NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=you%20try%20living%20on%20&st=cse

Response, in short: Excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck you self-important, uppity, snobbish assholes.

Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year.

Nanny: $45,000 a year.

Yeah, thats when I stopped caring...and even that mortgage says the house was a little too expensive...

Screw those rich bastards...

By the way, the frozen hot chocolate costs $8.50.

Frozen Hot Chocolate?

:confused:

These sums don't count for the fact that the company often pays for these as part of the deal, hence a lot of laid-off bankers have fled HK on realising the sudden cost of rent, private school for kids and exclusive gym/club membership.

Even as an intern in a FORTUNE 500 company, I had access to the best gym in town for free.

So those sums don't really add up.

Frozen Hot Chocolate?

:confused:

Best recession sign I've seen so far: Second Annual Closing Down Sale!

Second?

:confused:

Yeah, thats when I stopped caring...and even that mortgage says the house was a little too expensive...

Screw those rich bastards...

Yeah, the nanny was the one that made me laugh.

If you've got kids at home, there's a strong statistical probability there's another parent involved. Either that parent is working (in which case, the 500k is NOT the actual household income), or that parent is not working (in which case the nanny is a luxury).

Best recession sign I've seen so far: Second Annual Closing Down Sale!

Second?

:confused:
I'm a bit more perplexed by "annual." They go out of business at least once a year?

As to the article:
The man would certainly not feel like himself on that train, said Candace Bushnell, the author of “Sex and the City” and other books chronicling New York social mores.
So he can't ride the train because ... it would make him feel bad? Egads, I weep!
“People inherently understand that if they are going to get ahead in whatever corporate culture they are involved in, they need to take on the appurtenances of what defines that culture,” she said. “So if you are in a culture where spending a lot of money is a sign of success, it’s like the same thing that goes back to high school peer pressure. It’s about fitting in.”
And maybe this is a sign, not that bankers need more money, but that the entire "culture" of the upper class needs to be torn down and set on fire? Or at least have some sewage dumped on it?

Oh, and I also laugh at the naive assumption at the beginning of the article. That is to say, the idea that bankers making 7 figure salaries actually pay their taxes like the rest of us slobs.

Even if you do limit exec. pay to $500k annually, you know they're just going to try to find a loophole, what else are you going to do with a team of the best lawyers this country has to offer? Play Basketball?

The problem is not the expense of living, it's where do the profits go if not to the employees who earned them - and we can quibble about 'earned' but the money is there, it's made.

To the company?

Do we then consider limiting the profits of companies?

I don't agree with pay limits alas, I just can't justify them,

I don't mind if you limit the pay of the executives. But only if their company is getting federal money. That being said, anyone whining about how little that is needs to grow up, and learn that the world isn't going to roll out a red carpet for them and their 45,000 a year nanny.

what else are you going to do with a team of the best lawyers this country has to offer? Play Basketball?

President Obama would just continually Pwn the league, lol...

the entire "culture" of the upper class needs to be torn down and set on fire? Or at least have some sewage dumped on it?


Why?

And maybe this is a sign, not that bankers need more money, but that the entire "culture" of the upper class needs to be torn down and set on fire?

This.

The idea that there is this echelon of society that 'needs' this lifestyle, they justify the expense as... well, as an expense! "Sorry, I need this private car to fit in to this career", etc... Well - hey, you know what? I'd like to fit in in that career, too... where's the money to buy the 'essential' crap?

It's justifying ridiculous expenses after the fact, and it's just an excuse.

The problem is not the expense of living, it's where do the profits go if not to the employees who earned them - and we can quibble about 'earned' but the money is there, it's made.

To the company?

Do we then consider limiting the profits of companies?

I don't agree with pay limits alas, I just can't justify them,

Why not profit-share a little more equitably? That'd put money back into the economy...

And in the same week that the article you cite was published in the New York Times, the Mayor announced the following with respect to middle/lower class city workers:

Bloomberg demands huge cutbacks, tax hikes and contract givebacksFeb 3, 2009 ... The attacks on city workers' benefits are in some ways the most significant of Bloomberg's proposals. Historically, city workers have been ...
www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/nycb-f03.shtml - 28k - Cached - Similar pages -

I don't mind if you limit the pay of the executives. But only if their company is getting federal money. That being said, anyone whining about how little that is needs to grow up, and learn that the world isn't going to roll out a red carpet for them and their 45,000 a year nanny.
yeah they can leave their fucking kids in the back seat of the car while they work like everyone else does!

Why not profit-share a little more equitably? That'd put money back into the economy...

Within the company? Isn't that what bonuses are for?

A company will argue that the profits it makes are invested back either into the employees or the growth of the company, allowing it to hire more people.

I may not fully grasp your point though.

The only case I can see there being an argument for not limiting their pay to 500k is if the CEO was new to the company, and even then, I think some limits would be reasonable, like a 500k base with incentives for performance.

(assuming of course that the company has received a "bailout")

yeah they can leave their fucking kids in the back seat of the car while they work like everyone else does!

:rolleyes:

Of course... Because everyone else can afford nannies, or leaves their kids in the car while they go to work.

Within the company? Isn't that what bonuses are for?

A company will argue that the profits it makes are invested back either into the employees or the growth of the company, allowing it to hire more people.

I may not fully grasp your point though.

You said: "...where do the profits go if not to the employees who earned them..."

...to which, I suggested: "...Why not profit-share a little more equitably?"

I don't actually see how that can be confusing. You specified the profits that we are limiting access to, and I suggested an alternate arrangement.

Honestly there's actually a good argument against limiting executive pay. Specifically, if there's a pay cap the government doesn't get as much money with exorbitantly high tax rates.* Although I wonder if they'd rather be making $500k a year than 10 million with a 90% income tax. They seem the sort to cut off their nose to spite their face.

*We don't actually have these for some reason I've never been able to grasp.

The problem is not the expense of living, it's where do the profits go if not to the employees who earned them - and we can quibble about 'earned' but the money is there, it's made.

To the company?
In general? They could hire some more staff, pay their existing lower-strata employees better, invest the money somewhere in the economy, make a few more loans, or any number of things. They could, you know, do the sort of stuff that companies normally do with their financial resources.
In this particular instance, however, the banks haven't earned profits. In fact, they were (allegedly) on the verge of going down in flames, that's why they were given government bailout money in the first place.
Why?
Grave more or less covered it.
I'd add the corollary that if a bank president really does need to spend a 7-figure salary to present the right image for his job, then it is a symptom of something seriously wrong in society. Perhaps the whole lot of them (them being bank presidents and their rich asshole friends) are too damn full of themselves and could do with a bit of puncturing.
I'm not saying they should be paupers, but perhaps a national wage cap of $500,000 wouldn't be amiss?

*We don't actually have these for some reason I've never been able to grasp.

Because there is a significant portion of the US Government making more than $500k a year...

Besides the supposedly "Fair Tax"(their naming it that makes me want to vomit) would fight any measure like that to hell and back...

Honestly there's actually a good argument against limiting executive pay. Specifically, if there's a pay cap the government doesn't get as much money with exorbitantly high tax rates.* Although I wonder if they'd rather be making $500k a year than 10 million with a 90% income tax. They seem the sort to cut off their nose to spite their face.

*We don't actually have these for some reason I've never been able to grasp.
Once again, the humorous assumption that people who make that much money actually pay their taxes. Accountants and lobbyists were invented for a reason, you know.

Once again, the humorous assumption that people who make that much money actually pay their taxes. Accountants and lobbyists were invented for a reason, you know.

Too true, my dad makes about $200k a year(grosses about $11.50 though, lol) and the Accountant makes sure that number is about $0, lol...

perhaps a national wage cap of $500,000 wouldn't be amiss?

Are you still talking about execs for failed banks here, or in general?

Once again, the humorous assumption that people who make that much money actually pay their taxes. Accountants and lobbyists were invented for a reason, you know.

A friend of mine has just been hit with a $150, 000 tax bill going back 4 years.

The issue was he was officially hired in one country although the bulk of his work was done in another, the actual country he resides in, except they move him enough to stay under the 180 day limit, through business trips and etc.,

Alas, the letterhead of the employment letter was addressed with the country he resided in, despite stating he was employed in the other country, the tax department noticed.

He's a banker.

Once again, the humorous assumption that people who make that much money actually pay their taxes. Accountants and lobbyists were invented for a reason, you know.

I feel this problem could be quite easily solved by giving the IRS a bunch of baseball bats with nails in them.

Really, it's not nice, but it's true. Either the government forcibly redistributes some of the wealth of the rich, or the poor forcibly redistribute all the wealth of the rich, plus various internal organs.

A friend of mine has just been hit with a $150, 000 tax bill going back 4 years.

The issue was he was officially hired in one country although the bulk of his work was done in another, the actual country he resides in, except they move him enough to stay under the 180 day limit, through business trips and etc.,

Alas, the letterhead of the employment letter was addressed with the country he resided in, despite stating he was employed in the other country, the tax department noticed.

He's a banker.

It's kind of a trendy (and obnoxious and flippant) thing at the moment to just claim that rich people don't pay taxes, so it doesn't mean shit. But they do, even if there is a problem with loopholes and evasion, there is still ultimately a lot of money coming from rich people to the government, even if it could be more.

Best recession sign I've seen so far: Second Annual Closing Down Sale!

Second?

:confused:
We have an antique store that has literally been going out of business since Beanies Babies ceased being the "in" thing.

They need to set a limit to "bonuses" as well. Otherwise, they could lower executive pay to $1, and just pay $25 million in bonuses.

What? These successful bankers aren't going to be able to afford the luxuries in life that they clearly deserve while I can't ever hope to afford?

Please excuse me as I don't give a flying fuck

Here's the funny thing with banks..

I lend them my money, with that money they invest to make profit.

Why don't I get bonuses?

I get a paltry interest rate while they use my money to award themselves huge bonuses making money for the bank, not for me.

Are you still talking about execs for failed banks here, or in general?
Basically, I'm saying that the article is either correct or bullshit. If it is bullshit (as Grave claimed), then there is no problem with cutting bank executive salaries back a bit.
If, however, the article is correct, and it really is impossible to be the head of a bank on a half-million dollar salary, then immediate, corrective measures are needed. The problem wouldn't be that certain bank executives are getting paid too little to keep up with other members of the upper classes, but that there is so much decadence and waste that it has become expected.

Basically, I'm saying that the article is either correct or bullshit. If it is bullshit (as Grave claimed), then there is no problem with cutting bank executive salaries back a bit.
If, however, the article is correct, and it really is impossible to be the head of a bank on a half-million dollar salary, then immediate, corrective measures are needed. The problem wouldn't be that certain bank executives are getting paid too little to keep up with other members of the upper classes, but that there is so much decadence and waste that it has become expected.

But it's not like they're hoarding all their money in a big safe, they're heavily spending. And this spending is good for the economy.

It is too much a government intrusion in the private sector to dictate pay.

not to mention it runs the risk of voiding existing contracts.
Like it or not the CEOs were given that pay and perks because their experience.
Furthermore several of CEO's targeted are not at fault. many were brought in after the person before them had ruined the institution. These new CEO's then require large benefits packages because they their name is on the line, but the institution is likely to fail anyways.

Now if the government wants to make it a requirement of new contracts. but touching existing contracts is a reactionist thing to do.

But it's not like they're hoarding all their money in a big safe, they're heavily spending. And this spending is good for the economy.
Trickle down economics has never failed us before!
And it isn't like companies are hoarding all their money in a big safe, they're heavily investing. And this investment is good for the economy.

But it's not like they're hoarding all their money in a big safe, they're heavily spending. And this spending is good for the economy.

For a very inclusive sector of the economy I feel, it just circles round the top, visiting restaurants owned by rich people, buying high-end cars, and those people invest back into the banks, round and round it circles.

Much of the problem is that you have this circulation of money by society strata, used to be that they were fairly closely tied, I feel they're stretched ever further and ever more loosely.

Poor money circulates around poor money, middle class money circulates around middle class money and so on.

Trickle down economics has never failed us before!

Trickle down economics is the practice of relying on the trickle down effect, which obviously isn't going to work. That doesn't mean the 'trickle down effect' is non existent, depending on what you mean by it.


And it isn't like companies are hoarding all their money in a big safe, they're heavily investing. And this investment is good for the economy.

Yes, investment is good for the economy.

For a very inclusive sector of the economy I feel, it just circles round the top, visiting restaurants owned by rich people, buying high-end cars, and those people invest back into the banks, round and round it circles.


The high end car sector provides a huge amounts of jobs, just to give one example.


Poor money circulates around poor money, middle class money circulates around middle class money and so on.

That's way too simplistic.

The high end car sector provides a huge amounts of jobs, just to give one example.


That seems like a highly dubious statement giving the very minimal amount of people that can afford high end cars.

Trickle down economics is the practice of relying on the trickle down effect, which obviously isn't going to work. That doesn't mean the 'trickle down effect' is non existent, depending on what you mean by it.


Trickle down economics is really just a term invented by those who dont under stand "Say's law"

Im sorry, but if you cant survive on $500k, your lifestyle is too opulent...

Trickle down economics is really just a term invented by those who dont under stand "Say's law"

I personally think Say's law is a little out of date.

I personally think Say's law is a little out of date.

still relevant and still the most effective economic system.

I personally think Say's law is a little out of date.

Never seen an informercial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=you%20try%20living%20on%20&st=cse

Response, in short: Excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck you self-important, uppity, snobbish assholes.
My heart bleeds for them. Not.

These people spend more money a year on travel than I do on living.


And I don't have a bad life, I have a comfortable apartment that I share with a roommate, a cat, I eat well, I make side trips when I'm sent to conferences, I occasionally buy new clothes and things I don't really need (i.e. books). I mean, I travel too, but like, one vacation was basically because I went on a side trip after a conference and probably cost less than $300 total, another I went early and probably spent $200 for an extra week. Hostels and public transit ftw.

Really, it's not nice, but it's true. Either the government forcibly redistributes some of the wealth of the rich, or the poor forcibly redistribute all the wealth of the rich, plus various internal organs.

REVOLUTION!!! KILL THE BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST SWINE!!!

*waves Red Flag like a madman*

Yeah, thats when I stopped caring...and even that mortgage says the house was a little too expensive...

Screw those rich bastards...

Hey you are suggesting they bought too much house?!?!?!?! You COMMIE!

Here's the funny thing with banks..

I lend them my money, with that money they invest to make profit.

Why don't I get bonuses?

I get a paltry interest rate while they use my money to award themselves huge bonuses making money for the bank, not for me.

You missed the memo. Earnings are privatized and losses are socialized....

Trickle down economics is the practice of relying on the trickle down effect, which obviously isn't going to work. That doesn't mean the 'trickle down effect' is non existent, depending on what you mean by it.

Yes, investment is good for the economy.

Ok give some examples....wait I already know. The losses have trickled down to us. Never mind.....

The high end car sector provides a huge amounts of jobs, just to give one example.

Ok I will bite. How many we talking here? What about compared to companies that make mid to low range?

Frozen Hot Chocolate?

:confused:

Pst, I say you and I buy loads of cheap chocolate syrup and sell it as luke-warm frozen hot chocolate for $8.25

If a Banker and an Emo Kid jump off a building at the same time who dies first?
The Banker doesn't die he has a golden parachute.

Why did the banker try to hide his frozen hot chocolate?
Bankers are smart, they always hide their liquid assets.

What do you call 100 dead Bankers?
A good start.

Whats the difference between a dead banker and a dead baby?
You feel bad about the baby.

Even if you do limit exec. pay to $500k annually, you know they're just going to try to find a loophole, what else are you going to do with a team of the best lawyers this country has to offer? Play Basketball?

exactly. They'll accept the $500k a year and then write every damn thing they spend (nannys, chaffeurs, private trainers, mortgages, holidays etc etc) off as a 'business expenses'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=you%20try%20living%20on%20&st=cse

Response, in short: Excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck you self-important, uppity, snobbish assholes.

At the IRS I worked cases where people wanted to settle their debt for less than they owed (btw, if you see those ads, they're frauds).

In that capacity, when people sent in documentation of their expenses it was my job to tell them how they could trim the fat so that they could pay in 6 months instead of 20 years.

On the off chance that any multi-million dollar per year banking executives lurk on NSG I'd like to offer my financial planning services.

PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student. - PUBLIC school: $0.00 a year per student.

Mortgage: $96,000 a year. - Move to a 3 bedroom 2 1/2 bath single family home in Astoria: $3,027.00 per month, or $36,324 per year.

Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year. - Own the house, $0.00

Nanny: $45,000 a year. - Raise your own kids. $0.00

Assuming two children (hence the 3 bedroom house) I've just saved Mr. CEO $264,676 per year.

And I'm perfectly happy to waive my fee as a financial planner. Just tell me your address and social security number so I can send you a 1099C.

It is too much a government intrusion in the private sector to dictate pay.

Unlike, oh, let's say handing over billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them from drowning in a fiscal ocean of their own incompetence?

not to mention it runs the risk of voiding existing contracts.
Whenever a company goes into bankruptcy it voids existing contracts. This is just a back-door bankruptcy.

Like it or not the CEOs were given that pay and perks because their experience.
And presumably because they were expected to do a better job than those who would accept less pay. Since they have performed so abysmally, it is fair that their pay sink down into the abyss with them (if half a million dollars a year for being a complete failure can truly be called a financial abyss).

Furthermore several of CEO's targeted are not at fault. many were brought in after the person before them had ruined the institution.

And if they can build these ruins into a viable business without government handouts then they can demand whatever miracle bonuses they want for their miracle working. If not, they have to take the strings attached to the life preserver. Otherwise they deserve as much sympathy as the first mate of the Titanic would if he accepted an on-the-spot promotion when his captain retired.

These new CEO's then require large benefits packages because they their name is on the line, but the institution is likely to fail anyways.

If they were worried about their names they shouldn't have put them in the mud.

Now if the government wants to make it a requirement of new contracts. but touching existing contracts is a reactionist thing to do.
Reaction is necessary now because action was sorely lacking when the last bunch of loonies was driving the clown car.

What a total crock!

Nanny $45,000? Private School $32,000!!?? Aww, the poor kiddies too good to attend fucking public school with the riff-raff. Personal Trainer!!!??? I don't need a god damn personal trainer I just go and work out duh!

What a fucking asshole. The jerk that wrote this article (and the editor that passed it) should live for a month like normal people.

Im sorry, but if you cant survive on $500k, your lifestyle is too opulent...

I think if you can't survive on $500,000 per year, you don't understand finances well enough to run a bank.

Perhaps this shouldn't be viewed as punishment, but as remedial training in cost management.

I think if you can't survive on $500,000 per year, you don't understand finances well enough to run a bank.

Perhaps this shouldn't be viewed as punishment, but as remedial training in cost management.

Lmao, Skalvia supports this message :hail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=you%20try%20living%20on%20&st=cse

Response, in short: Excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck you self-important, uppity, snobbish assholes.

lmao that list is hilarious XD

Anyway, if thinking it's ridiculous that I should spend money for someone to live the kind of life that money gets you while I don't even know if my car will still be working next week makes me a self-important uppity snobbish asshole then I take great pride in my being a self-important uppity snobbish asshole and thank you for the compliment.

I'm in favor of this plan only if we can also limit the pay of all athletes to $500K a year and spent the resulting savings on reducing ticket prices, this making the circus of sport more affordable as our economy crumbles.

At the IRS I worked cases where people wanted to settle their debt for less than they owed (btw, if you see those ads, they're frauds).

In that capacity, when people sent in documentation of their expenses it was my job to tell them how they could trim the fat so that they could pay in 6 months instead of 20 years.

On the off chance that any multi-million dollar per year banking executives lurk on NSG I'd like to offer my financial planning services.

PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student. - PUBLIC school: $0.00 a year per student.

Mortgage: $96,000 a year. - Move to a 3 bedroom 2 1/2 bath single family home in Astoria: $3,027.00 per month, or $36,324 per year.

Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year. - Own the house, $0.00

Nanny: $45,000 a year. - Raise your own kids. $0.00

Assuming two children (hence the 3 bedroom house) I've just saved Mr. CEO $264,676 per year.

And I'm perfectly happy to waive my fee as a financial planner. Just tell me your address and social security number so I can send you a 1099C.

You forgot "Drive the car your damn self you lazy bastard" for an additional savings of $75,000 (or more if the driver doubles as a, probably completely unnecessary, body guard).

Edit: I forgot, as someone else pointed out, another 12K would be cut by eliminating the personal trainer and just working out on your own. If you can't just go jogging ($0.00), then a gym membership is still less per year than a personal trainer.

It is too much a government intrusion in the private sector to dictate pay.

not to mention it runs the risk of voiding existing contracts.
Like it or not the CEOs were given that pay and perks because their experience.
Furthermore several of CEO's targeted are not at fault. many were brought in after the person before them had ruined the institution. These new CEO's then require large benefits packages because they their name is on the line, but the institution is likely to fail anyways.

Now if the government wants to make it a requirement of new contracts. but touching existing contracts is a reactionist thing to do.

Dictating the terms of a loan is typical. If it's not too much government intrusion to save their sorry ass companies with bailouts then it's not too intrusive to limit their salaries. They can have their salaries back when they get off the government dole.

I think if you can't survive on $500,000 per year, you don't understand finances well enough to run a bank.

So much fucking win right there...

And maybe this is a sign, not that bankers need more money, but that the entire "culture" of the upper class needs to be torn down and set on fire? Or at least have some sewage dumped on it?

...there too.

Oh, and I also laugh at the naive assumption at the beginning of the article. That is to say, the idea that bankers making 7 figure salaries actually pay their taxes like the rest of us slobs.

Indeed. I have a relative who has been audited three times in four years, and it sure as hell wasn't for paying more than he owed.

Dictating the terms of a loan is typical. If it's not too much government intrusion to save their sorry ass companies with bailouts then it's not too intrusive to limit their salaries. They can have their salaries back when they get off the government dole.

at the same time limiting those salaries will force those companies to hire less experienced/educated executives. making it less likely those businesses will pay back the government. Those executives will simply move on to greener pastures. Also the whole matter of how does a loan cancel an existing employment contract?

the rest of us fucking manage on a lot less than that. jesus fucking christ :rolleyes:

But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.

well, boo fucking hoo

Barbara Corcoran, a real estate executive, said that most well-to-do families take at least two vacations a year, a winter trip to the sun and a spring trip to the ski slopes.

Total minimum cost: $16,000.

there's a good way to cut back, and it won't even affect the local economy. i'm quite sure our family has been on 2 holidays, tops, in the past 10 years.

A summer house in Southampton that cost $4 million, again not the top of the market, carries annual mortgage payments of $240,000.

hey, i live there :p

The work in the gym pays off when one must don a formal gown for a charity gala. “Going to those parties,” said David Patrick Columbia, who is the editor of the New York Social Diary (newyorksocialdiary.com), “a woman can spend $10,000 or $15,000 on a dress. If she goes to three or four of those a year, she’s not going to wear the same dress.”

Total cost for three gowns: about $35,000.

more than i earn a year on fucking dresses. lack of caring getting dangerously low... anger rising...

The man would certainly not feel like himself on that train, said Candace Bushnell, the author of “Sex and the City” and other books chronicling New York social mores.

again, the rest of us fucking manage. a lot of the people on that train are making way less than 500k, are pissed off with their shitty jobs, but they fucking manage.


that article makes me want to go punch something.

at the same time limiting those salaries will force those companies to hire less experienced/educated executives. making it less likely those businesses will pay back the government. Those executives will simply move on to greener pastures. Also the whole matter of how does a loan cancel an existing employment contract?

a) Less experienced/educated executives than the idiots who started this mess in the first place? Perhaps some new blood is what they need.

b) There are no greener pastures. The biggest banks in the world are in this sinkhole, and the banks that are succeeding already have CEO's and are unlikely to be attracted to these failures.

I'm in favor of this plan only if we can also limit the pay of all athletes to $500K a year and spent the resulting savings on reducing ticket prices, this making the circus of sport more affordable as our economy crumbles.

Did professional athletes ruin professional sports and cause the entire business to fail?

Professional athletes receive the money they do because they earn more than that for the owners. CEO's are supposed to receive their pay and bonuses for making a success of their businesses. When they claim multi-million dollar bonuses for bankrupting their companies then exactly what the hell are they getting rewarded for?

Plus, unless you're limiting the pay of the team owners the only thing the lower athlete pay is going to get spent on is increased profit margin.

a) Less experienced/educated executives than the idiots who started this mess in the first place? Perhaps some new blood is what they need.
I addressed this in my first post, but again half the CEO's were not at fault. they came in after their predecessor ruined the company to try and save it.
look at citi bank. CEO retires in 2007. bank goes belly up in 2008. Certainly more of the blame lies with the CEO who retired in 2007 then the guy they hired to try and fix the mess in late 2007,early 2008.


b) There are no greener pastures. The biggest banks in the world are in this sinkhole, and the banks that are succeeding already have CEO's and are unlikely to be attracted to these failures.

Just investment companies, or any major company. not like banks are the only ones with the need to have financial management. Or the training of CEO's limits one to only to the banking field.
their wages are set by going market rates, its not like their is a union of bank CEO attempting to artificially inflate their wages.

Did professional athletes ruin professional sports and cause the entire business to fail?

in the case of baseball YES!!! and the jury is still out on basketball.

Professional athletes receive the money they do because they earn more than that for the owners. CEO's are supposed to receive their pay and bonuses for making a success of their businesses. When they claim multi-million dollar bonuses for bankrupting their companies then exactly what the hell are they getting rewarded for?
it is a contract, the contract must be fulfilled. you know sometimes professional athletes do piss poor after signing a contract, but guess what the team still has to pay on the contract.

...Nanny $45,000? Private School $32,000!!?? Aww, the poor kiddies too good to attend fucking public school with the riff-raff...

I smell a sitcom.

Here's my answer to the suffering executives:

My family lives EXTREMELY COMFORTABLY on an income of roughly $100,000 a year (my dad is a software engineer at Motorola, and has worked in the industry for over 20 years). We own a four-bedroom home in Redmond, WA. We have two cars. Neither me nor my brother have ever gone to public school in our lives. My parents go to a state-of-the-art gym, and my mom has a personal trainer there. About once a month, at least one person in my family makes a round-trip flight between Seattle and Florida (where I go to college). We were able to go on a friggin LUXURY CRUISE last winter, and our entire family skis (which means we all have ski equipment, and can afford to get new gear whenever we grow out of it). I had nannies when I was a toddler (when both my parents worked). We give plenty of money to charity, including enough money to my dad's alma mater to have a SCHOLARSHIP in our name.

Every once in a while, I thank G-d for being able to grow up in luxury. Now, if my family can live this well on $100k/year, why the HELL can't anyone live happily on $500k/year. I'm pretty sure that Manhattan is not five times as expensive to live in as Redmond.

I'm going to take particular issue with one line in that article:

You’re not going to get through private school without tutoring a kid

I did. I went to the top-rated high school in the entire Pacific Northwest, got over 1400 on my SATs, and never had a paid tutor (OK, in all honesty, I'm gifted). My brother is going to a good school, is doing well, and has also never had a paid tutor - not even for the SATs.

Now, if you do need a tutor in particular subject, don't immediately turn to an expensive professional tutor. Start by seeing if you know anyone - a friend or relative - who could help in a certain subject. Alternatively, find a college student majoring in the subject in question - they'll work for cheap, and know the subject material. For the SATs, here's a radical idea: HELP YOUR KID YOURSELF! Get one of those practice books, then sit down with your kid and work through a sample test together.

Frozen Hot Chocolate?

:confused:

Physics kind of breaks down when you get rich enough.

Physics kind of breaks down when you get rich enough.

Nonsense, it's perfectly rational expenditure.

Cocoa, sugar and milk, cost $1 / day.
Electric coffee mug, operating cost $2 / day.
Bar fridge, operating cost $5 / day.
Wood fired brick oven, operating cost $80 / day.
Industrial freezer, operating cost $320 / day.
Industrial gas-fired kiln, operating cost $4650 / day.
Nuclear-powered icebreaker, operating cost $15,200 / day.
Special delivery of Arctic sunshine ... if you need to ask, you can't afford it.

There you are. Delicious frozen hot chocolate. If you think it isn't worth the price, you obviously haven't tried to go without it.

The problem is not the expense of living, it's where do the profits go if not to the employees who earned them - and we can quibble about 'earned' but the money is there, it's made.

To the company?

Do we then consider limiting the profits of companies?

I don't agree with pay limits alas, I just can't justify them,

if the money earned doesn't go to the (top level) employees, it should go back to the bloody taxpayers who have bailed out the banks. its clear enough to me.

but then i feel, and have felt for a long time before this crisis, that the banks should be nationalised, set up as quasi-markets, and run for their customers, as opposed to run for profit. profits should be invested in the public spending budget (eg. education, healthcare, etc). might help get rid of some of this monstrous greed in the sector for starters.

That article fields what might be the least effective argument I've ever seen. We could gather up twenty trolls and spammers, let them mash their keyboards for half an hour and then merge all the posts together and still come up with a basic rational argument that's more convince. A professional journalist wrote that. Wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=you%20try%20living%20on%20&st=cse

Response, in short: Excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck you self-important, uppity, snobbish assholes.

Alright, I'll spin it differently: if you had the option of working for 500 million a year, or 500 thousand a year, which would you choose? The 500 million option. Thats more or less how they feel. A. The corporations pay what the market will bear. B. If they DON'T pay them well, the executives and other managers will go to other national firms which WILL pay them well.

Besides, how can you be a free society if you tell a person how much money they are allowed to make? I'm sorry but I am not a communist.

B. If they DON'T pay them well, the executives and other managers will go to other national firms which WILL pay them well.

"Hey there, I was the CEO of a business that tanked so badly under my watch that it took the entire economy with it. So, when do I start?"

Rather than limiting pay, wouldn't it just be easier to spend several billion dollars of tax revenue on some magic beans or give them all plane tickets out of the US?

I found everything about this whole article disgusting. I have invested in two startup businesses. I can assure you that as an investor I was interested in men who lived below their means. I do not want spendthrifts at the helm of my companies.

I want men like Warren Buffet. There is a man who is my ideal CEO. Where are the Warrren Buffets?

I do not make anywhere close to a half a million a year. My wife and I make a thrid of that more or less. But we save and invest with an almost Chinese intensity (Chinese save and invest about 40% of their income). When I and Mr. Buffet see a penny on the ground we pick it up.

I want a man to run my investments who is a cheap SOB like myself. What kind of shareholders want a man to manage their company who spends his own money like a drunken sailor?

