Is Barney Frank Retarded?

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from jficquette:

The only people who think pay should be limited are people who have never made any money.

Government cheese crowd lol.

That's just untrue. Warren Buffet doesn't pay his execs like that.

Sorry, insults won't win this argument. Everyone knows I am one of the most consistent conservatives on this board, but at some point you just have to say, enough.

These CEO hogs ruined it for everyone. Their greed has empowered a collection of socialists to take over our government.

 

[hofficita]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

All this rationalization about the "market" and "freedom of contract" misses the point. The system is badly broken. All you have to do is go back and compare the ratios of exec comp with worker pay over history. Compare it with other countries. I don't agree with a lot of the political rhetoric about inequality and fairness,e tc but in this case they have a point. Defending this system tarnished conservative arguments onother issues. There is simply no way to defend letting some corporate weasel/politician who managed to scheme his way into the corner office take home a substantial percentage of the company's profits just because he's CEO. There is simply no way one guy can possibly add enough value to be worth hundreds of millions. Of course, the corker is when things go south. Then they have a million excuses, the market, the economy, the weather, etc. Basically the drill is, when things are good, the star CEO deserves huge comp and when they are bad, heneeds to have his options repriced.

That is BS and I give even an asshole like Barney Frank credit for saying so.

Once again, don't buy shares if you don't like the system. Even if you believe the system is "broken", your (and Barney Frank's) idiotic idea of having some kind of government mandate on compensation is a perfect example of the cure being worse than the disease.

 

[bugscoe]

And once the pay is capped for CEO's, guess who's next...

 

[stock_trad3r]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

It's bad enough that Obama has suggested that any company receiving TARP money, limit their executives pay to $500,000. Now I'm hearing that Barney Frank wants executive pay FOR ALL U.S. COMPANIES, to be limited to $500,000 (including bonuses).

So, I'm asking you, is Barney Frank retarded? And if so, how is it possible that we have such people running our country?

whenever he opens his flap and makes his usual incoherent babel the market surges, so he's not all that bad.

 

[Barth Vader]

Quote from Z.O.G.:

Is Barney Frank retarded?

No, but he IS a homosexual Jew.

Your constant cheerleading on behalf of Jews is becoming quite tiresome. I am sure if you applied yourself, you would find at least one thing about Jews to complain about.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from hofficita:

Once again, don't buy shares if you don't like the system. Even if you believe the system is "broken", your (and Barney Frank's) idiotic idea of having some kind of government mandate on compensation is a perfect example of the cure being worse than the disease.

If the ramifications were just limited to shareholders, your suggestion would be adequate. But they aren't. Seeing a CEO take home $200 mill for running a company into the ground, sending jobs overseas, etc is profoundly demoralizing to employees. They are more incentivized to join unions, furthering the us against them mentality. Bottom line, obscene comp packages are poor leadership. They place the CEO's desires over what is best for the company.

I really don't think the cure is worse than the disease in this case. Someone has to come up with a number, either the CEO, the Board (which he of course controls), or some outside agency. CEO's and Boards have proved rather conclusively that they cannot be trusted not to loot the company. Perhaps the answer is making exec comp subject to shareholder vote and banning certain forms of compensation, such as incentive options altogether.

The libertarian argument that the government has no right to interfere with freedom of contract is intellectually appealing, but it has been eroded so frequently in practice that this is a small step. There could also be an unintended benefit. If all these supermen CEOs are unwilling to work for starvation wages, perhaps they will go out and start their own companies. I don't have a problem with Bill Gates getting rich off shares in a company he started. Let's look at this as a way to encourage more of it.

 

[ChkitOut]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

.

So, I'm asking you, is Barney Frank retarded?

No, but his boyfriend is.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It wouldn't be my first choice, for sure. The simple fact is we have experienced over the past 15 years or so an obvious breakdown in corporate governance. It has given rise to a new royal class, CEOs. They set their own compensation, rubberstamped by a board of cronies. Institutional investors are silenced by conflicts of interest, a go-along to get along mentality, or their own self interest. This is not just my opinion. Respected compensation experts like Graef Crystal have voiced similar opinions. I would love for someone to actually argue that Nardelli was worth $200 mill to the shareholders of HD. That the former head of Pfizer was worth what we walked away with. How about the former or current heads of AIG, GM, any bank, GE, etc, I could list practically any public company.

