Global Banks Ruling the World...

[vort3xr6]

I am so putting that on my business cards...

Right under "The Bauce"

[dirkterrell]

Pay off the right people (aka, give a good campaign contribution) and you get a huge blank check to fund your pet project. Republicans are equally to blame in this.

You mean like this?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...aw_594593.html

And no, the Republicans aren't any damn different when it comes to this sort of shit.

Solution: Prohibit any corporation, industry group, union or company from giving campaign donations of any kind (hard or soft). Since only citizens have a right to vote, only they should be allowed to contribute to a candidate.

That would go a long way towards solving some big problems.

Second issue is that we have given enormous power to the central government. Power = corruption plan and simple. Reduce that power and the amount of damage these massive banks/corporations can do to the system is mitigated due to the free market self-correcting mechanisms.

This is the the crux of the problem.

[Snowman]

Well said.

I have been a long time advocate for fixed budget campaigns. You have $500,000 to run for office. Good luck. That would weed out the fiscally unintelligent candidates fairly quick.

The rich have already bought the government, now anyone that doesn't have $500,000 in their bank account is immediately disqualified? Really, when was the last time you had $500,000 in a savings account you can spend on an election?

Now any candidate start off by not using any of their money at all and any campaign contributions by a leagal resisdent of the US and limited to $100.00 to a max of $500,000 or so, then you might have something.

[vort3xr6]

The rich have already bought the government, now anyone that doesn't have $500,000 in their bank account is immediately disqualified? Really, when was the last time you had $500,000 in a savings account you can spend on an election?

Now any candidate start off by not using any of their money at all and the campaign contributions to a leagal resisdent of the US and limited to $100.00 to a max of $500,000 or so, then you might have something.

The rich really don't do a lot except cut the check so the lobbyist makes sure to get what they want. No different from the auto industry here in Colorado. I have met our lobbyist and he has done great things, and he makes stupid money. The auto dealers just cut the check so the state government stays out of our way (deregulation).

The money would come from the political group wanting the candidate to get elected. Problem is that we are reaching the point where you need 1 billion dollars (no joke) to run for president.

[Shea]

Now any candidate start off by not using any of their money at all and any campaign contributions by a leagal resisdent [Speel checek much? ]of the US and limited to $100.00 to a max of $500,000 or so, then you might have something.

This and make the campaign season 3 months long. The main reason it costs so damn much to run for office is that it starts 14 stinking months before the election. They should be doing their job instead.

[cptschlongenheimer]

Seriously, they get paid a lot because THEY TAKE THE RISKS. The low level mail sorter doesn't make decisions that impact the future of the company. When you take the risk, you deserve the reward.

They should be paid based on the risks that actually pay off for the company.
How can the Lehman bros execs justify the golden parachutes they all got for devastating their company?

The banks are a fundamental part of society as is Wall Street. Yes, they make money during a recession because they take the risk to do so.

Some would say it's because they've stacked the deck.

I don't understand why you all aren't mad at Steve Jobs and Apple for being the biggest company in the world and how many apple store employees don't make what Steve Jobs did.

Cry me a river. Become an entrepreneur and make your own success, rather than bitching about the supposed "undeserved" success of others.

/rant

Not against making it big or anyone who does. What I'm against is the CEO's who all sit on each other's BOD's and grant these ridiculously huge salaries to all their buddies at the expense of the shareholders who they are supposed to be working for.

If you own your company outright and you want to make 1000 times what your mail room employees make, fine, be that asshole. But when your company becomes a publicly traded commodity. When people start sinking their 401K retirement savings into your leadership ability, your duty becomes maximizing shareholder profits, not your own. You should be looking out for your company's bottom line by offering compensation packages based heavily on performance. Not contractual bonuses that get paid even if Washington has to come bail you out.
/counter-rant

[cptschlongenheimer]

I do, however, agree that removing corporate money from and shortening the campaign season are both necessary reforms.

[rforsythe]

If you own your company outright and you want to make 1000 times what your mail room employees make, fine, be that asshole.

