View Full Version : Europe passing CEO/Exec pay reforms...
Belmont31R
03-12-13, 20:33
I feel conflicted about this because even though I believe in the free market to as much extent as possible this, and this actually isn't giving control of CEO pay to the governments there...I was wondering why this wasn't already standard practice.
To explain that...CEO pay is generally decided the board of a company...who are usually made up of other CEO's. This creates a 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' type mentality where we get tens of millions given to CEO's who run their company's into the ground because that guy is on the board of another company who's deciding this guys pay. Crooked? I think so, and not much accountability for share holders. A lot of us have 401k's or whatever and our future depends on these guy's performance.
So...giving shareholders a vote on CEO pay/bonuses good or bad? Again...this isn't the government setting total pay restrictions just mandating the stockholders get to vote.
Switzerland just passed this, and it passed with a majority in EVERY canton there: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539404578340052679731408.html?KEYWORDS=switzerland
Germany is considering it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324096404578356521086543446.html
Also a 'PS' question...when a CEO runs a company to the point they need or ask for a government (tax dollar) fund bail out..how much 'say' should the government (people) have in the company? I personally don't want to lend company X 20 billion so their CEO can go take a 80 million dollar golden parachute on our dime after he ran the company to the point they need public funding to stay in business.
I don't know that the reforms are handled as well as they could be, but shareholders are being shafted by the board and it needs to be reined in.
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 01:09
It is a terrible law and quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you supporting it. Part of investing in a company is looking into how it is managed (and how the management/ownership relationship is set up in regards to management compensation). If you fail to do that and lose your ass as a result, it is nobody's fault but your own.
This is just another attempt to move the responsibility from where it should be (the investor) to where it shouldn't (the government). Rather than asking to what degree taxpayers should have control over a bailed out company we should be demanding that the government not bail any out.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 03:01
It is a terrible law and quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you supporting it. Part of investing in a company is looking into how it is managed (and how the management/ownership relationship is set up in regards to management compensation). If you fail to do that and lose your ass as a result, it is nobody's fault but your own.
This is just another attempt to move the responsibility from where it should be (the investor) to where it shouldn't (the government). Rather than asking to what degree taxpayers should have control over a bailed out company we should be demanding that the government not bail any out.
Isn't buying shares buying part ownership?
I agree, no bailouts, but that isn't the political reality right now.
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 03:04
Yes it is but the reality is that most people don't have the money to buy enough for anyone to give a shit about their opinion. Invest in companies that have high insider ownership and compensation plans that put the managements bet interests in line with those of investors.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 03:12
Yes it is but the reality is that most people don't have the money to buy enough for anyone to give a shit about their opinion. Invest in companies that have high insider ownership and compensation plans that put the managements bet interests in line with those of investors.
Don't share holders elect the board?
Alaskapopo
03-13-13, 03:12
It is a terrible law and quite frankly, I'm surprised to see you supporting it. Part of investing in a company is looking into how it is managed (and how the management/ownership relationship is set up in regards to management compensation). If you fail to do that and lose your ass as a result, it is nobody's fault but your own.
This is just another attempt to move the responsibility from where it should be (the investor) to where it shouldn't (the government). Rather than asking to what degree taxpayers should have control over a bailed out company we should be demanding that the government not bail any out.
We have investment firms openly giving their clients advice they know to be bad in the name of making money for the firm which is the main reason for the crash in 08. So no it is not just on the investor.
Pat
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 03:18
We have investment firms openly giving their clients advice they know to be bad in the name of making money for the firm which is the main reason for the crash in 08. So no it is not just on the investor.
Pat
Yes, it is. Short of a contract violation, it is not the governments job to monitor the businesses you trust with your money.
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 03:19
Don't share holders elect the board?
I don't understand your point.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 03:36
I don't understand your point.
What's wrong with shareholders bypassing the board to set CEO pay?
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 03:46
What's wrong with shareholders bypassing the board to set CEO pay?
