JohnRgt

Paulson Agrees OKs Exec Pay Limits

10 posts in this topic

Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

It also set a precedent for the government to limit every CEO's 'outrageous' pay.

What will happen to America when the best minds are no longer running its great businesses? How many workers will lose their jobs due to a pay cap that limits a company only to mediocre CEO's when they need a mental giant to keep their 100,000 workers in business?

I am certainly worried about the future of capitalism at the moment, because right now, I see people across the world cheering onward the banner of statism and barbarism. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not too long until maximum wages are installed.

The illegals were "depressing" the minimum wage; the CEOs were "exceeding" the maximum wage; and government enforced the rule of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not too long until maximum wages are installed.

Been there, done that. In 1971, Nixon imposed wage and price controls on just about everyone and everything. This was the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not too long until maximum wages are installed.

Been there, done that. In 1971, Nixon imposed wage and price controls on just about everyone and everything. This was the result.

Quote: "Inflation rates were below 4% at the start of 1973, but reached 9% by the start of 1974, which would have made the real prime rate a negative 3%."

I bought a house in Canada in December 1972, and the 25 year mortgage interest rate was 9%. I remember saying to my wife that this was less than inflation a little while later, and that someone was paying me to borrow their money. Had I given that more thought, I could have foreseen the explosion in house prices that soon followed. "Real" interest rates should be positive, and no higher than the growth of the industries they finance, if any sort of sanity is to reign in the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

Wait a minute. Isnt this a question about whether they should get nothing, because they are bankrupt, or get something from the money that you and I are paying to bail them out???? I have not seen the legislation, so dont know if it is prospective -- in which case I agree with the concern. But if it is with respect to the people who run the companies that we are now saving, why should we be forced to line their pockets????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

Wait a minute. Isnt this a question about whether they should get nothing, because they are bankrupt, or get something from the money that you and I are paying to bail them out???? I have not seen the legislation, so dont know if it is prospective -- in which case I agree with the concern. But if it is with respect to the people who run the companies that we are now saving, why should we be forced to line their pockets????

The point is that the government shouldn't be doing the bailout in the first place. If the companies are bankrupt let them be bankrupt but if they are not what gives Congress the right to break the employment contract?

Also, if the goal is to nurse these companies back to health you need to be able to pay talented leaders above market compensation to take on the risks inherent in a struggling company.

This is just one symptom of what we can expect by increased intervention.

This press release from ARI's Yaron Brook sums it up nicely.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...le&id=21359

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

Wait a minute. Isnt this a question about whether they should get nothing, because they are bankrupt, or get something from the money that you and I are paying to bail them out???? I have not seen the legislation, so dont know if it is prospective -- in which case I agree with the concern. But if it is with respect to the people who run the companies that we are now saving, why should we be forced to line their pockets????

The point is that the government shouldn't be doing the bailout in the first place. If the companies are bankrupt let them be bankrupt but if they are not what gives Congress the right to break the employment contract?

Also, if the goal is to nurse these companies back to health you need to be able to pay talented leaders above market compensation to take on the risks inherent in a struggling company.

This is just one symptom of what we can expect by increased intervention.

This press release from ARI's Yaron Brook sums it up nicely.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...le&id=21359

Oh yes. I definitely agree that we should not be bailing them out as well. But given that we -- well, really the government so helpfully on our behalf, and with our money! -- is giving money to these entities, it seems to me appropriate to put reasonable conditions on its use. I dont have a problem with using the money to buy talented managers who will turn these companies around. My guess is that those will not be the same people who got these companies into this mess. I may be wrong on the facts here, but I thought the issue was what pay the current executives will get -- that is, what pay those who bankrupted the companies. For them, I dont think they should get any more money unless and until they are able to generate it by turning the companies around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

Yahoo/AP

That should make it easier to find better people for the executive positions in these failing companies. What a victory this will be for those who want Gov to set limits on executive compensation.

Wait a minute. Isnt this a question about whether they should get nothing, because they are bankrupt, or get something from the money that you and I are paying to bail them out???? I have not seen the legislation, so dont know if it is prospective -- in which case I agree with the concern. But if it is with respect to the people who run the companies that we are now saving, why should we be forced to line their pockets????

The point is that the government shouldn't be doing the bailout in the first place. If the companies are bankrupt let them be bankrupt but if they are not what gives Congress the right to break the employment contract?

Also, if the goal is to nurse these companies back to health you need to be able to pay talented leaders above market compensation to take on the risks inherent in a struggling company.

This is just one symptom of what we can expect by increased intervention.

This press release from ARI's Yaron Brook sums it up nicely.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...le&id=21359

I did just see something in a news report of the bailout that does suggest that the money will be given conditional on future pay of executives. That is unfortunate. In fact as others have pointed out that seems completely counter productive. It is reminiscent of Nixon and the wage and price freezes -- though here focused on a more limited market. Ugh. Not a good week for the free market, capitalism, democracy, freedom........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites