futureage1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Matt Z- All the banks you named took bailout funds and are all hovering around the $1-$5/share range. They should be nationalized for the sake of the country. The value of 10% off the S&P has already started to happen, there is not much further it would fall. Yes, the entire banking system should be nationalized incrementally. But throwing vast sums of debt at these same banks every few months is really not working and will cost this nation in untold ways. Simply put it is not worth it. And I have to say you have been all over the map with your arguments. Stating how any tax increase on your employers as individuals would cost you a job. It seems you just accept some very weak arguments to begin with. And any bank that did not take bailout funds and is a healthy institution can remain a private institution but honestly a lot of people that run them will close them down when they are faced with any new regulation. Basically of taking their ball and bat home and not playing ball because they can't run reckless over people's hard earned money anymore. It would be an adjustment but a much better system where people have many more rights and freedoms with their own money than they do now. The list of leading authorities in the field of finance are all starting to chime in for nationalization. Krugman,Stiglz,Greenspan etc. so it would not be as horrible to the system as you might imagine. It is much more harmful what we are doing now. And who do you think runs our treasury now? Why it has been CEOS from Goldman Sachs, chairman of the NY FED etc. Literally it would many of the same people who are running things now but for the good of the country and success measured on profitability not growth, which is the whole problem now. There would be no change to everyday working people's banking habits and practices. Once again your whole argument lies with what would happen to Wall St and not Main St. Things would actually start to stabilize when the market is not worried about how much more debt the Gov. will incur bailing out the same dozen banks. They are literally dragging the whole market down. But in the corporate owned media, the focus is on the S&P and not the tent cities popping up all over the country. The whole focus of the argument is severely misplaced. Jules- GM's problem was lack of competitive vehicles and siding with big oil and not making fuel efficient vehicles. As far as worker pay goes, that is a complete distraction when it is the cost increases private insurance has saddled GM with is actually what bankrupted the company.If GM was not responsible for health insurance and their was universal care then even with the bad business decisions they would still not be facing extinction like they are now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 GM's problem was lack of competitive vehicles and siding with big oil and not making fuel efficient vehicles. As far as worker pay goes, that is a complete distraction when it is the cost increases private insurance has saddled GM with is actually what bankrupted the company.If GM was not responsible for health insurance and their was universal care then even with the bad business decisions they would still not be facing extinction like they are now. GM's benefits pay for 800,000 former employees. That is a shit load of people. Even though the Japanese companies are suffering the same sales losses that their American counter parts are, they are better insulated against the losses for a number of reasons. In spite of having pay and benefits that are very comparable to their union counterparts, the Japanese have simply not been in the states long enough to have a large force of retiree Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 All the banks you named took bailout funds and are all hovering around the $1-$5/share range. They should be nationalized for the sake of the country. The value of 10% off the S&P has already started to happen, there is not much further it would fall. Yes, the entire banking system should be nationalized incrementally. But throwing vast sums of debt at these same banks every few months is really not working and will cost this nation in untold ways. Simply put it is not worth it. Not true. JPMorgan is trading above $15 right now and its total equity value is 57BN. Just to name one. Also, banks were forced to take bailout money. JPM didnt want any and was forced to take the funds because Sec Paulson didn't want a run on banks to start because people were perceiving strength and weakness based on acceptance/rejection of bailout funds. Remember -- so much of this now is perception. I am not suggesting that throwing vast sums of debts at these sh*thole banks is something I am doing backflips over either. I don't know what the best option is. If I've been consistent in anything, it's that I dont have any of the answers. And I think there are a lot of complicated and frankly, valid, concerns going into the decisions that Obama is making. To just say "nationalize it, it worked for Sweden" ignores a lot of problems that nationalizing will cause. And my sense is that Obama is well aware of these problems. The banks cannot be nationalized in a vacuum. And I have to say you have been all over the map with your arguments. Stating how any tax increase on your employers as individuals would cost you a job. It seems you just accept some very weak arguments to begin with. I haven't been all over the map on anything. All I have been doing is worrying aloud about some of the unintended consequences of some of these actions. If my boss tells me that he's considering