The government intervening is the problem. For the life of me I can't understand why people think they should be able to invest willy nilly without care for how the company is managed. This flies in the face of every free market principle there is.
I understand I'm going to be in the minority here and I'm fine with that. I'm a free market absolutist and do not recognize any legitimate intrusions or compromises upon it.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 03:52
The government intervening is the problem. For the life of me I can't understand why people think they should be able to invest willy nilly without care for how the company is managed. This flies in the face of every free market principle there is.
I understand I'm going to be in the minority here and I'm fine with that. I'm a free market absolutist and do not recognize any legitimate intrusions or compromises upon it.
Government is necessary in a free market.
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 03:56
Government is necessary in a free market.
This is one if the very few issues on which we must disagree. I value your opinion on virtually every subject we have discussed here on M4C and I'd be interested in reading why you hold this belief but from the outset of this discussion I am sure neither of us will be changing our minds.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 04:01
This is one if the very few issues on which we must disagree. I value your opinion on virtually every subject we have discussed here on M4C and I'd be interested in reading why you hold this belief but from the outset of this discussion I am sure neither of us will be changing our minds.
So who sets the legal aspect of a contract or even enforces it if one person breaks it? Going to hire a goon squad to go bust knee caps with no laws?
The most libertarian suggestion I've heard is for profit courts.
I understand the idea and the idea sounds noble
but where is the line in the sand ?
I do say if any company takes bail out money then all bets are off ? then again I think no company should get bail out money ever !
also think no company should be allowed any special privileged or breaks and list goes on
gov should have nothing to do with business and business should have nothing to do with gov unless its a contractor selling goods or providing goods or services !
meaning apple CEO should not get a lunch with obama ! kinda crap and get special tax deals
but thats another thread :)
so back to limiting pay ?
what about a company that wants to buy out a kick butt CEO that has a great track record and they need to pay more !!
also where do we draw the line maybe then the shareholders can by gov force decide pay for everyone in the company on all levels ?
then its not the company anymore
I do some photo work for a tech company once in a while the owner is building a house over 100,000 sq ft ! excess for sure but he pays his people well and himself well but he earned it its his company !
they always have restaurants cater the lunches and they are nice places that do the catering ! he provides great perks and such
if he was limited he would not have created the company not have created hundreds of jobs at his company and all the workers building his insane home detailing his insane cars and the upkeep on the house will be insane on top creating more jobs
yeah sounds like a noble idea but someone who has made his living almost his whole life on his own I would never want this limiting or stepping in to try to fix something the elitist think is needed :) if my company became google I would not want the high end execs limited either ! I would be happy to pay them what is needed
if they do not work out they get canned
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 04:09
So who sets the legal aspect of a contract or even enforces it if one person breaks it? Going to hire a goon squad to go bust knee caps with no laws?
I will submit that practically speaking there is no alternative to governments as a means of enforcing contract law. Philosophically and intellectually there are ample alternatives but unfortunately we must live within the framework of what is; however, we must always strive to achieve what ought to be. To that end, there is absolutely no justification for government intervention or regulation of free markets and any attempt to do so achieves nothing other than to stifle progress and introduce inefficiencies into the market.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 04:15
I will submit that practically speaking there is no alternative to governments as a means of enforcing contract law. Philosophically and intellectually there are ample alternatives but unfortunately we must live within the framework of what is, however, we must always strive to achieve what aught to be. To that end, there is absolutely no justification for government intervention or regulation of free markets and any attempt to do so achieves nothing other than to stifle progress and introduce inefficiencies into the market.
Without some government no one would sign a contract because it would be worthless, and one side could just reneg or change the terms with no recourse. Anarchy, basically, which would be worse than having basic levels of government.
I think government can be good but should have strict limits of power, and brings us to where we are today because we vote in people who ignore their limits and by keep voting them in we are saying its ok to do so.
I guess I am a constitutional libertarian not an anarchist.
