Obama continues plan to dick over free market

[smashweights]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/10/news/companies/compensation_geithner/index.htm

Yay! government will hopefully be able to determine who gets paid lots of money in America!

[Disclaimer]

Did you even read the article? It gives shareholders and executive board members MORE say on executive pay. This is definitely a good thing, not only from that standpoint, but to force these short term sighted CEOs to focus on long term health of the organization.

This is key, especially because executive compensation packages were a contributing factor for the economy now. So, why are the asinine thread title?

[that dude]

[jbot]

i'm going to sit back and relax as our dear leader, "The Pay Czar" comes to sit upon his god given throne. long live "The Pay Czar"!

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Did you even read the article? It gives shareholders and executive board members MORE say on executive pay. This is definitely a good thing, not only from that standpoint, but to force these short term sighted CEOs to focus on long term health of the organization.

This is key, especially because executive compensation packages were a contributing factor for the economy now. So, why are the asinine thread title?

+1

these ceo's and their bonus and retarded high salaries even when they run a company into the ground are what got us where we are

[ChickOn2]

:wink:LOL@this thread. OK, let's read together.. SLOWLY.. pointing to each word and sounding it out, OKAY?

The Obama administration moved forward Wednesday on curbing runaway corporate pay practices, proposing new legislation aimed at giving shareholders a greater voice on executive pay.

That means the 'little guy' has MORE say-so on executive pay. Which means the individual shareholders of the company. Not the guh-ber-mint.

lawdy, lawd. <insert SMH emoticon here>

[cmoosego]

when they came for the jews I did nothing, then they came for the blacks I did nothing.... etc. etc. till there was no one left to defend me...... one day peeps are gonna wake up and realize that maybe the "little guy" doesn't deserve what the hell he didn't go out and work for.... as far as the legislation goes, it's already up to shareholders to have a say in how their "companies" are run, it's called a proxy vote.... and good companies listen to shareholders and run the companies for the long run... it's when gov't got involved and insisted that everyone deserved a home loan is where the country started going south.... then the credit crisis came, then the housing market collapsed, money dried up... etc etc.... we got here via bad leadership... I.E. THE WHOLE F-N GOV'T is to blame for this..... not just one side.... and Not because CEO's were getting paid big money....

[Wheezle]

+ rep for that

[cmoosego]

But Moose.. isn't it my right as an American to own my own home?? Even if I can't pay for it.

But Moose.. I'm a retard with money to throw into the stock market. Now it has 'collapsed' and I lost everything. Shouldn't you pay for my shortsightedness?

But Moose.. What about' date=' um... I inherited.. shit..

Sorry folks, my teleprompter geeked out for a minute.[/quote'] I just lost my ass.... bail me out!!!

[Strictly Street]

when they came for the jews I did nothing, then they came for the blacks I did nothing.... etc. etc. till there was no one left to defend me...... one day peeps are gonna wake up and realize that maybe the "little guy" doesn't deserve what the hell he didn't go out and work for.... as far as the legislation goes, it's already up to shareholders to have a say in how their "companies" are run, it's called a proxy vote.... and good companies listen to shareholders and run the companies for the long run... it's when gov't got involved and insisted that everyone deserved a home loan is where the country started going south.... then the credit crisis came, then the housing market collapsed, money dried up... etc etc.... we got here via bad leadership... I.E. THE WHOLE F-N GOV'T is to blame for this..... not just one side.... and Not because CEO's were getting paid big money....

Absolutely correct. There are reports from the Clinton era which say these things are a bad idea even what would happen. But they got votes and so they were passed.

The Democrats drew up the legislation and the Republicans let them. Everybody is to blame since Reagan on both sides of the fence.

Perhaps short sighted politicians should be outlawed, as if...

[SAMBUSA]

"more fear"

[smashweights]

Did you even read the article? It gives shareholders and executive board members MORE say on executive pay. This is definitely a good thing, not only from that standpoint, but to force these short term sighted CEOs to focus on long term health of the organization.

This is key, especially because executive compensation packages were a contributing factor for the economy now. So, why are the asinine thread title?

because it's not within the powers of the federal government to enforce private company's CEO pay raises. Shareholders already have a say in what they get paid, it's called selling your stock in the company when it's not being run the way you want it to be. Kinda like how we have a say in what cars get made by not buying the cars that we don't want. And why should it be limited to CEO's? They're only one person. GM didn't get run into the ground because their CEO's were getting paid all that money they were hemmorhaging, so why not creating a whole bureau to monitor everyone's pay? It's yet another foothold Obama has taken to have a say in the way just about every industry is run.

[cmoosego]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvxiG56M-eU

[cmoosego]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMYkxszXe9s this is what's coming down the pipe....

[cmoosego]

in english.... does this sound eerily familiar?

[InyaAzz]

This again?

Seriously, I have to roll my eyes when the first post and the article have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not taking away from the discussion above, because there is some truth in what everyone is saying... but..still...thread=fail.

[Cheech]

because it's not within the powers of the federal government to enforce private company's CEO pay raises. Shareholders already have a say in what they get paid, it's called selling your stock in the company when it's not being run the way you want it to be.

