4 ms·

Debate Room: Let CEOs Make Do with $500,000

2 points by gibsonf1 18y ago

ieatpaste 18y ago
socially, reasonable. economically, unnecessary. socialism, anyone?
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  It's socialism to control the pay of your employees? After all, the US government has "invested" more money in these banks than anyone else. What are they if not the owners?
  - ieatpaste 18y ago
    No, it's not socialism to control the pay of employees; however, "the US government 'investing' more money in these banks" is socialism. Essentially, it's a form of normalization of classes and we broke capitalism through state control. While we don't have a pure form of capitalism, we are become more moderate, where we are heading towards socialism/communism on the politic-economic scale. Furthermore, please do not downmod because you disagree. Though the socialism comment was in jest, I was not grossly off-topic. Please read the community's comments regarding karma.
anateus 18y ago
The point that some may ignore is that this is intended to apply ONLY to banks which the government props up. In that light, I think that limiting flat pay is a very good idea. More emphasis should be placed on direct performance incentives to encourage repaying the taxpayers.
Tangurena 18y ago
If they don't like the pay caps, they shouldn't take the bailout money. If they were as 'good' as they (and their apologists) think they are, then they would not be in the situation where they need to be bailed out.
- Tangurena 18y ago
  And it looks like they aren't willing to live with the caps: Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley may decide after enduring yesterday's Congressional hearing that the old Troubled Asset Relief Program is more trouble than it's worth. Eight chief executive officers of the biggest U.S. banks heard lawmakers in Washington criticize their bonuses, underwriting fees and perks. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, read questions from angry constituents asking what banks had done with taxpayer money they’d taken from the $700 billion TARP fund, and Rep. Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he "cannot believe no one has prosecuted you." {snip} Frank told the bankers if they don't like the restrictions on the government aid, they should return the funds. "We will take it," Frank said. "If there are any obstacles to you giving it back, we will undo those obstacles." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP6xr9LsyklY&refer=home http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP6x...

2 points by gibsonf1 18y ago

ieatpaste 18y ago

socially, reasonable. economically, unnecessary. socialism, anyone?

run4yourlives 18y ago
It's socialism to control the pay of your employees? After all, the US government has "invested" more money in these banks than anyone else. What are they if not the owners?
- ieatpaste 18y ago
  No, it's not socialism to control the pay of employees; however, "the US government 'investing' more money in these banks" is socialism. Essentially, it's a form of normalization of classes and we broke capitalism through state control. While we don't have a pure form of capitalism, we are become more moderate, where we are heading towards socialism/communism on the politic-economic scale. Furthermore, please do not downmod because you disagree. Though the socialism comment was in jest, I was not grossly off-topic. Please read the community's comments regarding karma.

anateus 18y ago

The point that some may ignore is that this is intended to apply ONLY to banks which the government props up. In that light, I think that limiting flat pay is a very good idea. More emphasis should be placed on direct performance incentives to encourage repaying the taxpayers.

Tangurena 18y ago

If they don't like the pay caps, they shouldn't take the bailout money. If they were as 'good' as they (and their apologists) think they are, then they would not be in the situation where they need to be bailed out.

Tangurena 18y ago
And it looks like they aren't willing to live with the caps: Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley may decide after enduring yesterday's Congressional hearing that the old Troubled Asset Relief Program is more trouble than it's worth. Eight chief executive officers of the biggest U.S. banks heard lawmakers in Washington criticize their bonuses, underwriting fees and perks. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, read questions from angry constituents asking what banks had done with taxpayer money they’d taken from the $700 billion TARP fund, and Rep. Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he "cannot believe no one has prosecuted you." {snip} Frank told the bankers if they don't like the restrictions on the government aid, they should return the funds. "We will take it," Frank said. "If there are any obstacles to you giving it back, we will undo those obstacles." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP6xr9LsyklY&refer=home http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP6x...