In regards to this topic I guess I don't see the problem with shareholders, who are 'part owners' of the company they own stock in setting the pay of the CEO.
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 04:25
Without some government no one would sign a contract because it would be worthless, and one side could just reneg or change the terms with no recourse. Anarchy, basically, which would be worse than having basic levels of government.
I think government can be good but should have strict limits of power, and brings us to where we are today because we vote in people who ignore their limits and by keep voting them in we are saying its ok to do so.
I guess I am a constitutional libertarian not an anarchist.
In regards to this topic I guess I don't see the problem with shareholders, who are 'part owners' of the company they own stock in setting the pay of the CEO.
The first point that you bring up would require much discussion outside of the scope of this thread and as I've conceded that practically speaking, for now we must unfortunately have some government, I'll leave that for a latter date.
As to the last part, the problem isn't with every shareholder having a say, rather it is with the government mandating that it must be so.
I agree gov should have limited power
but forcing a company to do things is not limited in any way !
maybe if we the people can set all of their wages first !!
and the president makes nothing !
lets see if they would go for that before they start to decide what private business folks make :)
both sides have to FREELY enter into a contract and if the gov decides one side HAS to do this then its not so free IMHO at least :)
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 04:37
I agree gov should have limited power
but forcing a company to do things is not limited in any way !
maybe if we the people can set all of their wages first !!
and the president makes nothing !
lets see if they would go for that before they start to decide what private business folks make :)
both sides have to FREELY enter into a contract and if the gov decides one side HAS to do this then its not so free IMHO at least :)
This isn't the government deciding what they make but the shareholders of the company.
This isn't the government deciding what they make but the shareholders of the company.
yes but who is MAKING the company decide this is what happens ? are the companies truly doing this on their own free will or they being told to do it ? or is it by LAW and who created this law !
that was more my point seems its a OK this is what you are going to do
since the gov is stepping in to enforce this maybe we should say before you step into things this is what needs to happen and see how you like it
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 05:02
yes but who is MAKING the company decide this is what happens ? are the companies truly doing this on their own free will or they being told to do it ?
that was more my point seems its a OK this is what you are going to do
In Switzerland it was done by a 'proposition' so it was up the people there and every canton (state) voted for it by popular vote. It wasn't enacted by the government there.
Alaskapopo
03-13-13, 05:07
The government intervening is the problem. For the life of me I can't understand why people think they should be able to invest willy nilly without care for how the company is managed. This flies in the face of every free market principle there is.
I understand I'm going to be in the minority here and I'm fine with that. I'm a free market absolutist and do not recognize any legitimate intrusions or compromises upon it.
Lack of enough government over site was the problem in the last financial crash not too much.
pat
In Switzerland it was done by a 'proposition' so it was up the people there and every canton (state) voted for it by popular vote. It wasn't enacted by the government there.
it was a vote on a referendum ! so its a GOV thing
not just people voted/decided they voted on a law basically to pass
so if everyone in the US decides to say OK no more guns you are OK with that ?
or at least a majority or %68 vote like happened here
its BS big time
it was not limited to just shareholders voting but all people !!! on private companies (private as in shareholders and such not gov owned companies)
and why ? cause a guy with a toothpaste company got pissed off at swiss air !
nice are they going to go after him then also ?
so some guy gets pissed decides to go off the occupy wall street crowd big biz is bad and gets people to vote on fat cats getting pay restrictions
amazed as a libertarian you are for this ?
why is it now people who have nothing to do with someones business deciding what happens to that business ?