No, selling your stock is simply divesting your ownership stake in the company. The compensation committee on the board determine executive pay, not the stockholders. Sure, the stockholders can elect board members, but how many times have you seen an entire board get upended? Just fixating on compensation, the underlying problem here is that everyone sits on everyone else's board. If I sit on your comp. committee and give you a raise or stock options, I'm sure there's a quid pro quo that you'll do the same for me because you're on my board. I point to Bob Nardelli at Home Depot, the guy ran off with 250M while posting reduced earnings. The only way you will effect real change here is to tie compensation with performance. In today's climate, that simply does not happen. Japan has it right, if you lose money during the year or maybe even a half-year, you are dishonored and the best option for you is to quit.

Kinda like how we have a say in what cars get made by not buying the cars that we don't want.

False analogy. You have direct, personal control over which car you buy, you do not have direct, personal control over the compensation contracts that are drafted. Most of the time when you find out about them is after they are in force, so even if you were to be successful in voting that person out, they still get a chunk from early termination.

And why should it be limited to CEO's? They're only one person. GM didn't get run into the ground because their CEO's were getting paid all that money they were hemmorhaging,

Agreed. GM's entire business plan was flawed. What are you getting at?

so why not creating a whole bureau to monitor everyone's pay? It's yet another foothold Obama has taken to have a say in the way just about every industry is run.

What would your solution be? It's patently obvious that the steady deregulation of the Reagan years on (especially the last 8) caused this mess to begin with. Do you seriously believe that giving one person 250 million dollars for declining company performance is in the best interest of shareholders or corporate America in general?

[Disclaimer]

Do you seriously believe that allowing the federal government to control the way a 'private' business operates itself is any better? If the CEOs are so bad' date=' so terrible and so manipulative what makes Obama any different? He's on top, too. It's just a shift in power.. nothing will change. [/quote']Why is this allowing the gov't to run the company? Like the article says, it's giving the shareholders more power. I don't understand why you feel this is a bad change just because the gov't is changing it? Who put the original rules of how executive compensation is handled? The SEC - which is another gov't organization. So, you have gov't changing the gov't, but somehow it's taking away from the free market?

I don't believe that somebody should be rewarded for poor behavior. If the CEO can't run the company with efficiency and profit he/she should be replaced. However' date=' it isn't my company. I don't call the shots and neither should the POTUSA. If you don't like the way a company is handled then don't do business with that company. Take your money elsewhere. All this bullshit about legislating for our protection is bunk. [/quote']If you agree that poor performance shouldn't be rewarded, then why is this bad? It's a sham that companies pay CEOs multimillion dollars and my stock in that company has declined 30%. As a stockowner (i.e. part owner of the company), I should have a say in that company commensurate on the amount of stock I have. Just because most people often choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean they should lose it.

I don't get you guys.. I don't understand what's so scary about the free market. What's wrong with somebody being taken to the cleaners if they don't pay attention or simply can't cut the mustard in the corporate world? Shareholders should not be protected by the government. They should understand their role in the business and act accordingly if that business is out of line. Simply because they failed to do their duty as shareholders doesn't mean we need the feds to save them. They need to act on their own and handle their business. This only makes the market stronger. The weak business is swallowed by the stronger. You guys tout all of this 'survival of the fittest' rhetoric but look up to the 'stronger' for help when it suits you. The double standard is really astonishing.

I agree that if someone doesn't cut the mustard - get rid of them, but for the salaries we're paying these people - they BETTER CUT THE MUSTARD, and if they don't it's pretty shitty that we still fork over MILLIONS of dollars to these schmucks.

We have a discrepancy on where the onus is. You say "vote with your dollars", I say "the ONE guy we're paying $100M/yr should earn his keep". If I have $10k worth of shares, any shareholder decision I make won't even register on the radar compared to a single decision the CEO makes.

Now, if all the executive comp was tied to the market for 2-3 years after they've left the company... then I'd expect you'd see a lot more CEOs give a rats ass about company performance rather than the huge daytrader firms that want to see quarterly profits. That's really what's driving a lot of this mess... big money, short term (3month-1yr) investors, and running a company for the short term is WAY different than any decisions you'd make running it for the long term.

Edited June 11, 2009 by JRMMiii

[Disclaimer]

When I used the adverb 'we're' - it meant the companies customers. Internal and external. Not 'we' as the general populace.

[Strictly Street]

Side note: I wonder why the Diebold machines were 'manipulated' during the last two elections but no mention of it this time. Hmm... interesting.

The key words are "No mention", still happened just not reported with blaring trumpets to prove "W" wrong and corrupt. "O" gets a pass on all these kinds of things from the press.

The press at large clearly supports "O". CNN anchors are mostly former Clinton press secretaries such as Wolf Blitzer and the rest. No wonder they side with the Democrats.

Not that this should be a surprise to anybody but it does make me wonder how much goes on that we never hear about due to media bias in general.

This isn't new, been going on forever. Now we have the internet so it is easier to notice.