If I own/build a company capable of providing me with a salary 1000 times that of my mail room employees, I would say I've earned that benefit. That's not being an asshole; that's taking a vision compounded with sometimes massive, life-altering risk, and doing something great with it. The mailroom employee can always go work in another mail room if things go south; the guy with 7 figures on the line trying to make a go of something has a lot more to lose for a long, long time.

[Snowman]

Yes but the guy with 7 figures on the line can also go work in another mail room if things go south. I don't see the huge risk of falure resulting in crating a hole in the economy here...

So yes, I would go with asshole here.

[vort3xr6]

Yes but the guy with 7 figures on the line can also go work in another mail room if things go south. I don't see the huge risk of falure resulting in crating a hole in the economy here...

But he is not creating a hole in the economy, he is actually creating more JOBS. That mail clerk may not even have a job if not for the risk and drive of the entrepreneur. I totally agree with Ralph.

I watched my dad start a construction company and lose everything. 11 years later he started a Demolition company and made it big. He took the risk, he takes both the risk of failure and the benefits of success.

[rforsythe]

Yes but the guy with 7 figures on the line can also go work in another mail room if things go south. I don't see the huge risk of falure resulting in crating a hole in the economy here...

So yes, I would go with asshole here.

1. You assume that 7 figures is HIS
2. You assume there is a lot more where that came from
-- It's quite common that neither are true, and he's now on the line for a shitload of money. The guy in the mail room is just not risking anywhere near as much, and more to the point, sure as hell hasn't put forth the same initiative to make a company.

So I wouldn't necessarily go with asshole. Sometimes people who are successful earn that place.

[Snowman]

But he is not creating a hole in the economy, he is actually creating more JOBS. That mail clerk may not even have a job if not for the risk and drive of the entrepreneur. I totally agree with Ralph.

I watched my dad start a construction company and lose everything. 11 years later he started a Demolition company and made it big. He took the risk, he takes both the risk of failure and the benefits of success.

But if your dads construction company went south, your dad would just find another job. Your dad would have never gone running to the government screaming, if you don't save my company it's going to collapse the entire constitution industry and nothing will ever get built ever again...

So I wouldn't necessarily go with asshole. Sometimes people who are successful earn that place.

And just how is the CEO of Goldman Saks risking anything like you are describing? Especially when he still get a bonus in the millions after having his company bailed out by tax dollars? There is no risk for people at that level, they will scream free market when is comes to profits but just as fast scream bail us out when it comes to losses. Where is the risk?

[dirkterrell]

But if your dads construction company went south, your dad would just find another job. Your dad would have never gone running to the government screaming, if you don't save my company it's going to collapse the entire constitution industry and nothing will ever get built ever again...

I think this is the point that the others are failing to get. In a normal free-market economy, failures are normal and actually required. It's the way that bad behaviour is dealt with (e.g. you make loans to people that you know have no way of paying them back just so you can squeeze out some refinancing fees). But the banks are in a different category because they are backed up by the government. They can do risky things (thanks to the repeal of parts of the Glass-Steagall act) but not actually be risking anything. In fact, it's now clear that some of these institutions profited by betting that the loans wouldn't be repaid. (e.g. http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-ww...lepost=2433293) That is the key difference between the banks and the kinds of businesses that Brad and Ralph are talking about.

We need a banking system. We do not need Chase or JPM or any individual bank. Split the banking stuff back the way it was, with depositor monies (low risk, low profit) being backed up by the government, and risky investment business open to the normal marker forces. You do stupid shit, you pay for it, not the taxpayers. Allowing the banks to mix the two and gamble with other people's money is one of the major reasons the economy has tanked. We allowed people to do really stupid and risky shit, and then bailed them out when they got burned. That's not the way a free market is supposed to work.

[cptschlongenheimer]

If I own/build a company capable of providing me with a salary 1000 times that of my mail room employees, I would say I've earned that benefit. That's not being an asshole; that's taking a vision compounded with sometimes massive, life-altering risk, and doing something great with it. The mailroom employee can always go work in another mail room if things go south; the guy with 7 figures on the line trying to make a go of something has a lot more to lose for a long, long time.

In a private company you are absolutely right, Ralph. But when you IPO you are selling it. You are no longer the owner, the shareholders are. The reset button should be pushed on your salary and from then on it should be about getting the best leadership at a fair price, not a rigged one.

The unethical part is having the CEO's of X,Y and Z company sit on the BOD of W's and grant him a big salary that is guaranteed regardless of performance while he sits on the board for all of them and votes in kind. Executive salaries for publicly traded companies shouldn't be decided by the people who are making them. It's like allowing congress to vote themselves pay raises...oh, wait.

[cptschlongenheimer]

Dirk, as usual, has a lot of wisdom here.

How do we convince him to run for office?

[Snowman]

True, however that situation with the banks came about because of the enormous amounts of money these people were making.

Money buys influence, always has and it is proportional, more money, more influence. Just think of the money these people had to amass in order to buy the influence over the years to get the deregulations that lead to the banks being able to create those high risk securities and government not doing anything about it. Then the influence to come back when it all collapsed and threaten that if they are not paid off they will collapse the whole system. That is what someone making 1000 times what the mail room guy does with it.

There has to be a disconnect between government and business, or the government can not regulate. The check and balance is no longer there when people make so much money that they can buy the government.

[jbnwc]

Too much of this going on in this thread.




Seriously, they get paid a lot because THEY TAKE THE RISKS. The low level mail sorter doesn't make decisions that impact the future of the company. When you take the risk, you deserve the reward.

The banks are a fundamental part of society as is Wall Street. Yes, they make money during a recession because they take the risk to do so.

I don't understand why you all aren't mad at Steve Jobs and Apple for being the biggest company in the world and how many apple store employees don't make what Steve Jobs did.

Cry me a river. Become an entrepreneur and make your own success, rather than bitching about the supposed "undeserved" success of others.

/rant

100% agreed.

[dirkterrell]

There has to be a disconnect between government and business, or the government can not regulate. The check and balance is no longer there when people make so much money that they can buy the government.

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has done a lot of good writing on the financial scandal. Here's one example:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-jail-20110216

[cptschlongenheimer]

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has done a lot of good writing on the financial scandal. Here's one example:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-jail-20110216

I saw that one a couple months ago. Another good read.

[Shea]

True, however that situation with the banks came about because of the enormous amounts of money these people were making.

Money buys influence, always has and it is proportional, more money, more influence. Just think of the money these people had to amass in order to buy the influence over the years to get the deregulations that lead to the banks being able to create those high risk securities and government not doing anything about it. Then the influence to come back when it all collapsed and threaten that if they are not paid off they will collapse the whole system. That is what someone making 1000 times what the mail room guy does with it.

There has to be a disconnect between government and business, or the government can not regulate. The check and balance is no longer there when people make so much money that they can buy the government.

Yes, no and sort of.

I think the fallacy that you and others of your mindset fall into is that if someone makes a lot of money, they did so through graft, corruption or simply outright theft. Is there a "old boy network" when it comes to C-level salaries? Sure. Is the solution to have government decide how much someone makes? Hell no. That is a scary level of power to invest in a bunch of politicians. If you don't like what a company pays their executives, don't buy their product. Simple as that.

To keep bringing up the poor, oppressed "mail room clerk" as some sort of serf who is a slave to the system is tired, unimagined and ignorant. Every employee rents their skill set to the highest bidder. If their skill set is poor (aka your mail room clerk) they will receive less compensation for it. He is not oppressed by "the man" or enslaved to some corporate giant, he simply is a low skilled worker who cannot command a higher price for his labor.

The elimination of Glass-Steagall pushed us closer to the brink but there have been many others, most of them government intrusions into the market, that helped us along the way. Any time the government tries to right some perceived wrong they skew the market and it has nasty unintended consequences. Any time a central government has this much power, with a nearly unlimited budget they will use it to pay off their friends, donors, cronies much to our dismay. Picking winners and losers never works. Let the market flush out the bad actors and those that remain are stronger and more agile because of it.

