Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 The Obama administration is taking steps to greatly limit executive pay on Wall Street after concluding that it was pay for risks that lead to the financial crises. "Eager to remove incentives that they say contributed to last year's financial crisis, President Barack Obama's economic team plans to unfurl broad executive pay principles, possibly as early as Wednesday, that put a premium on long-term performance over short-term gain." Would you want the government to decide how much you can make in private business? and limit you according to what they think is "reasonable compensation"? We are moving closer and closer to socialism and fascism, with the government taking over the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoso Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I am tempted to say that the provided link is missing some information on the matters at hand. To my understanding, the only restrictions that the administration is trying to enact apply to those banks who received (voluntarily or not) TARP funds. If I am mistaken in this regard, do correct me. That aside, the amount of government meddling in the economy is indeed worrying to say the least, and you are absolutely correct in implying that the goverment has no place in the private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I am tempted to say that the provided link is missing some information on the matters at hand. To my understanding, the only restrictions that the administration is trying to enact apply to those banks who received (voluntarily or not) TARP funds. I fail to see how that would make this communist policy any less wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I cannot find a follow-up news story on what was actually decided, since he was supposed to do this a few days ago; but originally, yes, he wanted to curb the current incentive structure for all Wall Street firms, regardless of being recipients of TARP or not. As to curbing incentives for TARP recipients, that's a really bad idea, as without financial rewards those companies will not recover. I see the move as being a politically expedient power grab on the administration's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I cannot find a follow-up news story on what was actually decided, since he was supposed to do this a few days ago; but originally, yes, he wanted to curb the current incentive structure for all Wall Street firms, regardless of being recipients of TARP or not. As to curbing incentives for TARP recipients, that's a really bad idea, as without financial rewards those companies will not recover. I see the move as being a politically expedient power grab on the administration's part. Thomas, don't mince words. This is communism. When the state determines a company's compensation for its workers that is communism. When a government appoints an executive of a company that is communism. When a government forces companies onto their welfare roll, that is communism. When a government uses coercion and threats to bully companies into accepting their money that is communism. It reminds me of recruitment practices of the British Army very early after its inception, where the recruiter would sit in a bar and wait for some poor sap. He would strike up a conversation and ask if the man wanted a drink. When he responded yes, the recruiter would buy him one and then inform him he had just "taken the Queens shilling" and had thereby "agreed" to serve in the army for a period of 5 years (I think that was the term). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 To my understanding, the only restrictions that the administration is trying to enact apply to those banks who received (voluntarily or not) TARP funds.The Obama administrations attack on human rights is two-pronged. The now-implemented regulations (meaning that they are the law) govern all institutions that participate in the Capital Purchase Program. You can try to read to find out whether that means that those regulated have actually received funds. The second prong is that they are also seeking new legislation to limit the rights of publically-traded companies. All publically-traded companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I am tempted to say that the provided link is missing some information on the matters at hand. To my understanding, the only restrictions that the administration is trying to enact apply to those banks who received (voluntarily or not) TARP funds. If I am mistaken in this regard, do correct me. That aside, the amount of government meddling in the economy is indeed worrying to say the least, and you are absolutely correct in implying that the goverment has no place in the private sector. They are also pushing legislation that interferes with all publicly traded companies decisions regarding executive pay. From what I can tell, the latest plan is to force companies to have shareholders vote, each and every single year, on whether they appropve of executive pay or not--at this time, in most companies, shareholders themselves prefer to elect a board who deals with those matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoso Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) They are also pushing legislation that interferes with all publicly traded companies decisions regarding executive pay. From what I can tell, the latest plan is to force companies to have shareholders vote, each and every single year, on whether they appropve of executive pay or not--at this time, in most companies, shareholders themselves prefer to elect a board who deals with those matters. This I am quite familiar with, and it is most definitely yet another interventionist action to add to this administrations' list. However, the the wording of the first article may have led one to believe the administration was proposing a hard cap, which they haven't....yet (except in the case of TARP recipients, where they've floated a myriad of numbers). Edited June 13, 2009 by Markoso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.