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20130303/index.html
Federal popular initiative 'against the abusive remuneration'
I
The Federal Constitution of 18 April 19991 is supplemented as follows:
S. 95, al. 3 (new)
3 To protect the economy, private property, and shareholders and to ensure a sustainable business management, the law obliges the Swiss limited liability companies traded in Switzerland or abroad to respect the following principles:
a. the General Assembly vote each year the sum total of the remuneration (money and value of benefits in kind) of the Board of Directors, management and the Advisory Committee. It means each year the president of the Board of Directors and, one by one, the members of the Board of Directors and the members of the remuneration Committee as well as the independent representative. Pension funds vote in the interest of their policyholders, and communicate what they voted. Shareholders may vote at a distance, by electronic means; they cannot be represented by a member of an organ of the company or a depositary;
b. members of the bodies do not receive severance pay or other compensation, no advance or premium pay for purchases or sales of businesses, and cannot be bound by another contract of Commission or work in a company of the group. The management of the company may not be delegated to a legal person;
c. statutes regulate the amount of rents, credits and loans granted to the members of bonus and participation plans and the number of external mandates of these bodies, as well as the duration of the contract of employment of the members of the management;
d. any violation of the provisions of the let. a to c will be punished by a custodial sentence of three years and a pecuniary sentence of up to six annual earnings.
II
The transitional provisions of the Constitution shall be supplemented as follows:
S. 197, ch. 8 (new)
8 Available transitional ad. art. 95, al. 3
Until the entry into force of the legislation, the federal Council will enact, within a period of one year after the acceptance of the art. 95, al. 3, by the people and the cantons, the necessary implementing provisions.
______________________
1 RS 101
Lack of enough government over site was the problem in the last financial crash not too much.
pat
The government forcing institutions to loan money to people who had no chance of paying it back (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) was the problem in the last financial crisis. That's government interference in the free market.
Or maybe you're right. When Bush proposed Treasury oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac he was beaten down by the democrats and such oversight could have stopped the problem.
So government started the problem and then government would not allow an early solution to the problem.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 07:36
it was a vote on a referendum ! so its a GOV thing
not just people voted/decided they voted on a law basically to pass
so if everyone in the US decides to say OK no more guns you are OK with that ?
or at least a majority or %68 vote like happened here
its BS big time
it was not limited to just shareholders voting but all people !!! on private companies (private as in shareholders and such not gov owned companies)
and why ? cause a guy with a toothpaste company got pissed off at swiss air !
nice are they going to go after him then also ?
so some guy gets pissed decides to go off the occupy wall street crowd big biz is bad and gets people to vote on fat cats getting pay restrictions
amazed as a libertarian you are for this ?
why is it now people who have nothing to do with someones business deciding what happens to that business ?
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20130303/index.html
Thats how a government works. We do the same thing here.
I am for giving shareholders a say in how the CEO is paid. I think its a stupid system where the BOD on a lot of big companies are all working together to give each other huge bonuses and other perks even after they run the company into the ground.
I didn't really say anything about the pay caps. Obviously its what they wanted in Switzerland. Yes it's the government enforcing it but that law/Constitutional amendment had to be voted by the people there, and it passed in every canton.
Belmont31R
03-13-13, 07:37
The government forcing institutions to loan money to people who had no chance of paying it back (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) was the problem in the last financial crisis. That's government interference in the free market.
Or maybe you're right. When Bush proposed Treasury oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac he was beaten down by the democrats and such oversight could have stopped the problem.
So government started the problem and then government would not allow an early solution to the problem.
Multitude of things caused it. Government, banks, and people agreeing to buy too much house with shitty loan terms.
I understand I'm going to be in the minority here and I'm fine with that. I'm a free market absolutist and do not recognize any legitimate intrusions or compromises upon it.
What about market failure, negative externalities, public goods, information asymmetries, etc.?
And how do you see the government in defining and enforcing private property rights? I assume you see this as a legitimate role.
Lack of enough government over site was the problem in the last financial crash not too much.
pat
:suicide:
Wrong!
Govt. regulation is defacto de-regulation- try again!
The last crash happened due to Govt. interference mixed with idiots who borrowed more than they could pay back, mixed yet again with bankers who have no consequence if they make bad loans/investments as we just pay the dime when they are "too big to fail", but keep failing with bad business practices over and over again!