shutting down his business because of increased regulation and taxes, how is that a weak argument? It may be anecdotal, for sure, but I never suggested otherwise. All I said was we need to consider how these policies do things other than we intend. The list of leading authorities in the field of finance are all starting to chime in for nationalization. Krugman,Stiglz,Greenspan etc. so it would not be as horrible to the system as you might imagine. It is much more harmful what we are doing now. And who do you think runs our treasury now? Why it has been CEOS from Goldman Sachs, chairman of the NY FED etc. Literally it would many of the same people who are running things now but for the good of the country and success measured on profitability not growth, which is the whole problem now. There would be no change to everyday working people's banking habits and practices. Once again your whole argument lies with what would happen to Wall St and not Main St. Things would actually start to stabilize when the market is not worried about how much more debt the Gov. will incur bailing out the same dozen banks. They are literally dragging the whole market down. But in the corporate owned media, the focus is on the S&P and not the tent cities popping up all over the country. The whole focus of the argument is severely misplaced. And the leading authorities in the field 5 years ago were saying that there was no bubble. Did you really cite Greenspan there?! The leading authorities got us (in part) into this mess. Or didn't see it coming. You are right that it's a problem with who runs the Fed. But why do you think they do? You can't find someone to run the Fed in a coffee shop in Greenwich Village. So if we accept that, you are going to end up with the same authorities who got it wrong the last time, getting it wrong now (as you suggest), working to get it wrong going forward? And I am much more worried about the impact on main street. My Mom and Dad's 401k account is a main street account for retirement. If I lose my job, I am main street. I realize that it's easy for me to stand here and poke holes in every policy without offering my own plan. But I never came in here with a plan. I have been consistent all along. I have no answers. Just a real big worry about how we get out of this mess. And what some of the collateral damage will be. Again, you refuse to accept that there will be any collateral damage, and that Sweden is a perfect analogy. Your arguments dont convince me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The only thing I wonder is if he took a loan out on his 401K to buy it. His 401K will let you borrow for any reason, you don't need to prove a hardship or medical reason or anything.Well, it is his money afterall. Jules- GM's problem was lack of competitive vehicles and siding with big oil and not making fuel efficient vehicles. As far as worker pay goes, that is a complete distraction when it is the cost increases private insurance has saddled GM with is actually what bankrupted the company.If GM was not responsible for health insurance and their was universal care then even with the bad business decisions they would still not be facing extinction like they are now.So, you agree it has nothing to do with how much the CEO makes? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well, it is his money afterall. because i can...pffft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So, you agree it has nothing to do with how much the CEO makes? The CEO is directing the failure, he is executing the plans of the board plans which he had a great hand in creating.. So you agree that failure should be rewarded? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The only thing I wonder is if he took a loan out on his 401K to buy it. His 401K will let you borrow for any reason, you don't need to prove a hardship or medical reason or anything. I missed this, how do you know about the terms of his 401-K? Does this guy discuss such things? If he does he's a douch for doing so. I never ever discuss stuff like this with anyone outside of my imediate family or my advisors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The CEO is directing the failure, he is executing the plans of the board plans which he had a great hand in creating.. So you agree that failure should be rewarded?Yeah, really. How many millions of dollars does one NEED to drive a company into the ground? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Yeah, really. How many millions of dollars does one NEED to drive a company into the ground?I'd do it for $10M. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The CEO is directing the failure, he is executing the plans of the board plans which he had a great hand in creating.. So you agree that failure should be rewarded? what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way. i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way. i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it.thank you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 "douche" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way. i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it. Let them follow their free market principles and seek over the top and unjustified compensation in other countries. They have effectively run this country into the ground and we can not afford their salaries or their "superior" business sense anymore. If they own the company then they can pay themselves anything they want. If they simply run the company then more realistic and justified salaries are in order. I'm tired of watching people starve so some guy can buy a gold plated