Government Bail Outs

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

The question is simple:

Should corporate America be responsible for its own actions, i.e. if they spend themselves into the ground, if they over-extend themselves and continue to pay lofty salaries to execs or become involved in acts that they know stand to run them into the ground, is it right for the tax-payer to be responsible to bail them out?

The way I see it, the consumer is paying at both ends, you're buying the product/service and paying to bail them out.

Me, it's simple, if they cannot manage the business in fair weather or foul...then oh well.

Next

 

[Minor Axis]

I understand the principle of a "strategic industry" and in the past and presently the government sees fit to bail out industries that if they fail, might have a ripple effect dragging the economy down. Is it right or wrong? It's hard to say, but there are issues regarding the relationship between government and corporations and oversight. I don't like the idea that a private company can make bad decisions and they know the government will be there to save them. And in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I've read that the heads of those companies made huge salaries. I've not verified exactly how much.

When it comes to individual compensation just how much is enough and how much is too much when it comes to CEO salaries?

 

[Strauss]

If you think cutting the salary of the top executives will save a company from bankruptcy I suggest you keep working for others because you don't have a clue. The current executives for Freddie and Fannie were not present when the decisions were made that are causing todays' problems.
And Minor Axis is right, there are certain industries that require federal intervention. But that has nothing to do with Freddie or Fannie. The reason for backing them has nothing to do with their industry. BTW, the federal government hasn't back'm yet.

 

[Carthage]

Capitalism: A system where the government is limited to the courts, the army, and the cops. Nothing else. This includes NO GOVERNMENT BAIL OUTS. They upset the market, it's very VERY wrong. Given the choice between the Communism and a system where the government is on the side of the corporations, I'd choose communism. At least they don't pretend they are capitalists.
Read Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith. It explains everything.


The main point is, government getting involved in the economy AT ALL, weather on the side of the corps or the working man, UPSETS THE MARKET. The Market is Holy and Sacred and must not be befouled by the hands of the Government. DO NOT UPSET THE MARKET, OR FEEL ITS WRATH!!!

 

[Minor Axis]

If you think cutting the salary of the top executives will save a company from bankruptcy I suggest you keep working for others because you don't have a clue.

It's just one of the symptoms of a system askew being run by greedy bastards.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

If you think cutting the salary of the top executives will save a company from bankruptcy I suggest you keep working for others because you don't have a clue. The current executives for Freddie and Fannie were not present when the decisions were made that are causing todays' problems.
And Minor Axis is right, there are certain industries that require federal intervention. But that has nothing to do with Freddie or Fannie. The reason for backing them has nothing to do with their industry. BTW, the federal government hasn't back'm yet.

:24::24::24:


Okay, anyways. I asked a question that was all, and without giving any backround, I work for a large corporation....And my sincere apologies for not rising to the obvious brilliance of you and Mulder

If you don't think that spending patterns have gone askew in corporate America, then you obviously don't deal with it. I'm not sure what you do, but I'm sure you don't make $20million a yera to do it, although I am sure you deem yourself worthy of it.

Bail outs aren't saving jobs, if they were, the first thing the courts should say when chapter 11 is filed is "Okay first, we'll start by cutting your salary, that'll save 1,000 jobs".

Typically what happens is they lay of a enormous amount of folks, then file bankruptcy.....Then eventually fold, are found out to be operating illegally or get consumed by a larger company.

BTW, I don't work for a company that has ever had an issue financially.......

 

[Strauss]

:24::24::24:


Okay, anyways. I asked a question that was all, and without giving any backround, I work for a large corporation....And my sincere apologies for not rising to the obvious brilliance of you and Mulder

If you don't think that spending patterns have gone askew in corporate America, then you obviously don't deal with it. I'm not sure what you do, but I'm sure you don't make $20million a yera to do it, although I am sure you deem yourself worthy of it.

Bail outs aren't saving jobs, if they were, the first thing the courts should say when chapter 11 is filed is "Okay first, we'll start by cutting your salary, that'll save 1,000 jobs".

Typically what happens is they lay of a enormous amount of folks, then file bankruptcy.....Then eventually fold, are found out to be operating illegally or get consumed by a larger company.

BTW, I don't work for a company that has ever had an issue financially.......

You missed the point. So I'll draw you a crayon picture so you can understand. Cutting the salary to be paid a CEO only gets you a mediocre CEO. You think the average CEO is expensive (which the average is not) take a look at what it costs for a turnaround CEO. And that's what you end up with in Chapter 11. BTW, your right bailouts aren't saving jobs, they are saving the company.