[Cheech]

That's not a right. It's a responsibility and if it isn't used properly it can be walked on. There is a difference. As part owner' date=' you don't have rights.. you have obligations. If you don't adhere to those obligations then your business will suffer for it.

[/quote']

Incorrect. Read this. http://thismatter.com/money/stocks/stocks.htm As a common stockholder in a publicly held company, you don't have an obligation to do anything. At all. You have the right to vote on company matters that the Board brings up for election, you have the right to sell your stock at any time for any reason at any price that you think you can get for it, and depending on the company charter you have the right to a dividend per share owned. Explain to me the obligations you are referring to by simply owning common stock of a publicly traded company.

Before this whole fiasco took place exactly which CEO's salary did you pay? Why keep feeding the problem? Why 'fork over MILLIONS of dollars to these schmucks'?? Seems to me the only real schmucks are the investors.

As someone who has money invested in a 401k, I am by extension an investor in hundreds of companies. As a result of this, I, by your argument, am a schmuck. As a matter of fact, this is WORSE than being an actual stockholder, seeing as I take on the risk/reward (losses vs. gains) but none of the aforementioned rights in stock ownership.

Again.. who are you paying? If the company you've invested with is not performing to your standards why keep your money there? Poor management eventually becomes lost profit.

Tell that to the pensioner that just saw 50% of their savings evaporate. What protections do they have?

Hmm.. kind of like Presidential Administrations. Clinton rides on Reagan's legacy, Bush rides on Clinton's.. and so on.

This argument is invalid. The underlying (simplistic) purpose of a business is to make money by providing goods or services. Government does not do this. However, if you want to split hairs, the last time in recent memory the government "made money" is the end of the Clinton years.

I have to head out to Bellaire to pick up a tire balancer.. I'll be back later. Peace!!

I look forward to continuing this.

[smashweights]

This again?

Seriously, I have to roll my eyes when the first post and the article have absolutely nothing to do with each other...thread=fail.

Point of thread was that the feds are doing something that is BEYOND the scope of the their powers are and meddling in the business of the free market by placing a non-elected official in charge of overseeing some type of private business regulation. Not sure how you're not seeing the connection.

[Cheech]

The key words are "No mention", still happened just not reported with blaring trumpets to prove "W" wrong and corrupt. "O" gets a pass on all these kinds of things from the press.

The press at large clearly supports "O". CNN anchors are mostly former Clinton press secretaries such as Wolf Blitzer and the rest. No wonder they side with the Democrats.

Not that this should be a surprise to anybody but it does make me wonder how much goes on that we never hear about due to media bias in general.

This isn't new, been going on forever. Now we have the internet so it is easier to notice.

I'm not going to debate Obama's "free pass." I agree with you on that point.

I will argue that there was voter manipulation in both elections from 2000 and 2004. I really don't think there is a person alive that wouldn't say the Florida recount was a complete clusterf*ck. Add that to the fact that Bush was not elected by a popular margin of Americans, and that leaves the door wide open to voter fraud and error.

As for 2004, as any IT security person will tell you, the Diebold voting machines were HORRIBLY designed and coded. When I can take the key form my desk drawer here and open the lock on a Diebold machine, swap the CF cards to insert a virus that can make the votes whatever I want them to be, that's a horribly bad design. I really don't believe it's a coincidence that Blackwell was Sec. of State at that time, although I have no basis to prove that opinion. However, since Blackwell was kicked out, the voting machines have dramatically improved in time for the 08 elections and I believe that these were run a hell of a lot better than the last.

[Cheech]

Point of thread was that the feds are doing something that is BEYOND the scope of the their powers are and meddling in the business of the free market by placing a non-elected official in charge of overseeing some type of private business regulation. Not sure how you're not seeing the connection.

No, it's PUBLIC business regulation. The only businesses the SEC has jurisdiction over are publicly traded businesses. These are businesses that can and do have a significant amount of third-party investment vis-a-vis 401k's, pension funds, and the like. If you believe that the free market is working as it relates to executive compensation, then you must be thrilled that billions of dollars of bailout money went to Merrill Lynch, since that was the old free-market compensation system at work in it's purest form.

PRIVATE businesses aren't regulated because they do not sell securities or ownership stock, or if they do they are not on the open market.

[serpentracer]

i'm going to sit back and relax as our dear leader, "The Pay Czar" comes to sit upon his god given throne. long live "The Pay Czar"!

funny that the republicans ran up such a deficit (how much of a surplus did they spend again???) but they point fingers at ideas of Obama's.

and decided it was a great idea to give out so many tax breaks. but now it's not??? wow talk about being hypocrites!

but now when it's time to pay the piper for their bad ideas and policies...who gets the bad rap???? yeah...blame the new guy. easy way out...the republican way:rolleyes:

there is a lot of hypocritial finger pointing going on these days. and why not, now they have a chance to take away the attention from them.

all while everyone seems to have forgotten about the messes they left behind.

I even heard on NPR yesterday that Bush intentionally left the GM bailout to the next president. couldn't take yet another hit could he??? haha.

but this mess is what american's deserve for voting for a party that has never had a balanced budget or a surplus of any kind. maybe people are finally waking up.

Edited June 11, 2009 by serpentracer