The fact is other countries by and large do not compensate executives as we do here. If they think they can go abroad and do better, more power to them. Judging from the results, I doubt we will be any worse off. Perhaps instead our companies should be looking for bright Indian and Chinese executives to take the reins if our domestic execs feel unappreciated.

All this rationalization about the "market" and "freedom of contract" misses the point. The system is badly broken. All you have to do is go back and compare the ratios of exec comp with worker pay over history. Compare it with other countries. I don't agree with a lot of the political rhetoric about inequality and fairness,e tc but in this case they have a point. Defending this system tarnished conservative arguments onother issues. There is simply no way to defend letting some corporate weasel/politician who managed to scheme his way into the corner office take home a substantial percentage of the company's profits just because he's CEO. There is simply no way one guy can possibly add enough value to be worth hundreds of millions. Of course, the corker is when things go south. Then they have a million excuses, the market, the economy, the weather, etc. Basically the drill is, when things are good, the star CEO deserves huge comp and when they are bad, heneeds to have his options repriced.

That is BS and I give even an asshole like Barney Frank credit for saying so.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

If the ramifications were just limited to shareholders, your suggestion would be adequate. But they aren't. Seeing a CEO take home $200 mill for running a company into the ground, sending jobs overseas, etc is profoundly demoralizing to employees. They are more incentivized to join unions, furthering the us against them mentality. Bottom line, obscene comp packages are poor leadership. They place the CEO's desires over what is best for the company.

I really don't think the cure is worse than the disease in this case. Someone has to come up with a number, either the CEO, the Board (which he of course controls), or some outside agency. CEO's and Boards have proved rather conclusively that they cannot be trusted not to loot the company. Perhaps the answer is making exec comp subject to shareholder vote and banning certain forms of compensation, such as incentive options altogether.

The libertarian argument that the government has no right to interfere with freedom of contract is intellectually appealing, but it has been eroded so frequently in practice that this is a small step. There could also be an unintended benefit. If all these supermen CEOs are unwilling to work for starvation wages, perhaps they will go out and start their own companies. I don't have a problem with Bill Gates getting rich off shares in a company he started. Let's look at this as a way to encourage more of it.

Excellent insight and commentary.

 

[hofficita]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

If the ramifications were just limited to shareholders, your suggestion would be adequate. But they aren't. Seeing a CEO take home $200 mill for running a company into the ground, sending jobs overseas, etc is profoundly demoralizing to employees. They are more incentivized to join unions, furthering the us against them mentality. Bottom line, obscene comp packages are poor leadership. They place the CEO's desires over what is best for the company.

Like shareholders, employees who do not like the compensation policies are free to vote with their feet. By your logic, the government should be setting wage limits on all enterprises, public and private. After all, we can't run the risk of inciting jealousy among the lower rungs.

The libertarian argument that the government has no right to interfere with freedom of contract is intellectually appealing, but it has been eroded so frequently in practice that this is a small step. There could also be an unintended benefit. If all these supermen CEOs are unwilling to work for starvation wages, perhaps they will go out and start their own companies. I don't have a problem with Bill Gates getting rich off shares in a company he started. Let's look at this as a way to encourage more of it.

Just because the government has decimated the Constitution over the years, should we just say "fuck it" and adopt wholesale a Hugo Chavez brand of populist socialism where free enterprise and contract law are disregarded? That is where we are heading with this kind of nonsense.

And by the way, the government never produces unintended benefits that are not overwhelmed by the unintended consequences. In this case, it would be the weakening of the public markets, as no successful business owner would take themselves public if it meant giving up that kind of control. Businesses, being more reluctant to access the equity market, would grow more slowly, and investors would find themselves with much fewer investment choices.

BTW, when that leftist moron Thunderdog is agreeing with you, you know you must be wrong.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Sorry, Neo, it just wasn't working out. You'll find someone new.

Don't worry.
The resident idiot has been pm'ing me daily this past week, as if I actually gave a damn . . . I think he needs professional help.