Now, genius, name one company the federal government has bailed out in the last year.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Well the CEO is already gone--fired. No one will be cutting his/her salary because the CEO (and the CFO) as well as other top executives are fired.

The company then needs to go out and find a CEO to help save the company--bring it out of bankruptcy (first thing he/she does is fire many of the upper management and bring in people they know). How in the fuck are they going to get anyone good to take the job if you are going to limit the salary? :confused. Would you take 1/10th of your salary to switch jobs to go to a company that is very likely NOT to be a going concern?

Of course you wouldn't--you're not going to lure any high level CEO from another company without offering him/her significant upside potential. A good competent CEO is going to demand a very high level of upside potential (i.e., stock or stock options) or a very high salary or both to leave another job to take that kind of risk.

The real issue here you and Minor have a bad case of rich envy that colors your judgment. Do you think I like the fact that someone's getting paid millions of dollars? :confused. Or professional athletes for that matter? I don't like it anymore than you do, but I also recognize the laws of supply and demand cannot be altered because you or someone else thinks they should because you don't like people making lots of money. The best and brightest and most talented individuals, like the best and most talented athletes are rare--that's WHY they make so much money. Do you think the stockholders of a company are going to throw millions of dollars at a CEO unless they thought it was going to mean a positive return on capital?

This is basic economics--neither your nor I were born with the skills to win a Superbowl or to run a large multinational corporation (hell, I wouldn't do that job for all the money in the world). You'd do yourself a big favor by just recognizing that your viewpoint is based on an emotional response (you don't like the fact CEOs make a lot of money--I get it--I don't like it either). But I can dislike the salaries of very talented people, yet still recognize why that's not going to change (at least not in a capitalistic system). If you want a different system, the choice is communism--you won't find any highly paid CEOs in CUBA.[/quote]


The problem with both you and strauss, is that you both assume you have a clue what I do, or what I am capable of.

Just because you two are at your ceiling doesn't mean everyone else here is

You don't know what I do, nor what I make. So how about we just leave that out of the discussion you are the only one that bring up class warriors, not me.

I happen to respect the CEO that runs our company, and I know him personally

And as usual you two (you and your mentor there) seem to totally miss the point, use insults to prove a point, and blame communism or some other tactic to make anyone who diagrees with you seem weak.

I guess it must feel good to both of you to feel intellectually superior on the internet, I assume you use it to make up for an inadequacy in your real life...

 

[Zorak]

You missed the point. So I'll draw you a crayon picture so you can understand. Cutting the salary to be paid a CEO only gets you a mediocre CEO. You think the average CEO is expensive (which the average is not) take a look at what it costs for a turnaround CEO. And that's what you end up with in Chapter 11. BTW, your right bailouts aren't saving jobs, they are saving the company.

Now, genius, name one company the federal government has bailed out in the last year.

You're a condescending bastard.

And that's not a personal attack, it's an observation.

 

[Strauss]

You're a condescending bastard.

And that's not a personal attack, it's an observation.

Thank you and I commend your powers of observation.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Where did I say we were intellectually superior or where did I insult you? The opinion you posted is irrational--doesn't mean that you are or that you are not intelligent or that I am superior.

Let me analogize it this way. You focus on the salary of a CEO as if that's going to make any difference whatsoever in saving a company. Its like me telling you not to piss in the ocean so as not to pollute it. It simply is an emotional response to your not liking the fact that CEOs make too much money (in your opinion). You and I can sit here and piss and moan about things we can't change, what is that going to do?

You are a chemist/scientist, right? I can sit here and tell you I don't like the fact that water has two hyrodgen molecules and only one oxygen molecule--that's not fair--water should have two of both--its discrimination against water molecules and I say we pass legislation to change the molecular structure of water. What are you going to say to me?

I merely pointed out to you that the salary of a CEO has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the company unless they go cheap and hire someone that's incompetent Congress passing a law cutting the salaries of CEOs or limiting them in some manner may make you happy and make Minor come in his Jeans but its not going to stop a company from going bankrupt--in fact, that would have the opposite effect because the best CEOs would take jobs outside the US so that they can be paid more.

My point wasn't JUST lofty salaries, it was about squandering money in general Fox, and you cannot argue that corporate America DOESN'T throw money out the window, that was my point.