toilet. There is some serious brainwashing in this country. We are at the greatest wage disparity since the great depression in this country. And we are paying the same consequences now we did back then for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Let them follow their free market principles and seek over the top and unjustified compensation in other countries. They have effectively run this country into the ground and we can not afford their salaries or their "superior" business sense anymore. If they own the company then they can pay themselves anything they want. If they simply run the company then more realistic and justified salaries are in order. I'm tired of watching people starve so some guy can buy a gold plated toilet. There is some serious brainwashing in this country. We are at the greatest wage disparity since the great depression in this country. And we are paying the same consequences now we did back then for it.So, now the wage disparity in large corporations is to blame for this recession? I'm confused. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Let them follow their free market principles and seek over the top and unjustified compensation in other countries. They have effectively run this country into the ground and we can not afford their salaries or their "superior" business sense anymore. If they own the company then they can pay themselves anything they want. If they simply run the company then more realistic and justified salaries are in order. I'm tired of watching people starve so some guy can buy a gold plated toilet. There is some serious brainwashing in this country. We are at the greatest wage disparity since the great depression in this country. And we are paying the same consequences now we did back then for it. so, again, CEO of a company that is failing should either get zero salary/compensation and/or deported...CEO of a company doing well is still way too overpaid and (still) solely responsbile for fucking the country up. makes sense to me. dude, really, shit isn't so black/white. how may actual CEO's do you know/have you met? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way. i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it. Yes. Definitely overpaid. Unfortunatly shareholder have little say in how much the company leaders make. Sure a proxy goes out and there is usually something in the proxy about compensation, but not usually to vote on, just to look at. Chances are that this guy negotiated his pay contract long ago (relatively) and GM is stuck with it. But these executive pay contracts usually only have an upside to them. You earn X regardless and XXXX if the company does well. The pay is frequently tied to stock etc Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Chances are that this guy negotiated his pay contract long ago (relatively) and GM is stuck with it. But these executive pay contracts usually only have an upside to them. You earn X regardless and XXXX if the company does well.So they should give it back? I don't know what these guys are supposed to do? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 ...Also poor performance at the top easily sets the table for failure at the bottom, rarely if ever is it the other way around. i agree...to a certain extent. i'd just say, again, that you seem to be discounting so many levels of other management and employees below him...and that you aren't providing even strata either way. it just seems either way CEO = bad guy. i guess i don't believe that is true across the board and that there are exceptions. i also don't like the deflection from any level of accountability on individuyal employees. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way. i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it. Yes. Many CEO salaries are now structured in such a way that they are grossly over-compensated even when the company as a whole underperforms, or, as in GM Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I missed this, how do you know about the terms of his 401-K? Does this guy discuss such things? If he does he's a douch for doing so. I never ever discuss stuff like this with anyone outside of my imediate family or my advisors. Like I said, he used to be my brother in law, so yes, I do know that he can borrow for any reason because he's done it in the past. I also know how much they refinanced their house for about a year ago, how much they paid for their trip to Mexico in December, etc. Is there anything else you'd like to know? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Like I said, he used to be my brother in law, so yes, I do know that he can borrow for any reason because he's done it in the past. I also know how much they refinanced their house for about a year ago, how much they paid for their trip to Mexico in December, etc. Is there anything else you'd like to know? Boxers or briefs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 or boxerbriefs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So, now the wage disparity in large corporations is to blame for this recession? I'm confused. You sure are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So they should give it back? I don't know what these guys are supposed to do? Given that, more and more often, industry is unable to police itself, the government should step in and set some limits. You can counter by saying that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Given that, more and more often, industry is unable to police itself, the government should step in and set some limits. You can counter by saying that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.