| BONUS?????? How many got a million dollar bonus this week, like the AIG executives? |
|
 Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by mdaddyrabbit:How many got a million dollar bonus this week, like the AIG executives? You know... I was just dreaming of getting a multi million dollar bonus for only thinking of my own wealth and scamming tax payers and the government.
--
"I'm just a goof, looking for my ball." |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to mdaddyrabbit
said by mdaddyrabbit:How many got a million dollar bonus this week, like the AIG executives? Unfortunately they didn't have a choice. Either pay the bonuses now or don't and they end up in a lawsuit they can't win and have to pay out double.
And unfortunately the BS from Washington has every citizen so intimately linked to them that now we're all screwed when they do fail.
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Why? Look at all the union and contact working people (automotive workers in particular) breaking contracts just to keep a lot of companies afloat in these hard times. Nobody ever thinks of that. Why cant the contracts be broken for CEO'S. Enough said. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to mdaddyrabbit
said by mdaddyrabbit:How many got a million dollar bonus this week, like the AIG executives? Maybe now people will see the light on these corporate bailouts and learn that they are never good under any circumstances.
The only reason the AIG bonuses are even an issue is because the company is on welfare. Had the government let AIG fail, no one would care about this.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to CaptainRR
said by CaptainRR:Why cant the contracts be broken for CEO'S. Enough said. Because of Connecticut state law.
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
| reply to CaptainRR
The union is the one who decided to make concessions. The blue collar workers should blame their union leaders for the concessions, not executives at other companies. The white collar workers in general are not unionized. Without "union leadership and bargaining power", they seemed to have done ok.
I still dont understand why people should be paid when they are not working anymore. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to CaptainRR
said by CaptainRR:Why? Look at all the union and contact working people (automotive workers in particular) breaking contracts just to keep a lot of companies afloat in these hard times. Nobody ever thinks of that. Why cant the contracts be broken for CEO'S. Enough said. Exactly. Once society intervened in AIG, keeping these guys employed, it's not anything like a "free market," as if we're coming in from out of the blue to slap their hands over bonuses. They wouldn't even be getting a paycheck if we hadn't stepped in. So, it's just a matter of negotiating *how much* they get paid.
I've heard people say Congress's rash action to tax the bonuses out of existence violates the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.
But, a bill of attainder is legislation designed to punish one group. It's difficult to view a 95% tax on a bonus they wouldn't have received without prior legislation singling them out to remain employed as "punishment." You can't isolate the tax legislation from the legislation just weeks ago that benefited them as a group, and made the US society the largest shareholder of AIG.
Having said that, I don't really agree with the tax. AIG is like organized crime. We had to bail them out as "protection money" (so society wouldn't be hurt). The people who can unwind all the Credit Default Swap (derivatives which are essentially "bets") are in a position to hurt us. If they go to another financial job they have information they can use to torpedo those "bets."
I agree with people that it's distasteful. But, that's the reality.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Had the government let AIG fail, no one would care about this. That seems like a point without a distinction. Like, the cancer patient wouldn't be complaining about the high price of medicine if we hadn't kept her alive with chemo therapy.
Nobody had the stomach to watch a truly devastating collapse of the financial industry unfold. Intervention in market forces was just a pragmatic step -- like society does in a myriad of ways that you take for granted in your daily life (zoning laws, SEC regulation of the stock market, food & drug quality laws, building codes, banking regulation, environmental protection).
We do all those things because we, collectively, don't have the stomach to let Darwinism rule the day. The bailout of the financial system was just a much more targeted and abrupt example.
The irony is, if those who espouse unrealistic "free market" practices hadn't let Lehman brothers fail, we wouldn't have had to bailout AIG (or, at least not as severely). Lehman's failure led to AIG being required to pay off its bets (Credit Default Swaps) that Lehman wouldn't fail.
Frontline did a very good piece on the timeline. If you're concerned about "cause and effect," you can watch the video here:
Inside the Meltdown
»www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:Like, the cancer patient wouldn't be complaining about the high price of medicine if we hadn't kept her alive with chemo therapy. As someone who has had to deal with losing close family members to this disease I can tell you truly that in some cases when there is no hope for recovery, that is a truly adequate course of action.
said by amigo_boy:Nobody had the stomach to watch a truly devastating collapse of the financial industry unfold. To be fair, it looks like we will be getting that anyway, except that now we are paying more money for it.
I really don't think the collapse of all of these banks would have had the same "earth shattering" consequences that some would like us to believe. It isn't like someone else isn't going to get into the banking and insurance racket because of a few other banks went under.
