penalty, specific timetable to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon execution of such, etc?...cause I do--I guess I'm a model "right-winger"!"---Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
Sorry for tricking you into posting that, urmy...
and of course saving it for a later "gotcha" moment.
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 2:04pm
That must be a terrible liability of conscience to carry around. How do you sleep at night?
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--every piece of mail you deliver is "pure" as snow, right?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:16pm
I have never yet put anyone on ignore. But you are beyond the pale.
Congratulations! You are the very first to make my ignore list...
Posted by chaoszen at 09/03/2009 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--YES! who's next?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 2:06pm
"--do "right-wingers" (including the 3 you mentioned that post here) support gay marriage, abortion rights, universal health care, abolition of death penalty, specific timetable to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon execution of such, etc?...cause I do--I guess I'm a model "right-winger"!"---Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
Sorry for tricking you into posting that, urmy...
and of course saving it for a later "gotcha" moment.
Posted by Mask at 09/03/2009 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--"tricked" me into what? saying how I feel. I've said all those things many times on these threads. You think suddenly, some day, I'll be against abortion rights?
of course, you're way off to call me a "right-winger"--something you won't admit.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 2:08pm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ execs-at-big-bailout-recipients-get-big-pay -2009-09-03
<Executives at J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, American Express, Capital One Financial, PNC Financial and SunTrust Banks were granted 5.8 million stock options in early 2009, as the stock market was creaking and the companies' shares were at low levels, the study said.
As stock markets rallied and shares of financial-services companies surged, the value of these stock options jumped to almost $87 million, as of Aug. 14, according to the Institute for Policy Studies.
That potential windfall is shared between 17 executives, which equals more than $5 million per person, according to data from the study.>
<Kenneth Chenault, chief executive of American Express, $18 million.
Richard Fairbank, CEO of Capital One: $16 million
James Rohr, CEO of PNC, were valued at over $7 million.
Charles Scharf, CEO of Retail Financial Services at J.P. Morgan, were worth almost $7 million.>
"Difficult economic years -- like 2008 -- become springboards for super windfalls a few years down the road", the Institute said.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 2:11pm
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 2:11pm
So what?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/03/2009 @ 2:27pm
Ahhhh, yes, corporations.
Creatures of the state that "conservatives" love!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/03/2009 @ 3:03pm
BEN BERNANKE AND MILTON FRIEDMAN
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135804.html
Posted by pseudonym888 at 09/03/2009 @ 3:41pm
--the thing is, much business is cultivated through upper management lunching with clients, etc. if the blue collar workers don't have a business to report to, they don't have a paycheck to bring home.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 12:51pm
The above statement shows so much ignorance about what the corporate world is like today. It ain't 1950 anymore. Such amazing ignorance.
Generally speaking, new business is cultivated through the Sales team. Middle Management tends to be larger in the post-sales corporate environment (they got the client and are now servicing it), where "cultivating business" is not about going to lunch with a client. Usually the reason a middle manager goes to lunch with an existing client is because the middle manager is apologizing for screwing something up and is trying to save the business.
I am a working middle (actually low level) manager (I like to believe a good one because the only people I take out to lunch is my staff...to thank them for their work) and believe that there are too damn many middle managers (and lawyers) in the US. However, management does have its uses. It's when everyone is a Vice President or higher that a company finds itself in trouble. Far too many corporations have far too much Executive Management...that's where the salaries get astronomical, the actual work done/salary level gets stupid and where Capitalism fails. FAILS.
I actually think Ayn Rand WOULD have something to say about Executive salaries today and I think the Ayn Randians would be alarmed. She was all about the level of award equaling the level of work, and most CEO's nowadays (especially recently) have done little to no WORK to "earn" those salaries. They are simply feeding off the public trough, just like all those she despised.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/03/2009 @ 5:47pm
Very well put Stephen Carver.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/03/2009 @ 5:55pm
The above statement shows so much ignorance about what the corporate world is like today. It ain't 1950 anymore. Such amazing ignorance.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/03/2009 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--yeah, right...the business lunch has gone the way of the dodo.
and business is never cultivated on the golf course or at sporting events either....