IN a personal bankruptcy hearing they jam a microscpe up you ass about your spending habits, now it would appear that they are limiting personal bankruptcy filings, to the point where they want it eliminated.

But let's keep JOHNQ Corp. from going under...Because we need the campaign money next go-round

Do you not agree inthe least?

 

[Strauss]

Not sure about bastard, but Strauss is defiinetely condescending!

I'm beginning to believe this place is infested with wussies. Geezz, argue a little forcefully and they get all bent out of shape. They'd never make it in a courtroom now would they Muldy. So I'll be more polite........maybe.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I'm beginning to believe this place is infested with wussies. Geezz, argue a little forcefully and they get all bent out of shape. They'd never make it in a courtroom now would they Muldy. So I'll be more polite........maybe.

Most of us are not laywers...Or has that never crossed your mind.

And we're not on trial here. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong or stupid.

Start a thread about thermodynamics, so I can show you how big my dick is:unsure:

See how utterly rediculous that sounds.....You're in cometition with usernames on the internet

 

[Strauss]

Most of us are not laywers...Or has that never crossed your mind.

And we're not on trial here. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong or stupid.

Start a thread about thermodynamics, so I can show you how big my dick is:unsure:

See how utterly rediculous that sounds.....You're in cometition with usernames on the internet

You don't know how big it is? Stomach in the way? Maybe the thermodynamics is causing a problem.
Never said it was a trial, if it was your ass would have been burned by now. :jk
Chill, relax and poke fun at Mulder, its what I do.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You don't know how big it is? Stomach in the way? Maybe the thermodynamics is causing a problem.
Never said it was a trial, if it was your ass would have been burned by now. :jk
Chill, relax and poke fun at Mulder, its what I do.

:24::24:

Touche...Besides Fox does kinda grow on you after a while...Hard not to with him always wrapping himself around your leg

 

[Strauss]

:24::24:

Touche...Besides Fox does kinda grow on you after a while...Hard not to with him always wrapping himself around your leg

Well I have to be nice to him because I've been hitting on his wife. Man, did she make one real poor decision in her life!

 

[TheOriginalJames]

If you think cutting the salary of the top executives will save a company from bankruptcy I suggest you keep working for others because you don't have a clue. The current executives for Freddie and Fannie were not present when the decisions were made that are causing todays' problems.
And Minor Axis is right, there are certain industries that require federal intervention. But that has nothing to do with Freddie or Fannie. The reason for backing them has nothing to do with their industry. BTW, the federal government hasn't back'm yet.

Apparently you need to keep working for others, because you honestly don't have a clue. I work for my dad, and while cash is tight for the company, he stopped taking a paycheck to keep all the money going back into the company, which includes but is not limited to... paying his employees.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Apparently you need to keep working for others, because you honestly don't have a clue. I work for my dad, and while cash is tight for the company, he stopped taking a paycheck to keep all the money going back into the company, which includes but is not limited to... paying his employees.

That's noble James, it really is. The issue here is a little larger though, like for instance the company I work for.

There's 6,000 employees. If you get in a tight spot, it's a tight spot. That's not my point, my point is by IRRESPONSIBILITY

That was my original question and maybe I should not have muddied the waters with compensation, there are vastly more irresponsible issues than that, hell I don't know if my heart could handle being in charge of 6,000 employees, I mean think about that, all the environmental issues, members of the board to answer to. It's a tall order.

 

[Strauss]

Apparently you need to keep working for others, because you honestly don't have a clue. I work for my dad, and while cash is tight for the company, he stopped taking a paycheck to keep all the money going back into the company, which includes but is not limited to... paying his employees.

Yeah, that's a problem with a mutli-billion dollar corporation. Cut the CEO's salary 50% so that his 30 million dollars will make payroll which is in the neighborhood of $300 million a week....yeah that really makes a difference.
You can't compare a small business with a national corporation.

BTW, I had many a week at the beginning of my career when everybody who worked for me got paid but not me.

 

[Strauss]

That's noble James, it really is. The issue here is a little larger though, like for instance the company I work for.

There's 6,000 employees. If you get in a tight spot, it's a tight spot. That's not my point, my point is by IRRESPONSIBILITY

That was my original question and maybe I should not have muddied the waters with compensation, there are vastly more irresponsible issues than that, hell I don't know if my heart could handle being in charge of 6,000 employees, I mean think about that, all the environmental issues, members of the board to answer to. It's a tall order.

And ask yourself......what kind of CEO are you going to get who is willing to work for less than the market rate?