Anyone who thinks MORE regualtion in the form of Government intervention (Becasue the answer is more regulation- but in the form of free market regulation- you know where Govt. can't come in and centrally control everything) is the answer to this problem is smoking crack; or has some serious research to do.
Regulations mean nothing when the bankers know they have an endless supply of bailouts, money to print off and collect back-door taxes from us by manipulating the market via Govt. intervention. Not to mention the government holding a gun to our heads forcing us to foot the bill for it all...
Pat- have you ever read:
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by: G. Edward Griffen?
Or this:
Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation by: Richard A. Epstein
Or this one:
Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America's By: Dianne Furchtgott-Roth
Or perhaps this one:
The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism Is the World Economy's Only Hope
By: John A. Allison
Here is a pretty well written to the point article you may find informative:
https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=485
And another here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704508904575192430373566758.html
The taxes and regulations we have on businesses residing here in the US is the EXACT reason we see so many businesses move to countries with better economic freedoms for businesses to operate.
It isn't rocket science- reduce the 40% taxes to sub-25% and get rid of (de) regulation in the form of government intervention. Laws already protect us, Government regulation is just a road to de-regulation and empowers/exponentiates crony capitalism...
The problem (which THCDDM4 mentions) is that the market is not allowed to function. The government steps in and tries to fix things by bailing everyone out, instead of allowing the market to function and punish the bad actors. Because there is no market punishment of the bad actors, they keep acting bad.
--
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 12:48
Lack of enough government over site was the problem in the last financial crash not too much.
pat
You're joking right?
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 13:04
What about market failure, negative externalities, public goods, information asymmetries, etc.?
And how do you see the government in defining and enforcing private property rights? I assume you see this as a legitimate role.
There a market solutions to all of those things but the fact is that there will always be some "market failures". Furthermore within the system that we have now there are solutions that don't involve regulation such as civil suits. The things that I should be "public goods" are the ones that aren't allowed to be treated as such under our current laws (there is a whole thread somewhere around here on IP). What we need in order to solve these issues is a better understanding and definition of property rights and a court system that will actually uphold them.
Yes, I agree that the government should be defining and enforcing property rights (speaking again if what is, not what ought to be). Unfortunately the bottom line is that historically they've done a piss poor job of it.
Alaskapopo
03-13-13, 13:09
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/
Pat-
Let me try to make a comparison to your LE world:
Think of the big bankers/investors as criminals for one moment (A great stretch of the mind I know- :D) they keep "breaking the law" and the Govt. keeps deferring their sentences and putting them right "out on the street". They still make returns on investments whether they are bad, good, terrible or lousy investments- because we bail them out and foot the bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be like allowing murderers to go free- without any accountability/legal ramifications and thinking they won't kill again. And taking it one step further even (In keeping with my comparison to the financial/investment world/bailouts), we would even give said murderer another gun and a few magazines of ammo and say "Here you go, don't kill anyone this time". JUST like we do with bankers and our moneys!
If we don't allow bankers to fail and lose everything based on their bad investments; what is to keep them from continuing to make those bad investments?
New practices, new ideas, new innovations in banking/investment never come along since they never need to; we just bail them out and they can continue to make profits regardless fo what type of investment is made. Why would they innovate better ways to invest when they DON'T NEED TO?!!?!?!?
Even if we keep "regulating" the "how" of people killing other people, is it going to stop them from doing it if we don't hold them accountable and punish them for their actions?
Even if we keep regulating the banks/investors, is it going to stop them from making bad investments when they know we will foot the bill, not hold them accountable nor punish them for their actions- so they can continue to roll the dice over and over again?
^I'm talking deregulation in the form of government intervention/regualtion with the underlined/italic above; WHAT we SHOULD do is allow the free market to regulate itself and have extremely strict punishment for businesses that break laws, and allow businesses that make bad decisions to own those bad decisions.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
You as a LEO should "get" what I am trying to convey here.