Here's my answer to the suffering executives:

My family lives EXTREMELY COMFORTABLY on an income of roughly $100,000 a year (my dad is a software engineer at Motorola, and has worked in the industry for over 20 years). We own a four-bedroom home in Redmond, WA. We have two cars. Neither me nor my brother have ever gone to public school in our lives. My parents go to a state-of-the-art gym, and my mom has a personal trainer there. About once a month, at least one person in my family makes a round-trip flight between Seattle and Florida (where I go to college). We were able to go on a friggin LUXURY CRUISE last winter, and our entire family skis (which means we all have ski equipment, and can afford to get new gear whenever we grow out of it). I had nannies when I was a toddler (when both my parents worked). We give plenty of money to charity, including enough money to my dad's alma mater to have a SCHOLARSHIP in our name.

I am amazed that your family does so much with only $100,000. I want to know more. Did your parents delay having children until a late age so that they could build up a lot of assets to live like that (this is the plan that my wife and I are implementing)? I hope that your parents are not living beyond their means and wracking up a lot of debt. I do not want to get too personal about your family's finances but it seems like you guys are able to make 100K a year go very very far.

I am amazed that your family does so much with only $100,000. I want to know more. Did your parents delay having children until a late age so that they could build up a lot of assets to live like that (this is the plan that my wife and I are implementing)? I hope that your parents are not living beyond their means and wracking up a lot of debt. I do not want to get too personal about your family's finances but it seems like you guys are able to make 100K a year go very very far.

I think they did wait - they were both in their 30s when they had children. I'm not privy to my family's financial details (the $100,000/year thing is an estimate).

I found everything about this whole article disgusting. I have invested in two startup businesses. I can assure you that as an investor I was interested in men who lived below their means. I do not want spendthrifts at the helm of my companies.

I want men like Warren Buffet. There is a man who is my ideal CEO. Where are the Warrren Buffets?

I do not make anywhere close to a half a million a year. My wife and I make a thrid of that more or less. But we save and invest with an almost Chinese intensity (Chinese save and invest about 40% of their income). When I and Mr. Buffet see a penny on the ground we pick it up.

I want a man to run my investments who is a cheap SOB like myself. What kind of shareholders want a man to manage their company who spends his own money like a drunken sailor?

Amen to that, My parents have their own business ( I think a few peeps around here know what it is ), but they do 7 figures in raw business, I wont give away the exact details, but its alot more than I'll ever hope to make in my life. And they live far below their means, and invest almost all of it back into the business. People who are born rich normally suck at running a business.

I'm pretty happy they never gave me a dime of money either, everything I have/ have had besides living at home till a few months ago was paid for by me.


And, that page is bullshit.

Nanny: $45 000. Their freaking BABYSITTER makes more money than I do, and I am supposed to be sympathetic? Sorry, but my sympathy tit has dried up.

I think they did wait - they were both in their 30s when they had children. I'm not privy to my family's financial details (the $100,000/year thing is an estimate).

Yeah I do not mean to pry. It sounds like they must have made a lot of financial sacrifices early in life to be able to live like this now. They must have passive income from investments to supplement their salaries. This is good and they were very good role models for you by doing that.

It is important that you realize that your parents are rich and they are rich not because of their salaries but because they saved money early on and invested it so that they could make their salaries go a lot farther when they were older and had children.

Do not think that if you get a 100,000 a year salary right out of college you can live like your parents do presently. If you do that you will get into trouble with debt and that is uncool.

If you were shareholders, and had seats on the board of directors, you could set executive pay to anything you liked.

It would appear that most of you don't even have a 401K or IRA, so you're just screwed.

If you had any shares, and could convince other shareholders that the pay was too high, you could limit the pay.

You might find that no one wants to take the CEO job - but that's your right as shareholders.

If you were shareholders, and had seats on the board of directors, you could set executive pay to anything you liked.

Being a shareholder has little to do for setting pay limits. Some companies have a policy about the shareholders voting on executive compensation but the majority do not.

Executives do set the pay to anything they like. That is why the pay difference between executives and workers have grown over 1000% over the years.

It would appear that most of you don't even have a 401K or IRA, so you're just screwed.
I have both and the 401K has taken a beating. Good thing my retirement is not privatized and invested in the market like the shrub wanted. It would have been decimated.

If you had any shares, and could convince other shareholders that the pay was too high, you could limit the pay.

:D You might want to read some of the company policies. This is if you even have stock.

You might find that no one wants to take the CEO job - but that's your right as shareholders.

Shareholders usually don't decide the CEO slot.

For that matter, can you name a company that hasn't been able to fill the ceo slot?

You might find that no one wants to take the CEO job - but that's your right as shareholders.

But how will we attract the business-crippling talent we need without a $20 billion an hour salary? It's not just anyone who can make shitty, short-sighted investments and bankrupt a company that survived the fucking Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_stearns), right? We need to offer these captains of industry absurdly high salaries, else we might have to find someone competent to manage our business.

Does this mean I have to sell a few of my yachts?

Does anybody here want to invest in a bank where the key management live such lavish lifestyles? I invest in a bank where the management is frugal. I also invest in the broad stock market through indexing but I have one bank that I own stock in directly and it is run by pretty frugal men.

Does anybody here want to invest in a bank where the key management live such lavish lifestyles? I invest in a bank where the management is frugal. I also invest in the broad stock market through indexing but I have one bank that I own stock in directly and it is run by pretty frugal men.

what banks i this ? and whats the CEO's name.

what banks i this ? and whats the CEO's name.

It is a small regional bank in my area. It is a great company but I am always nervous about talking about identifying stocks on the internet. If I say it is great and people buy it in droves and it skyrockets in value I do not want to get in trouble when I sell it on some kind of a pump and dump scheme.

From the OP's article...
Nanny: $45,000 a year.Fuck em.
“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable,” said Holly Peterson, FUCK 'EM!

“Five hundred thousand dollars means taking their kids out of private school and selling their home in a fire sale.” My heart bleeds for them... FUCK EM!

whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover. FUCK 'EM!!!

But in New York, where a new study from the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, estimates it takes $123,322 to enjoy the same middle-class life as someone earning $50,000 in Houston, extricating oneself from steep bills can be difficult.
gee... My message to them? "WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD FUCKERS!"

Barbara Corcoran, a real estate executive, said that most well-to-do families take at least two vacations a year, a winter trip to the sun and a spring trip to the ski slopes. and a new phrase to be put in their vocabulary... BUDGET CUTS. "WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO VACATIONS!!!"

Many top executives have cars and drivers. A chauffeur’s pay is between $75,000 and $125,000 a year, the higher end for former police officers who can double as bodyguards, said a limousine driver who spoke anonymously because he does not want to alienate his society customers. Did I say this already??? FUCK 'EM!!!

A personal trainer at $80 an hour three times a week comes to about $12,000 a year. buy a WII FIT. then you get a personal trainer you can use for no extra cost, you fuckers!

The work in the gym pays off when one must don a formal gown for a charity gala. “Going to those parties,” said David Patrick Columbia, who is the editor of the New York Social Diary (newyorksocialdiary.com), “a woman can spend $10,000 or $15,000 on a dress. If she goes to three or four of those a year, she’s not going to wear the same dress.” oh the suffering... Fuck them, Fuck their wives and use the dress to clean up afterwards...

Not every bank executive has school-age children, but for those who do, offspring can be expensive. In addition to paying tuition, “You’re not going to get through private school without tutoring a kid,” said Sandy Bass, the editor of Private School Insider, a newsletter that covers private schools in the New York City area. One hour of tutoring once a week is $125. “That’s the low end,” she said. “The higher end is 150, 175.” SAT tutors are about $250 an hour. Total cost for 30 weeks of regular tutoring: $3,750.

Two children in private school: $64,000.

Nanny: $45,000.
Fire the Tutor, get your kids into public schools and stop ignoring your fucking kids you Rich fucking parents!

Ms. Bass, whose husband is an accountant with many high-end clients, said she spends about $425 every 10 days on groceries for her family. Annual cost: about $15,000. NEW WORD... McDonalds!

More? Restaurants. Dry cleaning. Each Brooks Brothers suit costs about $1,000. If you run a bank, you can’t look like a slob. when was the last time I saw a bank manager? er... NEVER! buy an Aloha shirt and call it a moral booster!

“So if you are in a culture where spending a lot of money is a sign of success, it’s like the same thing that goes back to high school peer pressure. It’s about fitting in.” wanna fit in? then lose the job and you'll fit in with all the other people worried about their financial situation. ya muthafuckers!

I think if you can't survive on $500,000 per year, you don't understand finances well enough to run a bank.

Perhaps this shouldn't be viewed as punishment, but as remedial training in cost management.

But, don't you understand, if the executives can't continue living the $2 million+ a year lifestyle they have led until now, they will be unable to do their jobs properly due to depression! And when the execs go down the drain, so will the companies they run, leading to an even worse recession!

In short all those who support the executive cap hate America. Impeach Sauron!


Also, Mirkana: I *live* in Manhattan. $100k/year might pay your family's rent, if you go far enough uptown. Until only a couple of years ago, apartments (even in my neighborhood) could cost upwards of $1 million for a studio. It's pretty insane.

It is a small regional bank in my area. It is a great company but I am always nervous about talking about identifying stocks on the internet. If I say it is great and people buy it in droves and it skyrockets in value I do not want to get in trouble when I sell it on some kind of a pump and dump scheme.

i doubt nation states has the money to buy it right now. go ahead tell us.

But, don't you understand, if the executives can't continue living the $2 million+ a year lifestyle they have led until now, they will be unable to do their jobs properly due to depression! And when the execs go down the drain, so will the companies they run, leading to an even worse recession!

In short all those who support the executive cap hate America. Impeach Sauron!


Also, Mirkana: I *live* in Manhattan. $100k/year might pay your family's rent, if you go far enough uptown. Until only a couple of years ago, apartments (even in my neighborhood) could cost upwards of $1 million for a studio. It's pretty insane.

Hey now it's a global economy. Salaries have to be measured and the best costs for work output measured.....

It's funny how that argument applies to me and yet not the execs.....

Just to show my sympathy for those poor, poor executives.


http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3084/violinwy1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Also, Mirkana: I *live* in Manhattan. $100k/year might pay your family's rent, if you go far enough uptown. Until only a couple of years ago, apartments (even in my neighborhood) could cost upwards of $1 million for a studio. It's pretty insane.