I think that had there been no safety net, many of these banks would have had second thoughts regarding making the types of risky investments they had made. Economic Darwinism, as we call it, would have been the best medicine for these ailing institutions. I fell no pity for these lenders. They chose to lend money to people who they knew could not pay it back. I feel no pity for the other banks and brokerages that bought securities backed by these types of mortgages, as they knew the circumstances under which the money was lent. They chose to gamble, and they were on the losing side. Now our tax money is making them rich while the rest of us peons struggle to eek out a living.
The only reason capitalism works, in my view, is because it requires that those companies which make bad financial decisions fail. By preventing these failures, it is like we are letting dead brush accumulate in forests... we are just waiting for one spark to cause a firestorm of literally Biblical proportions.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:I really don't think the collapse of all of these banks would have had the same "earth shattering" consequences that some would like us to believe. You have the fortunate position of expressing that opinion without having to live through your thought experiment.
The problem is, everything we do as a society is contrary to your hypothetical advocacy for Darwinism. Those things developed over many decades because it was found that Darwinism wasn't the best solution.
For example, if you're like most people living in a city, you benefit from zoning laws to protect you from market Darwinism (your neighbor disposing of their property in a truly "free market"). Building codes (to make it more predictable that homes are constructed to "common" standards instead of what the market will bear).
The list goes on. Therefore, intervening in the financial system (as we do to assist you in your investing and banking choices) is part of a long tradition 99% of the population *enjoys*.
Arguing that we should have stood back and let Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, etc. fail (because it would have worked better) is a nice thought experiment, but completely contrary to your own benefit derived from social moderation of markets.
There's no reason to believe it would have been "better." Just like there's no reason to believe that allowing your neighbor to convert their home into an adult bookstore or late-night biker bar would be "better" (because it would teach you to be more careful about where to buy property).
It isn't like someone else isn't going to get into the banking and insurance racket because of a few other banks went under.
said by pnh102:I think that had there been no safety net, many of these banks would have had second thoughts regarding making the types of risky investments they had made. That's the fallacy of your limited-government ideology. There was no promise of a "safety net" at the time these banks engaged in Credit Default Swaps (unregulated insurance, essentially "bets"). In fact, the regulation was rolled back by a Republican-held Congress in 2000.
These people pushed the button to destroy themselves *all by themself*. Nobody forced them to do it. They did it without any promise of a safety net.
This screams ineffectiveness of deregulation. Credit Default Swaps should have been treated as the insurance that it is. It should have been regulated like insurance, with capital reserve requirements so there's a reasonable hope that the insurer has the resources to pay claims.
But, you're anti-regulation ideology would have us get rid of *all* insurance regulation? Make it a truly "free market" where you suffer the consequences for buying insurance from the wrong guy? That we'll all benefit by everyone developing a better character in a market fraught with easily-remedied peril at every turn?
To me, that's the problem with your position. You're arguing from a point of ideology. One of maintaining a set of principles which, if taken to their logical conclusion have no place in modern society and render you part of the irrelevant fringe.
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:You have the fortunate position of expressing that opinion without having to live through your thought experiment. And we can conclude that the current approach is a failure. People have literally lost their shirts because we are now propping up companies which should have been allowed to fail. The country is on the verge of going bankrupt because it seems to be more important to prop up failed companies than to let capitalism run its course. Numerous other companies have come and gone and no one is missing them.
said by amigo_boy:The problem is, everything we do as a society is contrary to your hypothetical advocacy for Darwinism. Those things developed over many decades because it was found that Darwinism wasn't the best solution. And what we're doing now is effective?
said by amigo_boy:For example, if you're like most people living in a city, you benefit from zoning laws ... Where did I suggest that there be no zoning laws? The difference here is that had the banks failed on their own without the taxpayers propping them up, the taxpayer would have been better off because they would not be footing the bill for their failure.
said by amigo_boy:Arguing that we should have stood back and let Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, etc. fail (because it would have worked better) is a nice thought experiment, but completely contrary to your own benefit derived from social moderation of markets. Considering that the average American didn't even know that these companies existed until they needed a bailout, I submit that no one would have really missed them in the long run. If you want to see the economy of this country come to a screeching halt, then have a company like Walmart go under.
said by amigo_boy:That's the fallacy of your limited-government ideology. There was no promise of a "safety net" at the time these banks engaged in Credit Default Swaps (unregulated insurance, essentially "bets"). In fact, the regulation was rolled back by a Republican-held Congress in 2000. Had the banks not been bailed out, the remaining banks that did not engage in this behavior would have learned on their own that such things are not a good idea. Again, the risks were quite well known when the banks made these loans and when they were sold off. The fact that the banks and other companies chose to ignore these risks and screw themselves is their own fault and no one else's.
said by amigo_boy:These people pushed the button to destroy themselves *all by themself*. Nobody forced them to do it. They did it without any promise of a safety net. And many banks didn't. But now there is a safety net, we will have more banks making even riskier investments knowing that the government will bail them out. Do you really think AIG, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac would still be in business had they given out the bonuses they did and continue to remain in business had the government not stepped in to enable them to do it?
said by amigo_boy:This screams ineffectiveness of deregulation. So if we take your argument to its logical extreme, we could justify bailouts of other companies that made risky business decisions that led to their demise. Should Circuit City and Bennigans had gotten bailouts too?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:You have the fortunate position of expressing that opinion without having to live through your thought experiment. And we can conclude that the current approach is a failure. What an odd response to what you quoted.
I can only reiterate: You have the fortunate position of expressing that opinion without having to live through your thought experiment.
said by pnh102:Where did I suggest that there be no zoning laws? Exactly. You don't want to "let capitalism run free" when it involves your neighbor's freedom to dispose of her property in a way you disapprove of. I.e., a late-night biker bar in violation of zoning laws (which are a social moderation of otherwise "free markets").
I believe your "bold" advocacy of letting markets run free (even if it means the equivalent of pressing the worldwide "reset" button) should be considered within the context of your personal benefit from social moderations to Darwinian "free markets."
You're not advocating the elimination of zoning laws, building codes, SEC regulation of the stock market, food- & drug-quality laws, environmental protection or state-creation of corporate charters (legal, yet fictional "persons" created by social fiat).
Why? Because you (and 99% of Americans) like those moderations to pure, raw, Darwinian markets.
IMO, your bravado about how we should have had a financial meltdown because "it's good to let people suffer the consequences of poor judgment" should be considered in that light.
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:You have the fortunate position of expressing that opinion without having to live through your thought experiment. If you want to go down that path we could say that we didn't live through the alternate "experiment" which is what we're doing now. Except that other countries, most notably Japan, tried the exact same approach of propping up failed banks. The result was a 10 year stagnation in the Japanese economy during the 1990s. So yes, we know that the current approach won't work because it didn't work before.
said by amigo_boy:You don't want to "let capitalism run free" when it involves your neighbor's freedom to dispose of her property in a way you disapprove of. I.e., a late-night biker bar in violation of zoning laws (which are a social moderation of otherwise "free markets"). Try again. My neighbor is free to open up such an establishment in a place that is zoned for it.
said by amigo_boy:I believe your "bold" advocacy of letting markets run free (even if it means the equivalent of pressing the worldwide "reset" button) should be considered within the context of your personal benefit from social moderations to Darwinian "free markets." Funny, you claim that I don't know the outcome of my choice, and yet you claim to know the outcome of it.
said by amigo_boy:You're not advocating the elimination of zoning laws, building codes, SEC regulation of the stock market, food- & drug-quality laws, environmental protection or state-creation of corporate charters (legal, yet fictional "persons" created by social fiat). And none of these have to do with the argument at hand. You are purposefully trying to dodge the issue because you know you are in the wrong.
said by amigo_boy:IMO, your bravado about how we should have had a financial meltdown because "it's good to let people suffer the consequences of poor judgment" should be considered in that light. When did it become a good idea that people who make mistakes should shielded from the consequences of those mistakes. Again, the facts of the situation are not in dispute. The banks and investment houses chose to invest in securities which they knew were shaky. They gambled and lost. If anything, it teaches the surviving banks to not repeat these mistakes.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:Japan, tried the exact same approach of propping up failed banks. The result was a 10 year stagnation in the Japanese economy during the 1990s. Again, you're relying on the luxury of Japan not living through your thought experiment (letting banks fail, and the financial system collapsing further than merely prolonged stagnation).
It's easy to talk with bravado about letting "free markets" work themselves out when you don't have to live through it. And, more ironically when you enjoy a myriad of social moderations to Darwinian "free" markets in your everyday life.
said by pnh102:My neighbor is free to open up such an establishment in a place that is zoned for it. Which creates (through public law) an artificial market. Your neighbor's perfect right to dispose of her property any way she sees fit is impacted so that you didn't have to buy sufficient property to protect yourself from your neighbors.
I can understand why you want to evade this topic because it gets to the heart of your "free market" bravado. If you're not willing to let market Darwinism rule the day in your own life, why should anyone believe your big talk about how wonderful it would be to experience the same thing at a much larger level?
said by pnh102:When did it become a good idea that people who make mistakes should shielded from the consequences of those mistakes. Maybe around the same time it became a good idea that you could be protected from your poor choice of buying too little property to protect yourself from your neighbors' disposal of their privately owned property? (I.e., relying on zoning laws to minimize the consequences of your choice?).
Or, around the same time it became a good idea that you could be protected from your poor choice of putting money in a poorly-managed bank? (I.e., banking regulations which limit willing buyers and sellers in the interest of more predictable market outcomes.).