[Clovis]

There's a lot of class warfare going on in this thread.

Let me ask you this. For every dollar I earn, how much do I deserve to keep?

[cptschlongenheimer]

...I think the fallacy that you and others of your mindset fall into is that if someone makes a lot of money, they did so through graft, corruption or simply outright theft....

Not necessarily true. We just want an even playing field. Working hard & getting rich is well deserved. Getting rich while robbing the working class of any hope for a financially secure retirement = asshole. Most of the wealth lost in this morass we find ourselves in, was at the expense of the middle class, who are not unskilled peasants but are increasingly being compensated as such.

To keep bringing up the poor, oppressed "mail room clerk" as some sort of serf who is a slave to the system is tired, unimagined and ignorant. Every employee rents their skill set to the highest bidder. If their skill set is poor (aka your mail room clerk) they will receive less compensation for it. He is not oppressed by "the man" or enslaved to some corporate giant, he simply is a low skilled worker who cannot command a higher price for his labor.

I agree any CEO with half decent business sense should command a better dollar than the mail room clerk. And maybe it is un-american to try and regulate that ratio. But If I made 200 mil a year while people who made that possible, made 20K, I don't think I could consider myself a fair and just person.

As it is with many things in life, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[Shea]

Not necessarily true. We just want an even playing field. Working hard & getting rich is well deserved. Getting rich while robbing the working class of any hope for a financially secure retirement = asshole. Most of the wealth lost in this morass we find ourselves in, was at the expense of the middle class, who are not unskilled peasants but are increasingly being compensated as such.

If you have evidence that people are "robbing" someone then please contact your local authorities. However, if you define "robbing" someone as making more then you make, then I think that hardly qualifies as larceny.

As I said before, will say in the future and reiterate now, the morass (to use your term) has many causes and was arrived at over a very long stretch of time. To oversimplify it and say "it's the rich bankers fault" not only fails to encapsulate that but also an unwillingness to look at the ugly truth. WE are at fault here. WE are responsible for putting the politicians in office that sold our country out. WE are responsible for wanting cheap Chinese iPhones. WE are responsible for the tribalism that keeps us from facing the cold, stark truth that WE are bankrupt as a nation.

No one is keeping you from success except YOU. Don't like a 20k/yr job, quit and find another. Better yet, enhance your skill set to the point where companies are falling over themselves to pay you what YOU want. It's not a hard concept. It's just far easier to be a victim then actually take ownership of your own life. (not directed at you per se)

I agree any CEO with half decent business sense should command a better dollar than the mail room clerk. And maybe it is un-american to try and regulate that ratio. But If I made 200 mil a year while people who made that possible, made 20K, I don't think I could consider myself a fair and just person.

As it is with many things in life, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

It's yet another fallacy to think that if the CEO isn't getting paid 200 mil (only one CEO comes even close to that by the way) then all the other serfs in the mail room would be making bank (yo!). So let's do some quick math. Larry Ellison made 192.92 mil in 2008. (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_CEO-Compensation_Rank.html) Total number of Oracle employees: 84233
If Mr. Ellison didn't take a dime, every employee would get a bump of $2,290.31 per year. Provided of course that all that money went to the employees and not to capital investments, new products, etc. Nice raise but not exactly earth-shattering-i-can-now-buy-a-ferrari type money. And he is the top dog, the salaries drop off sharply from there.

It's a free market (-ish), if you don't like how a company does business, don't buy their product. Better yet, if you think you can do it better, more efficiently and provide for your employees a greater life, step up to the plate a take a swing. It's easy to bitch from the bleachers.

[Shea]

There's a lot of class warfare going on in this thread.

Let me ask you this. For every dollar I earn, how much do I deserve to keep?

None Clovis. Your labor is owned by the state, be grateful for what they give you.