[Ak2809]

My favourite bit of cognitive dissonance is that the same people who tear down unions for being entitled and overpaid will jump to the defence of present-day CEO salaries.

Its this "invisible hand of the free market" bullshit people believe.

The free market, much like communism, only works in theory, because in reality people are greedy scum who will fuck over their fellow man for a dollar.

 

[Filip]

My favourite bit of cognitive dissonance is that the same people who tear down unions for being entitled and overpaid will jump to the defence of present-day CEO salaries.

There are far less CEOs, and I think we can all agree that their job isn't a walk in the park. I don't know, but the thought of running a company with thousands of employees, billions in assets while answering to stakeholders and the general public sounds like it deserves a bit more recognition than most, if not all, unionized jobs.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree a CEO should be compensated more, except there is a slight bit of a problem as to how much more:

As to accountability - well, the 2008 economic crisis (and the various high profile wrongdoings - Nortel, Enron, WorldCom, etc.) certainly cast an interesting light to that particular issue. Shareholders, maybe (and who are they necessarily accountable to?) - the general public, probably not.

AoD

 

[Filip]

I agree a CEO should be compensated more, except there is a slight bit of a problem as to how much more:

As to accountability - well, the 2008 economic crisis (and the various high profile wrongdoings - Nortel, Enron, WorldCom, etc.) certainly cast an interesting light to that particular issue. Shareholders, maybe (and who are they necessarily accountable to?) - the general public, probably not.

AoD

I thought that was ridiculous too, thankfully it doesn't happen often.

 

[js97]

You might want to look into the perks and benefits employees of Google (and other companies that are considered top notch to work for) receive. They're far greater than anything any public servant is requesting.

That's fairly distorted to compare Google, a private company that generates it's revenues from the market, vs. a public sector employee that I have no choice but to pay for.

Plus I'm sure Google does not have 18 sick days a year nor the type of job security associated with the public sector.

Finally, I'm more than comfortable stating that you're google employee is likely twice as productive and intelligent than any bureacrat at the same level of responsibility/experience.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, except how much did the bailout actually cost the taxpayers?

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Finally, I'm more than comfortable stating that you're google employee is likely twice as productive and intelligent than any bureacrat at the same level of responsibility/experience.

Actually, I am quite confident in their productivity and intelligence when unconstrained by their political masters.

AoD

 

[Filip]

If we're talking about Wall Street, they repaid their bailout in full, with interest. It was actually fun watching CNN interviewing Occupy Wall St. protesters and listening to them rant about Wall St. bailouts and how it bankrupted the country. The journalist tells them if they knew it was repaid in full with interest (the government raised money) and they just stare blankly and start a rant about corporate greed. LMAO.. Oh lack of research, I love you.

 

[js97]

Yeah, except how much did the bailout actually cost the taxpayers?

AoD

Hey, I wasn't much a fan of the bail out... (but that was mostly in the states, where they have much less government checks and balances)

The auto Sector bail out was a bit of a joke... but what can you do!

 

[js97]

I agree a CEO should be compensated more, except there is a slight bit of a problem as to how much more:

As to accountability - well, the 2008 economic crisis (and the various high profile wrongdoings - Nortel, Enron, WorldCom, etc.) certainly cast an interesting light to that particular issue. Shareholders, maybe (and who are they necessarily accountable to?) - the general public, probably not.

AoD

That's just more partisan talk, without looking at the macro picture. Yes, the gap has been widened, but how many more jobs are these CEO's responsible for? How many multi-national companies exist now that didnt' in the 60's? You could put the ratio of employees to CEOs along the same graph, and I would bet that it would be very similiar. What about the amount of wealth those companies have generated, dividends that get paid to the same public sector pension funds that help sustain those benefits?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

If we're talking about Wall Street, they repaid their bailout in full, with interest. It was actually fun watching CNN interviewing Occupy Wall St. protesters and listening to them rant about Wall St. bailouts and how it bankrupted the country. The journalist tells them if they knew it was repaid in full with interest (the government raised money) and they just stare blankly and start a rant about corporate greed. LMAO.. Oh lack of research, I love you.

I have worked in the private sector for many years (in finanace), and I get to interview / get my ass kissed by greedy, whiny, clueless grads regularly. They tend to be half-brights who have digested the pablum of some business prof and repeated it in the mirror while practicing their smile. I take enormous pleasure in rejecting their applicatons, because I can and because I should.