the "amazing ignorance" is denise29 applauding your untruths, but no shock there.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 6:31pm
Hey Urmy, what the heck is your problem, its like your just spoiling for a fight, no wonder chaoszen put you on ignore, knock it off if you can, I realize you may not want to or maybe per chance you can't? Like I said, whats your problem.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/03/2009 @ 6:50pm
The problem comes back to this,the American economy is 70% consumer spending. We ,the commentators , can be from a wide ranging variety of industries and employee or employer levels within these firms. The fact of the matter is that we are in a recession. We have conflicting ideas about management styles and management compensation. We are arguing back and forth about policies,ideologies,and theories. It all comes back to wq are in a recession. When I arrived home today ,I read an article in my local newspaper. It read"Happy days here again as factory index passes 50". Now as I read the article I was struck by how dispassionate the tone of the article was. Economists,trade organizations,and managers were quoted. They talked about data and an "inventory"driven recovery. Here is what I say. We can get our channels of products filled. I do not know the time frame but I handled that for a meat company for 15 years. This article says consumer demand is going to be weak. It is going to be a "jobless" recovery. How in the hell can anything improve across the nation if this is correct. Perhaps we should hire 28,000,000 economists. We could conquer unemployment and give new meaning to the statement that no two economists think thew same.
Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 7:08pm
Hey Urmy, what the heck is your problem, its like your just spoiling for a fight, no wonder chaoszen put you on ignore, knock it off if you can, I realize you may not want to or maybe per chance you can't? Like I said, whats your problem.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/03/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--have you ever read chaoszen's posts? he challenges people, and much more angirly and personally, than I ever do....he wants to "ignore" me...no loss.
if you want to as well, no loss.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 7:21pm
The corporate system has developed into a class mobility blockade.....
Posted by Milhaus at 09/02/2009 @ 8:22pm
I've worked for 5 corporations, 2 are huge, well-known entities. Beginning in the mid-1980s', I noticed a steady influx of (generally) under-qualified but mandated (ie, favored, politically correct) `types' joining the rat race.
More than likely, had there not been so many large US companies hiring the AA-aided graduates coming out of our colleges, most of them would be lower middle class today, but with college degrees.
What a dumb thing to say!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 7:35pm
I just want someone to tell me where the $40 TRILLION of derivatives disappeared to ? I want to know how the big banks "Goldman,Wells,B of A can be paying back loans and be giving out bonuses when the percentage of foreclosures has not dropped. I want to know why people who want to start the derivative train again aren't being called out. What is wrong with us that that we shrug our shoulders to this greed. Hey,come cash your check at Walmart . It only costs you 3 percent. What a great way to have shoppers have the whole Walmart experience. I am proud to say I have never shopped there. Does Walmart care that David Copperfield made $40 T disappear? How about the Wall Street Journal? I have not seen anything explaining where the "toxic assets" went. It's like the Loch Ness Monster, people say they have seen something....
Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 7:39pm
What our electoral system SHOULD do is make it easier to VOTE FOR a winning politician than it is to BUY one.....
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009 @ 10:28pm
That's exactly what our "system" DO and how Magic won! He won Iowa, a tiny state and got on a roll. WS money wasn't heading his way at that early stage...they were `buying' HRC!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 7:41pm
.....gung ho for these deserving pillars of industry who have the connections to be the biggest "Pigs at the Trough". I think there would an acceptance to let common Americans to have affordable health care.....
Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 08:09am
Let's see, I come knocking on your door, Rolex on my wrist, chauffer curbside by the stretch limo....and I appeal to you to give me $300 Billion and you DO, with your kids and grandkids money......I'd say, I earned every penny of it!
Now, if you come to my door asking for me to foot the bill for health care for all, regardless of merit or legal status, and I say NO....you freak out.
Hey dude, I am NOT you....that's why I AM HAPPY....LMAO!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 7:52pm
to use Mask's favorite line, those (democrats/liberals) complaining about executive compensation in companies that received bailouts...
you're politically irrelevant. even your own party did nothing to stop it...
next.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/03/2009 @ 10:16am
So MASKian.....when he was still a tier-one blogger here...in the Pre-Magic Age!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 7:59pm
.....I think the Ayn Randians would be alarmed. She was all about the level of award equaling the level of work, and most CEO's nowadays (especially recently) have done little to no WORK to "earn" those salaries....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/03/2009 @ 5:47pm
You're full of it!
Ayn Rand was an intellectual of the first order and espoused that man's mind is the greatest thing ever. But then, the workings of the mind isn't easily seen by the likes of you who can only relate to some physical, quantifiable yard sticks like time spent at a desk or clocked in on the job.
