America wants . Who better than the heads of these companies.
I actually think it's a good idea. It'll keep them from making $20 million a year and another $8 million in severance when they run their company into the ground.
It won't help the current situation, but it is a good move.
It has nothing to do with the current crisis, but pele is right. Congress wants to worry about regulating the financial sector AND dealing with the current situation at the same time.
I was able to watch some of Ben Bernanke's testimony yesterday, and I found it fascinating that the committee kept asking questions concerning the long term regulation of such companies when the purpose of the inquiry was to discuss the specifics of the bailout plan. To the Fed Chairman's credit he kept his cool despite answering the same question over-and-over.
If "regulating the financial sector" means that a bunch of politicians can control how much money I make, I think we may be headed down the wrong path. Granted, I may never be at that pay scale ;-) but still, the concerned citizen in me wonders where you draw the line as to dictating a salary ceiling. I am good with a floor (minimum wage) but not the other way around. You should be able to make whatever the market demands for your services...
I should have worded my post more carefully. I know we are looking for someone to punish. The connection is tenuous at best in my mind. They should be looking into the mirror if they want to punish someone.
I guess the one caveat to this whole issue is that I think the intent may be to limit pay at participating firms in the bailout package. I guess I can get on board with that in the end...
"Limiting executive pay" refers here to the banks and THEIR executives that participate in this "bailout" - where the banks will sell their piles of bad mortgages (which at the moment cannot be sold in the open market - noone wants to buy them but for pennies on the dollar) to the US Gov't. Basically, "limiting executive pay" means the banks can't take that money and pay their "Top Brass" the big bucks that clearly HAVE NOT earned by making a mess of the U.S. banking/finanial system.
This MESS is a BIG DEAL. And could affect everyone's salary if the WHOLE system/house-of-cards goes down. But, I think we will see a deal Friday and it will actually probably REALLY work well.
Yeah..I realized that this was specifically limited to participating firms after my initial knee jerk reaction. I agree that it makes sense from that perspective. I hope this evolving plan works...because I definitely agree that this is a huge mess.
7 comments:
America wants . Who better than the heads of these companies.
I actually think it's a good idea. It'll keep them from making $20 million a year and another $8 million in severance when they run their company into the ground.
It won't help the current situation, but it is a good move.
Sorry, first sentence should've read "America wants somebody to punish."
It has nothing to do with the current crisis, but pele is right. Congress wants to worry about regulating the financial sector AND dealing with the current situation at the same time.
I was able to watch some of Ben Bernanke's testimony yesterday, and I found it fascinating that the committee kept asking questions concerning the long term regulation of such companies when the purpose of the inquiry was to discuss the specifics of the bailout plan. To the Fed Chairman's credit he kept his cool despite answering the same question over-and-over.
If "regulating the financial sector" means that a bunch of politicians can control how much money I make, I think we may be headed down the wrong path. Granted, I may never be at that pay scale ;-) but still, the concerned citizen in me wonders where you draw the line as to dictating a salary ceiling. I am good with a floor (minimum wage) but not the other way around. You should be able to make whatever the market demands for your services...
I should have worded my post more carefully. I know we are looking for someone to punish. The connection is tenuous at best in my mind. They should be looking into the mirror if they want to punish someone.
I guess the one caveat to this whole issue is that I think the intent may be to limit pay at participating firms in the bailout package. I guess I can get on board with that in the end...
"Limiting executive pay" refers here to the banks and THEIR executives that participate in this "bailout" - where the banks will sell their piles of bad mortgages (which at the moment cannot be sold in the open market - noone wants to buy them but for pennies on the dollar) to the US Gov't. Basically, "limiting executive pay" means the banks can't take that money and pay their "Top Brass" the big bucks that clearly HAVE NOT earned by making a mess of the U.S. banking/finanial system.
This MESS is a BIG DEAL. And could affect everyone's salary if the WHOLE system/house-of-cards goes down. But, I think we will see a deal Friday and it will actually probably REALLY work well.
Yeah..I realized that this was specifically limited to participating firms after my initial knee jerk reaction. I agree that it makes sense from that perspective. I hope this evolving plan works...because I definitely agree that this is a huge mess.
Post a Comment