So, the execs move out of town and commute a bit. And that relieves the rpessure on the housing market a bit, and the prices of that market normalise at a slightly more rational level....

So, the execs move out of town and commute a bit. And that relieves the rpessure on the housing market a bit, and the prices of that market normalise at a slightly more rational level....

But they can't move out of town! That would mean they would be joining the much-despised ranks of the "Bridge and Tunnel" crowd, which practically everyone who does live in Manhattan snarks on. And they'd have to pay extra for chaffeurs to drive them into the city for their jobs, because taking the train messes up their $6000 suits. And they'd have to wake up earlier because do you know how long traffic on the Long Island Expressway can get stuck for? If you're going to be spouting such crazy talk, obviously to compensate for the stresses of not getting to live in Manhattan the salary cap should be increased to at least $56717134532629486. And all executives should be given private helicopters. They do a very difficult job after all, and one that the American people rely on. Are you anti-American?

But they can't move out of town! That would mean they would be joining the much-despised ranks of the "Bridge and Tunnel" crowd, which practically everyone who does live in Manhattan snarks on. And they'd have to pay extra for chaffeurs to drive them into the city for their jobs, because taking the train messes up their $6000 suits. And they'd have to wake up earlier because do you know how long traffic on the Long Island Expressway can get stuck for? If you're going to be spouting such crazy talk, obviously to compensate for the stresses of not getting to live in Manhattan the salary cap should be increased to at least $56717134532629486. And all executives should be given private helicopters. They do a very difficult job after all, and one that the American people rely on. Are you anti-American?

I didn't mean 'out of town' like, a 30 minute drive.

I mean 'out of town' like... Cuba.

From the OP's article...
Fuck em.
FUCK 'EM!

My heart bleeds for them... FUCK EM!

FUCK 'EM!!!


gee... My message to them? "WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD FUCKERS!"

Someone is throwing a tantrum here.

and a new phrase to be put in their vocabulary... BUDGET CUTS. "WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO VACATIONS!!!"

Entire industries cities/towns rely on these people showing up and pumping money into their economy.

Did I say this already??? FUCK 'EM!!!

buy a WII FIT. then you get a personal trainer you can use for no extra cost, you fuckers!

Now you have personal trainers out of jobs, how do they feed thier families now?

oh the suffering... Fuck them, Fuck their wives and use the dress to clean up afterwards...

More tantrum. You know better.


Fire the Tutor

Yea, fire the kid trying to make side book money for school.


get your kids into public schools and stop ignoring your fucking kids you Rich fucking parents!

Yea why expose your children to a kind of life that gives them future advantages in life. Just crazy talk.

NEW WORD... McDonalds!

when was the last time I saw a bank manager? er... NEVER! buy an Aloha shirt and call it a moral booster!

wanna fit in? then lose the job and you'll fit in with all the other people worried about their financial situation. ya muthafuckers!

More silly ranting. Junii, this is unusual for you, you usually have a solid point.

Someone is throwing a tantrum here.

More silly ranting. Junii, this is unusual for you, you usually have a solid point.

Not sympathising with someone because their million-dollar lifestyle might have to be rationalised down to a mere half-million dollar lifestyle? Hardly a rant.

Junii expressed that lack of sympathy in unequivocal terms - that's hardly a tantrum.

The 'excuses' you offer? Hardly an argument.

The answer is simple, you dont limit the salary of company heads of multi billion dollar companies to $500,000/yr for the same reason you dont limit the amount your going to pay a computer engineer to $13,000 a year. There are fewer people on the planet capable of being a CEO for a billion dollar company then there are that can play Major League Baseball. Alot fewer.

There are fewer people on the planet capable of being a CEO for a billion dollar company then there are that can play Major League Baseball.

Based on what?

I could be the CEO for a billion dollar company. If I had a billion dollar company.

Based on what?

I could be the CEO for a billion dollar company. If I had a billion dollar company.

Yea and i could be a six legged crab if i only had 6 legs and was a crab. You arnt a CEO of a billion dollar company precisely because you dont have the ability to do so.

Can you convince a stranger to write you a check with 6 or 7 or 8 zeros on it to invest in your vision? I cant. You cant. Rarified people in the world, can.

Yea and i could be a six legged crab if i only had 6 legs and was a crab. You arnt a CEO of a billion dollar company precisely because you dont have the ability to do so.


That's a horseshit argument, and I suspect you know it.

I'm not the CEO of a billion dollar company because I'm not the CEO of a billion dollar company - that's the only reason. And I won't get hired for it, for that same reason. It's a protectionist market.


Can you convince a stranger to write you a check with 6 or 7 or 8 zeros on it to invest in your vision? I cant. You cant. Rarified people in the world, can.

Are you under the impression that THAT's how billion dollar empires come into being? Some dude convinces some other dude to give him a check for 8 zeroes and pow?

Someone is throwing a tantrum here. by the logic that I am throwing a tantrum, that means you agree that their lifestyle is 'not lavish' and thus should be able to keep their million dollar a year salary at taxpayer's expense.

More silly ranting. Junii, this is unusual for you, you usually have a solid point.
yes, that point is I have no sympathy for those rich bastards who are running banks and financial institutions yet cannot manage their own finances enough to put money into savings.

Can you convince a stranger to write you a check with 6 or 7 or 8 zeros on it to invest in your vision? I cant. You cant. Rarified people in the world, can.

Except if your vision is a flop because you're great at convincing but lousy at planning, you're no different than a shyster. The world has plenty of incompetent but charismatic fools. Usually they got killed for trying to realize their failed vision when people see them for what they really are. I see you prefer to glorify them instead.

When you're already born that far up the ladder, it has practically nothing about what you can do, but all about who you know. These people are no more rarified than feudal era nobility, born into privilege with a guarantee that it will continue to be theirs by birthright.

Can you convince a stranger to write you a check with 6 or 7 or 8 zeros on it to invest in your vision? I cant. You cant. Rarified people in the world, can.

and 99% of those rarified people are called Con Artists.

and 99% of those rarified people are called Con Artists.

But, by then its too late, just ask the Madoff victims...

Yea and i could be a six legged crab if i only had 6 legs and was a crab. You arnt a CEO of a billion dollar company precisely because you dont have the ability to do so.

Can you convince a stranger to write you a check with 6 or 7 or 8 zeros on it to invest in your vision? I cant. You cant. Rarified people in the world, can.

The ability to administrate a billion-dollar company requires a lot more than being able to convince people to write you checks, which any old crook can do.

Well, presumably it does. We never hear much about CEOs and their jobs unless they're being convicted for embezzling millions of dollars. For all we know it may not actually be all that hard, especially if you can delegate all the important tasks to secretaries and vice presidents and directors and such-like (which a good manager is supposed to do) and then take really long vacations because nobody really needs you except to direct them, which you can do from a hotel on the Sicilian beach.

But, by then its too late, just ask the Madoff victims...

the point wasn't about being late or not. it was about convincing people to write a check with lots of zero's after the number with nothing more than a 'vision'. ;)

Except if your vision is a flop because you're great at convincing but lousy at planning, you're no different than a shyster. The world has plenty of incompetent but charismatic fools. Usually they got killed for trying to realize their failed vision when people see them for what they really are. I see you prefer to glorify them instead.

When you're already born that far up the ladder, it has practically nothing about what you can do, but all about who you know. These people are no more rarified than feudal era nobility, born into privilege with a guarantee that it will continue to be theirs by birthright.
QFFT, right there
Does anybody here want to invest in a bank where the key management live such lavish lifestyles? I invest in a bank where the management is frugal. I also invest in the broad stock market through indexing but I have one bank that I own stock in directly and it is run by pretty frugal men.
nope, i'd much rather invest in a bank that paid its execs a sensible wage and put the difference back into the business/shareholders, etc

From the OP's article...
Fuck em.
FUCK 'EM!

My heart bleeds for them... FUCK EM!

FUCK 'EM!!!


gee... My message to them? "WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD FUCKERS!"

and a new phrase to be put in their vocabulary... BUDGET CUTS. "WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO VACATIONS!!!"

Did I say this already??? FUCK 'EM!!!

buy a WII FIT. then you get a personal trainer you can use for no extra cost, you fuckers!

oh the suffering... Fuck them, Fuck their wives and use the dress to clean up afterwards...


Fire the Tutor, get your kids into public schools and stop ignoring your fucking kids you Rich fucking parents!

NEW WORD... McDonalds!

when was the last time I saw a bank manager? er... NEVER! buy an Aloha shirt and call it a moral booster!

wanna fit in? then lose the job and you'll fit in with all the other people worried about their financial situation. ya muthafuckers!
you made me giggle pretty good, JuN :D

But they can't move out of town! That would mean they would be joining the much-despised ranks of the "Bridge and Tunnel" crowd, which practically everyone who does live in Manhattan snarks on. And they'd have to pay extra for chaffeurs to drive them into the city for their jobs, because taking the train messes up their $6000 suits. And they'd have to wake up earlier because do you know how long traffic on the Long Island Expressway can get stuck for? If you're going to be spouting such crazy talk, obviously to compensate for the stresses of not getting to live in Manhattan the salary cap should be increased to at least $56717134532629486. And all executives should be given private helicopters. They do a very difficult job after all, and one that the American people rely on. Are you anti-American?
:tongue: what exactly is so very difficult about their jobs anyhow? a fucking lot of people have difficult, stressful jobs, but you don't see millions of them (us) whining that $500k isn't enough or that they deserve stupid millions for a salary

:tongue: what exactly is so very difficult about their jobs anyhow? a fucking lot of people have difficult, stressful jobs, but you don't see millions of them (us) whining that $500k isn't enough or that they deserve stupid millions for a salary

They are basically paid to predict the future. No one can really predict the future, yet there are some that are better at it then others. These people usually make other people rich but as we see, not always.

They are basically paid to predict the future.

This explains a lot.

And... not about them.

:tongue: what exactly is so very difficult about their jobs anyhow? a fucking lot of people have difficult, stressful jobs, but you don't see millions of them (us) whining that $500k isn't enough or that they deserve stupid millions for a salary
*waves at PM*

To be honest, I'm not really sure what a CEO's actual job is like. Except that they make big bucks from doing it. We'd have to ask one, I guess.



You know any CEOs?



yeah, me neither.

You know any CEOs?


I've known a couple. Two of them have been CEO's of serious national or multinationals. The ability to see the future isn't required.