CEOs don't "work" in the manner you like....they strategize and think and play what-if games!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 8:10pm
Droop, well I am glad you still have fantasies about Rolex's. I just try to think about how to straighten out the mess we as American's are in. I guess you love the corporate pigs because that is your visaion. Who cares, if I can sell shit in a bag I am a great salesman. Well I guess you are a buddy or perhaps an insurance salesman. Our insurance costs are hurting Americans personally and in business . Can't you see this ,are you blind. I suppose that is the reason for Wall Street right now. I would rather be irrelevant than vacuous.
Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 8:10pm
CEOs don't "work" in the manner you like....they strategize and think and play what-if games! Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 8:10pm
BS. Most are like figureheads on an old sailing ship. The real captains are the office managers, production chiefs & engineers.
What do we hear most from them these days? Directing downsizing, offshore relocation, & buyouts (sellouts). Useless bastards concerned only with the bottom line (feathering their own nests at the expense of everyone else).
Posted by Sorelish at 09/03/2009 @ 8:54pm
(2) Regulate campaign ads (and all other ads) as follows: Each ad must display the number of people who have contributed money to it. Do not impose any other restriction.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2009
This one's too easy to get around and show some ridiculous bogus number. The GOP just his some small pot of money, which has .00000000000001 cent from every bigoted fear mongering republicon Money machine since the dawn of time, every evangelical-political / NRA / antiabortion / drill drill drill / Obama is a Muslim/ racist /not a citizen/ and every neocon campaign reflecting per your criteria hundreds of millions of Merkins.
Posted by winyahn at 09/03/2009 @ 9:09pm
BS. Most are like figureheads on an old sailing ship. The real captains are the office managers, production chiefs & engineers.
What do we hear most from them these days? Directing downsizing, offshore relocation, & buyouts (sellouts). Useless bastards concerned only with the bottom line (feathering their own nests at the expense of everyone else).
Posted by Sorelish at 09/03/2009 @ 8:54pm
At least you do recognize their value in "Directing downsizing, offshore relocation, & buyouts".....I guess you think CEOs ought to order office supplies, give round-robin pep talks, pay bills....instead of deciding to buy Sun (by Oracle), or BJ Services (by Baker Hughes), or confer w/lobbying team, or......
Any "office managers, production chiefs & engineers" that are "real" captains, would already be CEOs or self-employed, like ME!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 9:18pm
Ayn Rand nailed one thing: Bradgelina Reverend Happy love corporations the way rednecks love monster trucks.
Same goes for their erection salute of loud proud Leader Limbaugh.
Same 'rection for Shock and Awe back in the day. Unstoppable!
Posted by winyahn at 09/03/2009 @ 9:19pm
Arguing with Reverend Happy about CEO salaries is like trying to tell a redneck monster trucks waste gas.
Or that their Big Mac burger might not be healthy.
Monster trucks, super huge corporations, hate radio superstars, Whoppers, Big Gulps, Hummers, superrich CEOs = Palin's and Ayn Rand's real Americans.
Posted by winyahn at 09/03/2009 @ 9:28pm
Hey, win, you don't have anything more interesting to say to me then I need to offshore you and make room for the cheaper newbies, huh?
I don't go for gibberish!
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 9:55pm
Well Droop as always you make a case for a backhand to the side of the skull. You want me to cheer you because you have some nuts. You want to give me the finger and let me know you are a racist. I am self employed to and I guess it comes down to how you were raised. My parents taught me to respect others. They taught me to help others that were not as fortunate as I was. I have tried to live my life like that. I am truly sorry you haven't had that moral compass. I don't go to church every week,I just remember how my parents told me to do things. Too bad you did not have that kind of upbringing. I guess you were taught the screw people type of way. Well,Droop, you have plenty of company right now. Maybe you can plan a reunion with all your buddies.
Posted by whatizz at 09/04/2009 @ 05:35am
I just want someone to tell me where the $40 TRILLION of derivatives disappeared to ? I want to know how the big banks "Goldman,Wells,B of A can be paying back loans and be giving out bonuses when the percentage of foreclosures has not dropped. I want to know why people who want to start the derivative train again aren't being called out.....Posted by whatizz at 09/03/2009 @ 7:39pm
Elliot Spitzer has the perfect answer to this. Subpoena the bank records of the firms that received federal bailout cash. As Spitzer pointed out, it's a bunch of crap saying that following the money is like locating a bucket of water thrown into the ocean. That's the biggest crock of crap since, well, the insurance industry started the death panel rumors.