The bail-outs were not neutral or positive to government coffers. The massively inflated money supply they contributed to, for example, is likely to have negative implications. And often the bailouts were tied to government-mandated pension fund robbery. They were an acute example of the crony capitalist system we "enjoy". Gains are privatized and losses are socialized. If you honestly believe that the bailouts were anything but a service to the plutocrats by the politicians they own, you will not go far in your career. "True believers" in this industry are looked at as morons. Everyone in actual power understands that we serve the rich against the rest. Wake up.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

If we're talking about Wall Street, they repaid their bailout in full, with interest. It was actually fun watching CNN interviewing Occupy Wall St. protesters and listening to them rant about Wall St. bailouts and how it bankrupted the country. The journalist tells them if they knew it was repaid in full with interest (the government raised money) and they just stare blankly and start a rant about corporate greed. LMAO.. Oh lack of research, I love you.

Filip -- Wall Street hasn't even come close to paying back the bailout. You're wrong by billions upon billions of dollars. Any journalist that has said that is being disingenuous, and talking about the companies that survived or some other incredibly narrow definition of 'paid back.'

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

That's just more partisan talk, without looking at the macro picture. Yes, the gap has been widened, but how many more jobs are these CEO's responsible for? How many multi-national companies exist now that didnt' in the 60's? You could put the ratio of employees to CEOs along the same graph, and I would bet that it would be very similiar. What about the amount of wealth those companies have generated, dividends that get paid to the same public sector pension funds that help sustain those benefits?

C'mon. Even those of us who work in the investment industry are getting sick of the enormous dollars CEOs have been paying themselves and the inequities it's creating. Read Barry Ritholtz' blog, or the NYT Economix blog, or any other of a number of commentators.

 

[Filip]

I have worked in the private sector for many years (in finanace), and I get to interview / get my ass kissed by greedy, whiny, clueless grads regularly. They tend to be half-brights who have digested the pablum of some business prof and repeated it in the mirror while practicing their smile. I take enormous pleasure in rejecting their applicatons, because I can and because I should.

The bail-outs were not neutral or positive to government coffers. The massively inflated money supply they contributed to, for example, is likely to have negative implications. And often the bailouts were tied to government-mandated pension fund robbery. They were an acute example of the crony capitalist system we "enjoy". Gains are privatized and losses are socialized. If you honestly believe that the bailouts were anything but a service to the plutocrats by the politicians they own, you will not go far in your career. "True believers" in this industry are looked at as morons. Everyone in actual power understands that we serve the rich against the rest. Wake up.

I'm the CEO of a fortune 50 company! See we can be ANYONE on the internetz!!

If you want to complain about bailouts look at the auto sector and detroit auto makers. That was a clear case of good money thrown at bad. By October 2010, the bank portion of the TARP was seeing a ROI of 8.2%. By March 2011, the treasury was expecting to actually profit by $20 billion on its investment of $245 billion

"The transfers to the Troubled Asset Relief Program will push recoveries from banks to $251 billion in repayments of capital, dividends, interest and other income. It invested $245 billion in banks during the financial crisis to help avert a U.S. financial system collapse."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-usa-treasury-banks-idUSTRE72S7Q120110330

Finally, in your position, what would you do? Let the banks fail because of lack of liquidity or inject much needed cash to keep the operations going? I would have loved to see what the crisis would have looked like had major banks actually collapsed and taken much of their assets with them. There was no easy solution, but it was the best one.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm the complete dickcheese! See we can be sarcastic a-hole libertarians that don't understand economics on the Internet!! Fixed that last mistake for you gratis.

If you want to complain about bailouts look at the auto sector and detroit auto makers. That was a clear case of good money thrown at bad. By October 2010, the bank portion of the TARP was seeing a ROI of 8.2%. By March 2011, the treasury was expecting to actually profit by $20 billion on its investment of $245 billion

"The transfers to the Troubled Asset Relief Program will push recoveries from banks to $251 billion in repayments of capital, dividends, interest and other income. It invested $245 billion in banks during the financial crisis to help avert a U.S. financial system collapse."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-usa-treasury-banks-idUSTRE72S7Q120110330

Finally, in your position, what would you do? Let the banks fail because of lack of liquidity or inject much needed cash to keep the operations going? I would have loved to see what the crisis would have looked like had major banks actually collapsed and taken much of their assets with them. There was no easy solution, but it was the best one.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/bad-math-and-bad-analysis/

It took me a while to find the article I wished to cite. However, two things should be obvious to anyone after three long years of this debt-fuelled crisis -- to say that the US or any other government/central bank made money on any part of this implosion is flat-out wrong. And, anyone that would say that is bat-shit crazy. And, yes, if the US government had let Bear Stearns fail rather than prop it up, then they would not have had nearly as deep an implosion after Lehmans.