I've known a couple. Two of them have been CEO's of serious national or multinationals. The ability to see the future isn't required.

Did they ever talk much about their work, responsibilities, the most difficult part of their job, etc.?

And why can't a CEO see the future? What's the point, then?

Did they ever talk much about their work, responsibilities, the most difficult part of their job, etc.?

And why can't a CEO see the future? What's the point, then?

I knew both of them through work (of the specific 'two' I'm talking about), so most of our talk was work or about work. The bulk of the job seems to be problem-solving... rather than prediction. Sure, mitigation and preparation are important, but the CEO is basically 'the fan' that 'the shit' hits. Of course - it varies from office to office - some CEO's will need start-up experience, a lot won't. Most will need some kind of business, managament, business-management experience. Most will need serious people skills.

The two main things that people have said - prediction and raising initial capital, aren't necessarily things that a CEO is ever going to have to worry about - although, of course, a funding shortfall will eventually fall on the CEO's shoulders.

From conversations I've had - the REAL secret - is getting your right team together, and working with them. It's your team that does the 'prediction' - it's the CEO that makes it happen.

I have no sympathy for those rich bastards who are running banks and financial institutions yet cannot manage their own finances enough to put money into savings.
With the state of the banking industry, who can blame 'um?

With the state of the banking industry, who can blame 'um?

Me, the Government, the Majority of the Country, Human Race, World, etc...:p

You guys and your anger just crack me up. You're all missing the point so far, I have to wonder who's responsible.

Banking pay, or CEO pay are minor issues that America does not have the time or political reserves to worry about right now. Even if we were to conclude that CEOs shouldn't be paid as much (a valid statement to make) and that it is somehow our business to interfere (much less valid a statement to make), it really is not the issue at hand. You are looking at being stuffed for an extended period of time, you are looking at shanty towns.

Instead of asking the government to do something about that*, the polis is wasting its breath on CEO salaries. If there was ever a proof of the stupidity of the masses required, this is it.

*And no, the stimulus package is not doing anything about the problem.

You guys and your anger just crack me up. You're all missing the point so far, I have to wonder who's responsible.

Banking pay, or CEO pay are minor issues that America does not have the time or political reserves to worry about right now. Even if we were to conclude that CEOs shouldn't be paid as much (a valid statement to make) and that it is somehow our business to interfere (much less valid a statement to make), it really is not the issue at hand.


Ah yes. The market is pure and good. Leave it alone because the free market fairies will fix all.

CEO compensation is a sign of the problem.


You are looking at being stuffed for an extended period of time, you are looking at shanty towns. Instead of asking the government to do something about that*, the polis is wasting its breath on CEO salaries. If there was ever a proof of the stupidity of the masses required, this is it.

*And no, the stimulus package is not doing anything about the problem.

Ah what? The bankers are not at fault? I am shocked that a banker would suggest that.


So banker. How do you fix this?

You guys and your anger just crack me up. You're all missing the point so far, I have to wonder who's responsible.


So you're going to pretend the people who begged for corporate dole aren't giving themselves fat bonuses on tax money that was meant to get the businesses running while laying off a big chunk of their workforce ala GM?

You guys and your anger just crack me up. You're all missing the point so far, I have to wonder who's responsible.

Banking pay, or CEO pay are minor issues that America does not have the time or political reserves to worry about right now. Even if we were to conclude that CEOs shouldn't be paid as much (a valid statement to make) and that it is somehow our business to interfere (much less valid a statement to make), it really is not the issue at hand. You are looking at being stuffed for an extended period of time, you are looking at shanty towns.

Instead of asking the government to do something about that*, the polis is wasting its breath on CEO salaries. If there was ever a proof of the stupidity of the masses required, this is it.

*And no, the stimulus package is not doing anything about the problem.

Ah, it wouldn't be an economy thread without NL's worthless arrogant trolling of all us stupid non-bankers.

you made me giggle pretty good, JuN :DGlad you enjoyed it. really... what was the purpose of the article? to get people rilled up abou the rich? or to cast them in a sympathetic light? :confused:


:tongue: what exactly is so very difficult about their jobs anyhow? a fucking lot of people have difficult, stressful jobs, but you don't see millions of them (us) whining that $500k isn't enough or that they deserve stupid millions for a salaryto keep the stockholders happy... by screwing the employees.

ever wonder why they get bonuses for cost cutting measures?

With the state of the banking industry, who can blame 'um?
hey! my bank is great!

nope, i'd much rather invest in a bank that paid its execs a sensible wage and put the difference back into the business/shareholders, etc


But that is what frugal men do. They do not lavish execs with high wages but instead take profits and retain the earnings to grow the bank and or pay dividends to the shareholders.

You guys and your anger just crack me up. You're all missing the point so far, I have to wonder who's responsible.


You assume that the point is being missed, and you know what they say about 'assume'.

This is not new, it's not this years 'red'. There has been increasing bad feeling about the gap that isn't just great, or growing, but that has been multiplying at a dizzying level, between the ranks in the New Class Structure.

You're seeing that brought to a boil, largely by the actions of a small handful of fiscally extremely irresponsible individuals. That doesn't mean people aren't looking at the other problems.

CEOs across America should be taking note. Our whole economy is adjusting, and in a negative way for most people. The climate isn't quite right yet, but it soon could be, for this to boil over into REAL anger.


Banking pay, or CEO pay are minor issues that America does not have the time or political reserves to worry about right now.


Some people can do two things at the same time.


Even if we were to conclude that CEOs shouldn't be paid as much (a valid statement to make) and that it is somehow our business to interfere (much less valid a statement to make), it really is not the issue at hand.


It is part of the bigger issue.


You are looking at being stuffed for an extended period of time, you are looking at shanty towns.


Yes.

And yet you seem to be missing what that would mean.


Instead of asking the government to do something about that*, the polis is wasting its breath on CEO salaries. If there was ever a proof of the stupidity of the masses required, this is it.


If there was ever proof that you're really not in touch with zeitgeist, this is it.

It's not about the salaries. It's about the gap. It's about profiteering even now. It's about a populace that is getting increasingly angry, frustrated... and unemployed.

What is really 'stupid', right now? The Republican party line. Blocking legislation like this is business as usual, whining about the debts we will leave our children (because, of course, the two wars we're still in, we're fighting for free...) and complaining about fiscal responsibility. Attacking the Democrats for 'socialism'.

America is a powder-keg. We've already seen little actions... threats to banks/bankers, acts of minor 'terror'. This is probably the closest America has been to a violent revolution in two centuries.

Ah yes. The market is pure and good. Leave it alone because the free market fairies will fix all.

CEO compensation is a sign of the problem.

CEO compensation is out of control. No one represents the shareholder on the board. But simple measures can make the public companies more responsive to shareholders. North Dakota has such laws, but few corporations incorporated under those laws. What the federal government can do, is to make a law that gives shareholders the right to vote by simple majority to move their company's legal incorporation to states that uphold greater shareholder rights.

Let's look for the least intrusive solution. It's not like the government has any skill at running an economy.

Let's look for the least intrusive solution. It's not like the government has any skill at running an economy.

Why look for 'the least intrusive solution'? Why not fix the problem, and hang the consequences?

Why look for 'the least intrusive solution'? Why not fix the problem, and hang the consequences?
Because consequences are rarely what we expect them to be. Look at the way grain prices soared last winter as farmers diverted crops to ethanol production. I doubt higher food prices was what was intended when we started pushing grain for fuel...

So banker. How do you fix this?
By stopping to treat the bankers who obviously did something wrong like they didn't. There are several banks in the US now that are so insolvent that they will not get back to normal business for 20 years or more. They are like huge rocks tied around the neck of the US economy, and they need to disappear. In a free market, they would have been gone some time ago, with the subsequent devastating consequences for everyone else (leaving aside for a minute the question of whether banks like these could ever have existed in a free market). The people who work there and the CEOs didn't go into finance for the job security, and they didn't get paid that much money for failing. Whatever freaky, lobby-driven reasons there are for Washington still pretending that a version of the Swedish solution wouldn't apply to the US, they are the thing that the general public should be angry about. CEO pay, as much money as it is to you and me, is just not worth wasting one's attention on.

And besides, if we wanted to be objective and talk about banker pay, then we should be talking about the structure of the pay; the sorts of things that are used to calculate who should get what bonus. Cutting the amount doesn't really change behaviours if the relative incentives are still the same.

So you're going to pretend the people who begged for corporate dole aren't giving themselves fat bonuses on tax money that was meant to get the businesses running while laying off a big chunk of their workforce ala GM?
No, I'm not. But I'm saying that there is too much focus on that sort of thing, and not enough focus on trying to educate people to the point where they realise and understand that there are these big-picture, almost existential questions that have to be answered now and that will shape the US for the next decades.

If I were a conspiracy nut, I would say people like Vikram Pandit would be quite happy with the way things are going right now: people are angry at the way he gets paid, but Citi is left well alone.

Ah, it wouldn't be an economy thread without NL's worthless arrogant trolling of all us stupid non-bankers.
It's not an economy thread.

I'm not asking for everyone to get a degree in economics or that everyone understand everything that's going on - few people (if any) do and I'm not one of them. But I am asking that people stop glaring at the guy with the matches and turn around for a minute to see the massive bushfire about to burn down their house.

You're seeing that brought to a boil, largely by the actions of a small handful of fiscally extremely irresponsible individuals. That doesn't mean people aren't looking at the other problems.
Well, could you tell me, without going off to research, where to find all the details of Geithner's current plan and what they all mean?

If you can't, or you think the majority of voters currently can't, then obviously there is not enough time being spent on explaining what is really going on to people. Every time the media runs an article like the one in the OP instead of another attempt at going through potential solutions to the real problem, it's a diversion which is really not helping anyone.

If there was ever proof that you're really not in touch with zeitgeist, this is it.

It's not about the salaries. It's about the gap. It's about profiteering even now. It's about a populace that is getting increasingly angry, frustrated... and unemployed.
The question is: what can be done to stop it? You guys are not showing great enthusiasm for solutions or talking about solutions when instead you can call rich people names. Chances are that, since you present the upper echelon as far as knowledge and interest is concerned, the general populace will be even worse. That's a lot of fun in good times, but there are more important things to worry about. The fact that there are very rich people and a lot of unemployed people now if a symptom, not a cause.