The defense of corporations is lie, and keep saying that lie over and over and over and 30% of the population is so damned stupid that they'll believe the lie no matter how ridiculous that lie may be.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 06:07am
BEN BERNANKE AND MILTON FRIEDMAN
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135804.html
Posted by pseudonym888 at 09/03/2009 @ 3:41pm
Thanks for the link. It was quite informative to say the least. My suspicions have now been confirmed. Obama is a republican after all. I knew that Summer and Geithner were Freidman disciples, but I didn't know Bernanke was one too. God help us all, because we are screwed folks.
Freidman's supposed brilliance was based on greed being good and that greed is what drives people to run successful businesses. Perhaps the dead piece of crap or some of his disciples can explain how the current crop of greed has been good for American workers.
Greedy (and stupid) businessmen are the cause of the economic collapse we've been through and are still going through. If our elected officials turn to thinkers like Freidman to solve our financial woes, get used to working 60 hour weeks with no time off for less than minimum wage with no benefits. That's republicanism at it's finest. Folks like Happy can sit on their fat asses and make tons of money off slave labor and eventually it will be American slave labor.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 06:23am
Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 9:18pm |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA
Posted by snowball777 at 09/04/2009 @ 07:50am
We have had for the most part a continuation of Bush policies. I feel like it is a smokescreen when I hear conservatives talk of the "far left liberal" Obama. Who is that guy. With a Cabinet of Wall Streeters,Clinton Administration retreads,and other middle of the roaders this President is headed for disaster. Where or who is going to be his base? The middle of the road,bi partisan approach is not working. The Republicans have gotten more mileage out of saying "NO" and doing nothing than any group should. They are like a pre talkie Hollywood set. A bunch of false walls, people moving their lips, and subtitles. When are the American people going to wake up. The problem as I see it is this. The republicans don't care about the middle class. The Democrats are seeing that it doesn't matter if they are for the middle class or not. That leaves us with the quandry of a third party which gives Republicans power by default. That is unacceptable so we are back to square one.
Posted by whatizz at 09/04/2009 @ 07:54am
The problem as I see it is this. The republicans don't care about the middle class. The Democrats are seeing that it doesn't matter if they are for the middle class or not. That leaves us with the quandry of a third party which gives Republicans power by default. That is unacceptable so we are back to square one.
Posted by whatizz at 09/04/2009 @ 07:54am
Yep. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. As Nader said, things are going to have to get really bad before they get better. The one thing Nader left out is that things may not necessarily get better.
Think about this. What does the U.S. produce? Pretty much everything that used to be made here is now produced overseas in third world countries. More and more Americans are losing their jobs which in turn means that less Americans are able to purchase items at the local retail stores. So, perhaps the banking industry and wallstreet are bouncing back due to profits from overseas investments, but what about here in the U.S.
The cost of living in this country is higher than overseas. So, how can we compete with nations using slave labor and sweat shops? The right wing idiots posting here talk about protectionism, but without some sort of job protection for American workers, we are in serious trouble.
Our government doesn't care about it's citizens any more. It's more concerned with the health of the stock market and the banking industry which are both invested in overseas ventures.....don't believe me, take a look at the posting of our right wing fruitcakes posting here.
Our economy has switched from an industrial economy to retail. Only the wealthy who own stocks in the retail industry will benefit from this. We have become a Walmart society. Lovely jobs aren't they.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 08:06am
don't believe me, take a look at the posting of our right wing fruitcakes posting here. .....
Sorry didn't finish this one. The right wing posters here defend big business to the nth degree and bitch about workers unions like they are the problem. Why is it a problem for workers to want to be able to make a living that doesn't require them to work 80 hour weeks until they end up in a grave?
These aholes wanted to gut social security, don't want any health care reform, would cut medicaid and medicare in a heart beat if they could and would raise the retirement age to 95.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 08:10am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 06:23am |
Friedman was wrong about many things...the EMH doesn't hold water, for instance, but he did understand a few important elements like the need for a minimum wage and support for consumer credit along with dropping rates for banks.
He was also in favor of removing the human element from the Fed in favor of a mechanical 'debaser' that always increased the money supply as necessary (some say Alan Greenspan was that machine).
He also recognized the silliness of driving things people want to do into the black market (hookers and drugs).
Businessmen can't be as greedy or stupid as they were unless they have a stream of marks even dumber than them on which to feed or know a pimp named Fannie or Freddie who 'do'.