Or, around the same time it became a good idea that you could be protected from your poor investment choices? (I.e., the SEC limiting willing participants in the market, reducing your level of due diligence which would exist in a truly "free" market.).
I know it's hard to talk big about "handouts," "socialism," and "big government" when the perks you enjoy are brought into the discussion.
Which is why you want to conveniently exclude them.
Mark |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:Again, you're relying on the luxury of Japan not living through your thought experiment (letting banks fail, and the financial system collapsing further than merely prolonged stagnation). And again, we have irrefutable proof that what we are trying now isn't working and you want to do it anyway. So we can only conclude that you want to keep doing the wrong thing. Do you magically believe that if we do the same thing that did not work that it will work?
said by amigo_boy:It's easy to talk with bravado about letting "free markets" work themselves out when you don't have to live through it. And again, you advocate shielding people from the consequences of their mistakes. You've never told me when this would be a good thing.
said by amigo_boy:Which creates (through public law) an artificial market. Your neighbor's perfect right to dispose of her property any way she sees fit is impacted so that you didn't have to buy sufficient property to protect yourself from your neighbors. And why shouldn't this apply to the financial sector as well? I see nothing wrong with them doing what they want to do in business as long as it does not impact me as a taxpayer being forced to pay for their mistakes.
said by amigo_boy:I can understand why you want to evade this topic because it gets to the heart of your "free market" bravado. If you're not willing to let market Darwinism rule the day in your own life, why should anyone believe your big talk about how wonderful it would be to experience the same thing at a much larger level? LOL. You keep pulling out the zoning argument when it doesn't apply. I will keep pulling you back on topic. The zoning argument has nothing to do with the banks, absolutely nothing, and you know it.
Tell you what. If you believe that banks should be shielded from the consequences of their mistakes, perhaps you should open your own checkbook and give them some of your own money. You can put your own money where your mouth is and show me that I am in fact in the wrong. Until you do so, you're just as guilty of being one of those people who don't practice what they preach, as you seem to think I am.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:LOL. You keep pulling out the zoning argument when it doesn't apply. I will keep pulling you back on topic. The zoning argument has nothing to do with the banks, absolutely nothing, and you know it. It's the same principle. You're arguing essentially a libertarian principle that government shouldn't intervene in the free market process *when it applies to the financial market*.
However, you appear to be perfectly comfy with government intervening in the stock market (SEC), bank solvency (FDIC), private disposal of real property (zoning laws and building codes), and creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" created by public law).
Those are all things that wouldn't exist in a truly "free" market, where Darwin's principle rules the day.
Therefore, it's very easy for you to enjoy those less-than-libertarian benefits in your life -- while cherry-picking where libertarian should apply.
And, even easier when you have the benefit of not living through your thought experiment (letting the financial system run itself into the ground, if "the market" lets it happen).
You keep saying you don't have to consider the unknown of your thought experiment because social intervention isn't "perfect." I don't know anyone who says social intervention is perfect. All the things I mentioned above (zoning laws, building codes, SEC, FDIC, socially-created corporate charters) aren't perfect either. But, I doubt you would advocate getting rid of them because "it's good to let people learn from their mistakes."
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:However, you appear to be perfectly comfy with government intervening in the stock market (SEC), bank solvency (FDIC), private disposal of real property (zoning laws and building codes), and creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" created by public law). I see. So let's crank out bailouts for Circuit City and Bennigans while we're at it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:However, you appear to be perfectly comfy with government intervening in the stock market (SEC), bank solvency (FDIC), private disposal of real property (zoning laws and building codes), and creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" created by public law). I see. So let's crank out bailouts for Circuit City and Bennigans while we're at it. I suppose it would depend on whether enough people felt they benefited from it. Which seems to be the calculus you apply to "bailouts" which you personally benefit from.
Remember, my only point was that it's easy to talk with large swagger about how bad it is to bailout the financial system, and how everyone needs the character-building experience of consequences -- without mentioning how you personally like society's moderation of markets that you personally benefit from.
It's cute to turn it around as if I'm saying everything should be bailed out. But, the real point is that I'm not talking in swaggering tones about everyone else.
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:It's cute to turn it around as if I'm saying everything should be bailed out. But, the real point is that I'm not talking in swaggering tones about everyone else. Sure it is. You seem to claim that because I simply insist that people be held accountable for the bad banking decisions they chose to make on their own, knowing full well what the circumstances were, that I am some sort of anti-government militia member who wants to go native.
That is not the case. There should be laws in place that ensure that people do not violate the rights of others and these laws should be enforced vigorously. If you're going to go extreme on my views, I will go extreme on yours.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