We can sit back and say "meh, we can't do anything about it", Marx-style. We can even be gleeful about it. But not only would these things be wrong, but they would be absolutely useless in trying to help the people who are heading into shit now. So the thinkers on the left side of politics should be working on making sure that people get their priorities right, just as those on the right should. By taking a million dollars off a CEO we have not created a single cent for anyone else. It's not a zero sum game in good times, it won't start becoming one now.

In the end I don't care about your politics or what you think of CEOs, or indeed banking in general. But what you need to do is get technical, make practical suggestions on how to fix an insolvent financial system and just be pragmatic on it for a year or two. Afterwards we can all go our own seperate ways and start yelling at CEOs or unemployed people or whoever else we happen to feel annoyed with on the day.

Because consequences are rarely what we expect them to be.


Which part of '...and hang the consequences' was it that confused you?


Look at the way grain prices soared last winter as farmers diverted crops to ethanol production. I doubt higher food prices was what was intended when we started pushing grain for fuel...

So?

New problems come up, and you fix them. If you're sitting in poopy pants, the answer is to change your diapers and get back in bed, not just keep shitting them because you fear a change.

Well, could you tell me, without going off to research, where to find all the details of Geithner's current plan and what they all mean?


No, and with good reason...


If you can't, or you think the majority of voters currently can't, then obviously there is not enough time being spent on explaining what is really going on to people.


In fact, there's been deliberate attempt to NOT communicate too much. My personal suspicion is that the Obama administration is avoiding letting too much reality out in one go, and is instead coordinating small releases of optimism tempered by low expectation.

And, to be honest, I don't think they've finished formulating their plan - and I expect them to be tampering with it right up to the wire.


Every time the media runs an article like the one in the OP instead of another attempt at going through potential solutions to the real problem, it's a diversion which is really not helping anyone.


I think you're missing the point of the media. The media is talking about these richkid CEOs, because a lot of people are pretty pissed off about what's been going on. I expect the media to start some heavier coverage of who, exactly, Geithner will be bailing out with TALF, if this one starts to die out.


The question is: what can be done to stop it? You guys are not showing great enthusiasm for solutions


That's bullshit. A lot of people are frustrated right now, by politicians playing business-as-usual when millions of people are on the line. The GOP blocking legislation along party lines, in a crisis? It shouldn't MATTER if they agree with the fine print, they've placed partisan politics above the welfare of the populace.

So - 'solutions' is a bit dead in the water.


...or talking about solutions when instead you can call rich people names.


I've not been 'calling rich people names', but I really could care less what 'rich people' get called. We're not talking about your wealthy neigh bour, or your uncle that's doing alright - we're talking about the people who are trying to excuse a multiple million dollar domestic budget, while we slide towards ten percent unemployment.


Chances are that, since you present the upper echelon as far as knowledge and interest is concerned, the general populace will be even worse.


Exactly. There's that zeitgeist I was talking about.


That's a lot of fun in good times, but there are more important things to worry about.


Yes - that populace should be worrying people.


The fact that there are very rich people and a lot of unemployed people now if a symptom, not a cause.

We can sit back and say "meh, we can't do anything about it", Marx-style. We can even be gleeful about it.


The very strong risk is - no one is going to sit back and be gleeful about it. There's a very real risk there will be blood spilt.


But not only would these things be wrong, but they would be absolutely useless in trying to help the people who are heading into shit now. So the thinkers on the left side of politics should be working on making sure that people get their priorities right, just as those on the right should.


Seize all property. Communalise it. Allocate rationing. Problem solved.


By taking a million dollars off a CEO we have not created a single cent for anyone else.


By taking? Capping the maxima doesn't 'take' anything. It does mean that the remainder has to be invested elsewhere, though.


It's not a zero sum game in good times, it won't start becoming one now.

In the end I don't care about your politics or what you think of CEOs, or indeed banking in general. But what you need to do is get technical, make practical suggestions on how to fix an insolvent financial system and just be pragmatic on it for a year or two.


It's going to get worse before it gets better, because a lot of people are in denial. We run the risk of violence. We're closer to the edge of the knifeblade than we've ever been.


Afterwards we can all go our own seperate ways and start yelling at CEOs or unemployed people or whoever else we happen to feel annoyed with on the day.

Yes, because that's all it is. It's just grumpiness. It's not a fundamental inequality, it's not classwar. It's people getting miffed for no good reason. :rolleyes:

In fact, there's been deliberate attempt to NOT communicate too much. My personal suspicion is that the Obama administration is avoiding letting too much reality out in one go, and is instead coordinating small releases of optimism tempered by low expectation.
And you don't actually think that helps anyone, do you? So why is it that people are being distracted with non-issues. Zeitgeist isn't real, it's just individuals making individual choices about the things they devote their time thinking about. In the past the US, or any other communities, have not gotten over problems by ignoring them and instead playing blame games - that's always been the temptation, yes, but never the solution.

And, to be honest, I don't think they've finished formulating their plan - and I expect them to be tampering with it right up to the wire.
They have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Given that situations like this are the reason governments can be allowed to exist in the first place, that's pretty outrageous.

So - 'solutions' is a bit dead in the water.
You can't make the mistake of considering the stimulus package even part of the solution. It isn't. They're trying to cure a heart attack by blood transfusion. What the Republicans do or don't do in the process is really not important and doesn't necessarily say anything about the possibility of coming up with an actual solution.

I've not been 'calling rich people names', but I really could care less what 'rich people' get called. We're not talking about your wealthy neigh bour, or your uncle that's doing alright - we're talking about the people who are trying to excuse a multiple million dollar domestic budget, while we slide towards ten percent unemployment.
They don't have to excuse how much they get paid, you know that as well as anyone else. Within a capitalist system, regardless of whether that's real capitalism or some sort of Scandinavian model, the basic presumption is that people don't have to justify to others what they spend their money on. That's what's meant by "private allocation" of goods and capital.

But again, getting into that debate wastes precious breath and attention when the actual outrage of the masses should be directed not towards those who fucked up while trying to earn money, but those whose very existence is justified by their protecting others from this sort of thing.

The very strong risk is - no one is going to sit back and be gleeful about it. There's a very real risk there will be blood spilt.
And the question is then, who is standing against it? I know I am, but who is with me?

Seize all property. Communalise it. Allocate rationing. Problem solved.
That solves no problems, and you know it. It never has in the past, and you can bet that these angry masses are not exactly going to sit by while the government "communalises" their property either.

Yes, because that's all it is. It's just grumpiness. It's not a fundamental inequality, it's not classwar. It's people getting miffed for no good reason. :rolleyes:
Does it matter? Is there a difference? Being annoyed with inequality is not actually substantial - one doesn't improve one's own standard of living by making sure others don't have one better than oneself. The rationalisations people come up with to be angry at those they don't like are irrelevant, there is no right not to be offended. CEOs and rich people haven't done anything to Mr. Average. The first step to the healing process is realising that there was nothing Thain, Lewis et al could have done to prevent something like this from happening eventually. They had more than their fair share in the development of the specific way in which the bubble burst, but they didn't make the bubble and the only way they could have prevented it would have been by not giving the American people what they wanted, namely cheap credit to finance a lifestyle.

That's the way I see this now. It's like the addict crashing down badly from a high and blaming his dealer for taking the drugs in the first place. I'm not denying that it is happening, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong, or (if your sense of humour is sufficiently black) funny.

And you don't actually think that helps anyone, do you?


Yes. And if you listen to some of the whispers, I'm not alone.


So why is it that people are being distracted with non-issues. Zeitgeist isn't real,


Zeitgeist is real. Or - do you mean 'tangible'?


They have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Given that situations like this are the reason governments can be allowed to exist in the first place, that's pretty outrageous.


That is pretty outrageous. Governments are allowed to exist because societies survive better when there is wise leadership. It's outrageous that you'd pretend otherwise.


You can't make the mistake of considering the stimulus package even part of the solution. It isn't.


Yes, it is.


What the Republicans do or don't do in the process is really not important


Yes, it is - if the GOP are voting against any precaution , prevention, or amelioration, as a partisan act - it is very important.


They don't have to excuse how much they get paid,


Actually, those that are borrowing the money can expect to be called up short if they are seen to be acting unreasonably with it.

Within a capitalist system, regardless of whether that's real capitalism or some sort of Scandinavian model, the basic presumption is that people don't have to justify to others what they spend their money on.


In dreamland, maybe. In the real world, people often have to justify their wages in some fashion. It's just not usually THESE people.


But again, getting into that debate wastes precious breath and attention when the actual outrage of the masses should be directed not towards those who fucked up while trying to earn money,


Them 'fucking up' is irrelevent. It was no 'accident', you're not going to pass this off as a slip, or error in judgement. These fiscal institutions, etc, have been caught doing what they ALWAYS do - which is take as much as they can get, for as little effort as they can. It's important, because they've run the risks as tight as they can, while they were carrying millions of people with them.

If it was just them fucking up? Fine.


...but those whose very existence is justified by their protecting others from this sort of thing.


I assume you mean 'the government'? Which might be a reasonable comment to make if it wasn't for the fact that the people you seem to be protecting here, are the absolute enemies of the government doing that.


And the question is then, who is standing against it? I know I am, but who is with me?


I assume, then, that you identify yourself as one of the 'rich'?

Because, I can tell you now, if it gets to that stage that backs are against walls, the massive majority is going to be opposed to you.


That solves no problems, and you know it. It never has in the past, and you can bet that these angry masses are not exactly going to sit by while the government "communalises" their property either.


Of course they will. We're heading into a situation where people are going to have nothing to LOSE. It's perfect for 'redistribution of wealth'... because the small predatory minority will be holding ALL of it.


Does it matter? Is there a difference?


Yes. A population pushed beyond breaking on a matter of inequality tends to fix it. By whatever means necessary.


Being annoyed with inequality is not actually substantial - one doesn't improve one's own standard of living by making sure others don't have one better than oneself.


You've clearly never heard of 'theft'.


The rationalisations people come up with to be angry at those they don't like are irrelevant,


As are your flippant pretenses that this is about people 'not liking' each other.


CEOs and rich people haven't done anything to Mr. Average.

Yes, they have. Consistently. For years.

That is pretty outrageous. Governments are allowed to exist because societies survive better when there is wise leadership. It's outrageous that you'd pretend otherwise.
Leadership is only necessary at certain moments, when decentralised mechanisms break down.