I think it's obscene how disconnected the compensation is from objectively measurable performance in the financial industry overall.
People who claim to be worth that kind of scratch should really be held to task for failing to listen to a variety of economists who predicted bubble-poppage between 2004 and 2007, when subprime lending was still accelerating as the 'keeping up with the Joneses' effect really got rolling; Dean Baker, Stiglitz, etc were yelling it from the mountain tops, but noone wanted to listen to naysayers for all the tapped equity stuffed in their ears.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/04/2009 @ 08:18am
"Difficult economic years -- like 2008 -- become springboards for super windfalls a few years down the road", the Institute said.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Wall Street has a name for it....
Spring Loading
'What Does Spring Loading Mean?
An option-granting practice in which options are granted at a time that precedes a positive news event. Spring loading relies on the fact that positive news typically causes the underlying company's stock to surge in value. Timing an option grant to precede the public news release provides the option holder with an almost instant profit'
Investopedia
Posted by OneVote at 09/04/2009 @ 08:37am
Posted by snowball777 at 09/03/2009 @ 2:11pm
So what? Posted by antisocialist at 09/03/2009 @ 2:27pm |
I was backing up the point I made to Darin about the proportion of income at financials being skewed towards their options and share grants instead of salary.
Perhaps facts don't count for much, in your world?
<The Bank of America Charitable Foundation today announced it will contribute $50,000 to aid communities impacted by the Southern California wildfires. The funds will help agencies and nonprofits, such as the American Red Cross, the Los Angeles County 2-1-1 Disaster Hotline, and the LA County Firemen's Relief Association.>
Talk about your FIRE industries!
Big of them...I guess they wouldn't want to eliminate the chance of increased business from displaced families TOO much.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/04/2009 @ 10:07am
People who claim to be worth that kind of scratch should really be held to task for failing to listen to a variety of economists who predicted bubble-poppage between 2004 and 2007, when subprime lending was still accelerating as the 'keeping up with the Joneses' effect really got rolling; Dean Baker, Stiglitz, etc were yelling it from the mountain tops, but noone wanted to listen to naysayers for all the tapped equity stuffed in their ears.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/04/2009 @ 08:18am
True enough. I remember even in the 90's driving down the freeway in Seattle wondering how in the hell everyone could afford to drive a BMW or Mercedez, but then I thought most people paid for their cars. Ididn't realize that there are a lot of people trying to keep the appearance of being wealthy while being in debt up to their ears.
There are always going to be idiots out there thinking credit is free money like many getting the ARM loans. They found out the hard way that adjustable can mean adjusted up and usually does mean that. While running on the treadmill, I saw a commercial talking about getting arm home loans. Those things should be outlawed.
I don't know if you've read the Shock Doctrine, but after reading that book, I'd put Friedman on one of the most infamous characters in U.S. history. His Chicago boys in South America were nothing but thugs and their practice of gutting municipal properties for private profit is well documented. What is going on here in the U.S. right now is the "shock doctrine" being applied to the U.S. itself.
9/11 was used as a shock to invade Iraq. The most recent stock market problems along with the banks has been another shock where businesses stole municipal property (this time cash) for private gain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 10:08am
An option-granting practice in which options are granted at a time that precedes a positive news event.
Posted by OneVote at 09/04/2009 @ 08:37am |
Yes, and anyone else pulled a stunt like that off would be investigated by the SEC, tarred and feathered for insider trading and sent to prison (see Martha Stewart).
Only bankers and hedge fund mangers can play that game with a stacked deck and get away with it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 10:11am
'This one's too easy to get around and show some ridiculous bogus number. The GOP just his some small pot of money, which has .00000000000001 cent from every bigoted fear mongering republicon Money machine since the dawn of time, every evangelical-political / NRA / antiabortion / drill drill drill / Obama is a Muslim/ racist /not a citizen/ and every neocon campaign reflecting per your criteria hundreds of millions of Merkins.'
According to "Wolfgang1," the group you describe, "winyahn," comprises only about 30% of the population. This is lamentable, but look on the bright side: They're not the majority, are they?
They are the majority only in the Republican Party, which is a problem when there are only two parties to choose from. When there are three or more parties, this problem diminishes.