Alaskapopo
03-13-13, 13:18
Pat-
Let me try to make a comparison to your LE world:
Think of the big bankers/investors as criminals for one moment (A great stretch of the mind I know- :D) they keep "breaking the law" and the Govt. keeps deferring their sentences and putting them right "out on the street". They still make returns on investments whether they are bad, good, terrible or lousy investments- because we bail them out and foot the bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be like allowing murderers to go free- without any accountability/legal ramifications and thinking they won't kill again. And taking it one step further even (In keeping with my comparison to the financial/investment world/bailouts), we would even give said murderer another gun and a few magazines of ammo and say "Here you go, don't kill anyone this time". JUST like we do with bankers and our moneys!
If we don't allow bankers to fail and lose everything based on their bad investments; what is to keep them from continuing to make those bad investments?
New practices, new ideas, new innovations in banking/investment never come along since they never need to; we just bail them out and they can continue to make profits regardless fo what type of investment is made. Why would they innovate better ways to invest when they DON'T NEED TO?!!?!?!?
Even if we keep "regulating" the "how" of people killing other people, is it going to stop them from doing it if we don't hold them accountable and punish them for their actions?
Even if we keep regulating the banks/investors, is it going to stop them from making bad investments when they know we will foot the bill, not hold them accountable nor punish them for their actions- so they can continue to roll the dice over and over again?
^I'm talking deregulation in the form of government intervention/regualtion with the underlined/italic above; WHAT we SHOULD do is allow the free market to regulate itself and have extremely strict punishment for businesses that break laws, and allow businesses that make bad decisions to own those bad decisions.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
You as a LEO should "get" what I am trying to convey here.
I am not for bailouts that much we agree on. Part of the problem in the last crash was them loosening regulations on how much a company was willing to bet on margin for investments.
Pat
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/
Did you read the NY times article you just posted?
It sites "the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors and risky bets on securities backed by the loans" ...
This IS EXACTLY my point. The regulators- Deregulated the market via Government intervention and allowed this to happen, it wasn't that there weren't enough regulations on the books!
The Fed, Greenspan/Bernanke, the SEC & fed Govt. knew this was coming (I sold all of my rental properties running up to this and only kept a few properties that I had paid off already- as I saw it coming. How many 100% ARM loans do you need to see floating out there to know there will be a bubble/crash? People were just greedy and wanted their piece of the pie so they looked the other way- cognizant dissedence is a powerful thing), and kept making/allowing the bad investments/loans that dominoe'd on us and we footed the bill!
Greenspan/Brenanke & Company "Deregualting" wasn't by chance, it was by design; to push the bubble as far as they could and maximize profits until the inevtiable burst...
Why do you think lehman brothers was allowed to fail, but bear sterns wasn't- it has nothing to do with "Too big..." blah blah blah. It has to do with control, who wants it and who is willing to use Crony capitalism/Government intervention in the form of regulation to steal the power.
Just a few banking houses control 99% of the investment industry- that should be a clue to who is behind the curtain pulling the strings, getting government aid/intervention in the form of "regulation".
For Chrissake man; why can't you see it?
What type of regulation do you propose that would keep the regulators from deregulating when they see a chance to turn a profit and grab power?
By the way- both of the articles you linked are utterly biased progressive bullshit misinformation!
The articel does make one good point; the problem was started by action and inaction of humans, not by nature alone. And it is correct; if we did utilize a true free market- the market itself would have regulated away that crisis before it had a chance to snowball- and you and I wouldn't be having this conversation...
RancidSumo
03-13-13, 14:15
I am not for bailouts that much we agree on. Part of the problem in the last crash was them loosening regulations on how much a company was willing to bet on margin for investments.
Pat
The crash was not the result of deregulation. The NYT article that you linked to cited a completely partisan "study" that did nothing but attempt to demonize the banks, push for further government intervention, and blamed the FED only in saying that they more or less didn't do enough. The real cause of all this mess was poor monetary policy creating an expansionary bubble that had to eventually collapse.