Actually, those that are borrowing the money can expect to be called up short if they are seen to be acting unreasonably with it.
But was that mentioned in the terms under which they had been given the money? Don't get me wrong, I think what Thain and his guys did with Merrill Lynch is disgraceful, and if he goes to jail for it I won't be shedding any tears.

But the fact of the matter is that these banks had been given money no strings attached by Paulson. There is not much of a basis for preventing them from spending it as they see fit.

In dreamland, maybe. In the real world, people often have to justify their wages in some fashion. It's just not usually THESE people.
When the poor get criticised for spending their money a certain way, there are two important differences:
1) If I was to say a savings account is perhaps a better idea than flashy wheels for the car, I actually do try to make a constructive suggestions with the benefit of the poor person in mind.
2) When I make that suggestion I would never even dream of making it compulsory for poor people to spend their wages the way I tell them to, or to outlaw their spending it on flashy wheels.

I don't care what people say about CEO lifestyles, provided they comply with those two basic rules that are...well, prerequisites for adults coexisting with each other.

Them 'fucking up' is irrelevent. It was no 'accident', you're not going to pass this off as a slip, or error in judgement. These fiscal institutions, etc, have been caught doing what they ALWAYS do - which is take as much as they can get, for as little effort as they can. It's important, because they've run the risks as tight as they can, while they were carrying millions of people with them.
Better then not to have banks? Don't be ridiculous.

I assume you mean 'the government'? Which might be a reasonable comment to make if it wasn't for the fact that the people you seem to be protecting here, are the absolute enemies of the government doing that.
Protecting who? You don't actually identify who the bad guys are.

Banks? Bankers? CEOs? Fund managers? Rich people?

I assume, then, that you identify yourself as one of the 'rich'?
If that makes it easier for you, sure. But the fact of the matter is that my dad lost his job only a few weeks ago because the IT project management firm he was working for laid off most of its staff. So he rejoined the ranks of the long-term unemployed.

I'm not rich, and I'm not out there to be. I'm out there to do the work I enjoy, earning enough money to be able to do the things I enjoy and earn it in such a way that it gets recognised and rewarded if I do a good job.

But you don't have to identify yourself with a group that is being targeted by the majority to think that this group is being treated unfairly or to want to protect it.

Because, I can tell you now, if it gets to that stage that backs are against walls, the massive majority is going to be opposed to you.
And? You know perfectly well that I've never cared what the majority thinks and that nothing becomes any less wrong because many people happen to believe it.

The question is: when people are being targeted, violently targeted, by an angry mob with little more than a rudimentary understanding of the world around them, by virtue of nothing more than being rich (seriously, do you think they'll bomb Thain's car, but not Dimon's or Buffett's?) - do you sit by and pretend they have it coming, or do you stand up for what is right?

Of course they will. We're heading into a situation where people are going to have nothing to LOSE. It's perfect for 'redistribution of wealth'... because the small predatory minority will be holding ALL of it.
And there I was thinking I was pessimistic.

You've clearly never heard of 'theft'.
What is there to steal from a banker? A bank is nothing but a lot of debt and a lot of brains. As much as they have tried, no government in history has been able to nationalise brains or skills.

At any rate, the benefit of globalisation is the ability to choose where you want to live. If the US government were to become coerced by, or tolerated the existence of angry mobs of the kind you describe, these people will be sitting on their private jets going somewhere else.

Yes, they have. Consistently. For years.
How? Can you actually tell anyone how these people hurt anyone, against the victim's full consent?

Leadership is only necessary at certain moments, when decentralised mechanisms break down.


Wow, that's a load of horseshit, AND directly opposes what you said earlier. Good job.


Better then not to have banks? Don't be ridiculous.


And this doesn't even make sense.

How is that a response to the post I made?


Protecting who? You don't actually identify who the bad guys are.

Banks? Bankers? CEOs? Fund managers? Rich people?


Those who have vehemently fought regulation, control or oversight... so, yeah, 'the rich', CEO's, fund managers, etc.


If that makes it easier for you, sure.


No, it was a question.


I'm not rich, and I'm not out there to be. I'm out there to do the work I enjoy, earning enough money to be able to do the things I enjoy


Which actually makes you a lot 'better off' than a lot of people.


But you don't have to identify yourself with a group that is being targeted by the majority to think that this group is being treated unfairly or to want to protect it.


You think that they are being treated unfairly?

Your definition of fair (people shouldn't be mean to rich people) and mine (there shouldn't be people starving in the richest nations in the world) are practically irreconcilable.


And? You know perfectly well that I've never cared what the majority thinks and that nothing becomes any less wrong because many people happen to believe it.


It's not a matter of whether it is 'wrong'. It's a matter of 'is it worth taking a bullet for'.


The question is: when people are being targeted, violently targeted, by an angry mob with little more than a rudimentary understanding of the world around them, by virtue of nothing more than being rich (seriously, do you think they'll bomb Thain's car, but not Dimon's or Buffett's?)


No, not at all. If it goes the way it looks like it will, and if these parties just play partisan politics while the Titanic sinks, the mob violence is likely to be somewhat scattershot.


...do you sit by and pretend they have it coming, or do you stand up for what is right?


What is right? We seem to have fundamentally different views on what 'right' should consist of.


And there I was thinking I was pessimistic.


No, just unrealistic.


What is there to steal from a banker?


You said: "...one doesn't improve one's own standard of living by making sure others don't have one better..." and yet that is practically the guiding light of theft. You take from someone who has more, so they have less, and you have more.


At any rate, the benefit of globalisation is the ability to choose where you want to live.


Not strictly true.


If the US government were to become coerced by, or tolerated the existence of angry mobs of the kind you describe, these people will be sitting on their private jets going somewhere else.


Because, of course, like all other historical revolutions, the coming storm will be arranged through polite appointments.

Wow, that's a load of horseshit, AND directly opposes what you said earlier. Good job.
How so? Activist governments suck more than people sorting things out in a decentralised manner most of the time, until these mechanisms break down. At that point, the government is there to intervene and be active to fix the issue. We are now clearly in such a situation, but the government is failing to do what it's supposed to.

At any other time, when there is no crisis that people can't fix themselves, "leadership" from the state leads to nothing but bad things, because it is pretty much always directed against something or someone.

And this doesn't even make sense.

How is that a response to the post I made?
Banks are by their very nature institutions that take on more risk than pretty much any other economic agent, because they exist in order to distribute money and keep it moving. They are always running on the ragged edge, and they can't operate at any other level. And when they fail, they always take a lot of people with them.

All the things you accuse the banks of having done wrong are virtually parts of a textbook definition of what a bank is. A bank that doesn't do these things is not a bank.

Those who have vehemently fought regulation, control or oversight... so, yeah, 'the rich', CEO's, fund managers, etc.
And those who haven't, like George Soros, are okay?

All this of course presumes the idea that regulations, controls or oversights would have helped. And that then means either a blanket reduction of business across the board, sound as well as unsound, such as by requiring less leverage, or some sort of prior knowledge of the problem areas so that specific regulations could be written to deal with them. The latter is a pipe dream.

Which actually makes you a lot 'better off' than a lot of people.
I know. But I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, everyone else could be much wealthier than I am, as long as I have the money to do the things I want to do.

You think that they are being treated unfairly?
Of course they are. The idea of fair is linked to the idea of merit, of doing something and experiencing the rightful consequences of it. Some bankers committed crimes (actual crimes, like fraud and theft), and should go to jail accordingly. Other bankers made mistakes and should lose money accordingly. And again other bankers were caught up in the storm through little fault of their own, with nothing about their business model or leadership that unduly exposed them.

How many people distinguish between Thain and Blankfein? Hell, how many of these angry people out there even know those two names?

Your definition of fair (people shouldn't be mean to rich people) and mine (there shouldn't be people starving in the richest nations in the world) are practically irreconcilable.
I thought we figured that out a long time ago.

It's not a matter of whether it is 'wrong'. It's a matter of 'is it worth taking a bullet for'.
It's always just a matter of when. I can stand there today and defend bankers and suffer the consequences, or I can led it slide for now and become the next target. When punishment is removed from any objective causality, who the victim happens to be becomes irrelevant pretty quickly.

What is right? We seem to have fundamentally different views on what 'right' should consist of.
Well, let's look at the connection between fairness, merit and causality. You admit freely that people are going to be targeted who shouldn't be by saying that the violence will be scattershot.

If you accept that, how can we not have the same view on whether or not what happens constitutes something that is wrong?

You said: "...one doesn't improve one's own standard of living by making sure others don't have one better..." and yet that is practically the guiding light of theft. You take from someone who has more, so they have less, and you have more.
Temporarily at best. The point I was making is that what is important here is not the actual money - that comes and goes, it's a fleeting manifestation of productive capacity, especially when you're talking wealth in the form of share options or US dollars. You can nationalise a car factory, and maybe you can even run it so that it makes cars. You can't nationalise a banker.

Not strictly true.
For rich people fleeing persecution, it usually is.

Because, of course, like all other historical revolutions, the coming storm will be arranged through polite appointments.
On the other hand, in all other historical revolutions, people had plenty of warning of what was coming. It was just that there were no private jets in those days, and even so plenty of nobles and rich people were relatively successful in extracting themselves from the situation.

Banking pay, or CEO pay are minor issues that America does not have the time or political reserves to worry about right now. Even if we were to conclude that CEOs shouldn't be paid as much (a valid statement to make) and that it is somehow our business to interfere (much less valid a statement to make), it really is not the issue at hand. You are looking at being stuffed for an extended period of time, you are looking at shanty towns.

It's funny that this post starts with a claim that OTHERS are missing the point.

The reason the government is addressing CEO compensation is because those same CEOs show up at the government's door begging for handouts. No one is suggesting that if GE is making money as easily as breathing that we should limit the CEOs compensation. The current suggestion is that if you take money from the government to right the ship YOU overturned, that you don't get to profit from it. Shocking, I know.

They made it our business to interfere when they told us we had an obligation to keep their companies in business. They asked us to get involved. As you point out in a later post, sometimes the consequences of our actions are unexpected. I'm sure when these CEOs asked the government that's let them screw anyone and everyone in order to make more money for help, they didn't figure on that help having some reasonable expectations attached.

I'm curious, is it also none of our business what happens to education money we give to the states? You borrow money from me, I'm obviously going to have stipulations about your use of it. If you don't want my input, then put your hand back in your own pocket and get it out of mine.