Don't forget that the left also does political ads, and also collects petitions. If my proposal were enacted, the right wouldn't merely have to create astroturf organizations, as they do now. They'd have to create astroturf organizations that are numerically larger than the real grassroots ones. That can't be easy.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:31am
No, "frosty zoom," I do not in fact work for Goldman Sachs. (At least not by choice, but as an involuntary investor in this foremost among American oligarchs, I am no different from everybody else in the USA, am I?)
I do in fact favor rescinding every single law passed by our Congress since the year of my birth (1967) to deregulate the banks. This includes the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999, but it also includes the removal of Fannie Mae's nonprofit status and the superfluous creation of Freddie Mac for "competition" way back in 1969. (Yeah, if that's "competitive," then I guess the Rep-Dem-duopoly is "competitive," too.) And it includes everything else in between, every bad decision to legalize every kind of funny paper that permits the bankers to dupe their customers and to keep profitable secrets in and regulators out. The whole lot of it is only so much toilet-ready paper. Flush it down!
I also favor restoring progressivity to our tax system.
Nothing more is really needed.
These are both very modest proposals.
In all the world, few banks have weathered the financial crisis as well as Canadian banks. And why? Because the Canadians simply left in place all the good old laws that restricted banks, rather than giving the squealing bank lobbies every little thing they wanted and then appropriating government funds to pay for the consequences.
The best thing would have been for the United States simply to have done what Canada did. The next best thing is to wipe the slate clean of the last 42 years of lousy bank policies, thereby restoring the New Deal.
Again, this is a very modest proposal.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:46am
Again, this is a very modest proposal.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:46am
Good posts. I also think that a multi-party system would work better than the two party joke we have today. Right now, our choices are neocon candidate 1 versus severe neocon candidate 2. Voting for the lesser of two evils isn't really voting but rather choosing a long slow death painful death over a quick one. Either way, you end up dying from the "medicine" the "prescribe" to use Friedman's terminology.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 11:14am
the "prescribe" ....sorry, should be they prescribe.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 11:16am
Only bankers and hedge fund mangers can play that game with a stacked deck and get away with it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
check this out - for your reading pleasure.
Is JPMorgan Immune from Investigation into Spring-Loading of Options Grants? by: John Olagues February 09, 2009
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119304- is-jpmorgan-immune-from-investigation- into-spring-loading-of-options-grants
Posted by OneVote at 09/04/2009 @ 12:33pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/04/2009 @ 12:33pm
Thanks. I'll check it out later tonight. Gotta go.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:58pm
Factoid of the week: 95% of the software run in Armenia is pirated.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/05/2009 @ 05:57am
Ayn Rand was an intellectual of the first order and espoused that man's mind is the greatest thing ever. Posted by Happy at 09/03/2009 @ 8:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Atheistic Ayn Rand was a "totalitarian trauma reactionary" who had a severe reaction to the bogus institutions set up by the Soviet Union from which she escaped. She was right about the "dignity of the individual" and the dangers of a "needs based" society, but wrong with her solution based solely on "selfishness". Selfishness run amok, is just as bad as Needs run amok, and she was too traumatized by her life experiences to fully understand that. She was so far out on the other side of the see saw, she could not see the middle. Her real life example of raw individualism, Frank Lloyd Wright could see the other side of her story:
http://architect.architecture.sk/ and click Frank Lloyd Wright (page 2) "…During the 1930s, Frank Lloyd Wright backed Franklin Roosevelt's semicollectivist New Deal,… …in sharp contrast to those who worshipped at the shrine of St. Ayn, Frank Lloyd Wright distrusted the profit motive. So disgusted was Frank Lloyd Wright with it, in fact, that Frank Lloyd Wright briefly became a Stalinist fellow traveler in the late 1930s."
Since Stalin and Rand rode on extreme sides of the dignity see saw, I guess I would choose to take a ride on a much more comfortable spot somewhere in the middle with the "FDR Frank Lloyd Wright" since both FDR and FLW built actual, working, long lasting and beautiful architectural structures, that have enhanced the lives of millions.
If we truly care about the fruits of a "man's mind", then we must cultivate it with nurturing and pruning before the predatory "free market" jungle weeds kill them all.
Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/07/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/07/2009 @ 10:23am |
Well said, TBNT.
Happy's and Ayn's problem is that they completely fail to see the interconnected nature of mankind (something to do with the sand in which Happy's head currently resides).
So he acts like a spurned teenager and spouts off about Rand because he got to the, "greed is good" part and then gave up on literature.
Perhaps someday he'll grow up, but probably not.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/08/2009 @ 08:09am