If we want to reduce the severity, duration, and frequency of economic crises, we need sound money. Until we get that necessity, we will constantly be plagued by financial collapses as the market corrects the imbalances created by government policy.
Yeah I know you were saying the people decided ? And it was not the gov earlier though :)
And its no business of people what I do with my business
If stockholders dont like how I run my business dont buy my stock !
Just shocked you want gov to be telling people what they must do and to be demanding others they cant earn what they may be worth !
Thats how a government works. We do the same thing here.
I am for giving shareholders a say in how the CEO is paid. I think its a stupid system where the BOD on a lot of big companies are all working together to give each other huge bonuses and other perks even after they run the company into the ground.
I didn't really say anything about the pay caps. Obviously its what they wanted in Switzerland. Yes it's the government enforcing it but that law/Constitutional amendment had to be voted by the people there, and it passed in every canton.
This isn't the government deciding what they make but the shareholders of the company.
Maybe then people should have a vote on all wages for any gov worker !
From LEO to garbage collectors to judges and teachers EVERYONE paid with any bit of tax money
I bet the gov would never go for that !
No way would they want others telling them what they can make and limiting them !
Since the people are the stockholders of the country this seems fair ?
I don't want elected officials, unelected officials, or other random gits telling me what I can and cannot do with my money. They won't, I will literally kill them.
I will do neither for any other individual or corporation, since I expect the same from any other free individual.
Belmont31R
03-15-13, 21:53
I don't want elected officials, unelected officials, or other random gits telling me what I can and cannot do with my money. They won't, I will literally kill them.
I will do neither for any other individual or corporation, since I expect the same from any other free individual.
Don't think they don't lobby government to increase profits...like making unlocking phones illegal so you can't use them on other carriers, and it's up to the carrier to unlock your phone or not even after the the contract period.
MountainRaven
03-15-13, 22:07
Don't think they don't lobby government to increase profits...like making unlocking phones illegal so you can't use them on other carriers, and it's up to the carrier to unlock your phone or not even after the the contract period.
Yup.
Big business is all about big government, so long as big government is doing big business's work. Once big government decides that big business is doing something wrong, then they go 'Molon labe!'
Hypocrisy. Or crony capitalism, as I've heard others here call it. It is endemic.
In any case, I don't see what the problem is. I think we should follow suit. And pass a law that puts the salaries of the President, VP, House and Senate, and the Justices of the Supreme Court on a ballot every year for We the People to vote on: Turn our discontent and disapproval of the people in power into something that can palpably harm them without having to hope that, say, Feinstein's own people turn her out (they won't. Doesn't that make docking her pay the next best thing?).
Belmont31R
03-15-13, 22:14
Yup.
Big business is all about big government, so long as big government is doing big business's work. Once big government decides that big business is doing something wrong, then they go 'Molon labe!'
Hypocrisy. Or crony capitalism, as I've heard others here call it. It is endemic.
In any case, I don't see what the problem is. I think we should follow suit. And pass a law that puts the salaries of the President, VP, House and Senate, and the Justices of the Supreme Court on a ballot every year for We the People to vote on: Turn our discontent and disapproval of the people in power into something that can palpably harm them without having to hope that, say, Feinstein's own people turn her out (they won't. Doesn't that make docking her pay the next best thing?).
The best thing about the cell phone unlocking was that was decided under the DMCA by the Librarian of Congress. No one with librarian in their job title should be deciding tech issues...
Now Dodd is a lobbyist, and secured hundreds of millions in 'tax credits' for Hollywood movie producers.
So it appears you only need to pay taxes or get laws passed if you pay off the right people. Don't want to pay taxes? Just pay a former senator a few million and there you go...
Traveshamockery
03-15-13, 23:02
Shareholders appoint the board members. Therefore, they already have checks on the type of abuse this law purports to solve. Shame on shareholders for not holding the boards accountable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.