Comments on: The Shareholder You Can’t Refuse

By: Reason60

Reason60 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:58:07 +0000

First, I am wondering why the “We need to pay top dollar to ensure we get the best talent” argument doesn’t apply to civil servants, or UAW workers.

Demanding that the government (of ,by, and for the people) become an investor, then complaining that this investor is acting in accordance with the political will of the people, is a bit bizarre;

In fact, it is as bizarre as Robert Maplethorpe demanding a grant from the government, then acting surprised when politicians object to his content as not being in keeping with American morals. And we all remember how conservatives came down on that one.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:36:15 +0000

Given the many billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the quality of the management at these institutions, not their pay, should be the primary focus.

How much do you really trust someone who would quit, or do a worse job, because they didn’t get a 10 million bonus while their company has been dependent on the government teat to stay alive?

It seems that the quality of management has been the problem – management whose primary focus has been their own enrichment, and not the long-term health of their company and of the larger US economy.

By: Claude

Claude — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:40:10 +0000

Given the many billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the quality of the management at these institutions, not their pay, should be the primary focus. Humbling Wall Street may be politically popular or emotionally satisfying, but jeopardizing billions to initiate a dispute over a much smaller amount of money doesn’t make sense.

By: oldgal

oldgal — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:12:34 +0000

“Our economic system and corporate law however are premised on the concept that shareholders will act in their rational self-interests to maximize share value” Seems like what we have just been through indicates that the major shareholders will act to maximize perceived personal gain which is not the same as maximizing share value. Voting interlocking boards of directors who lock in piss-poor management does not seem to support the premise of maximizing share value.

By: Kevin B

Kevin B — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:44:08 +0000

The problem with expanding government powers is that even if you like the the way the current regime handles them, you might not be as happy with what the next regime decides to do with that power.

People who had no problem with the government monitoring Islamic groups to gather intelligence, will balk at similar surveillance of right-wing, anti-goverment groups.

Rbottoms: I agree with your sentiment, but I’d add “Please”. Please, before the reigns get passed to the post-Obama regime, which will campaign on limited government, but won’t be able to resist making a few “corrections” before handing the power back. Then a few more adjustments. Then they will redefine what limited government means.

Please pay the money back.

By: SFTor1

SFTor1 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:05:52 +0000

The problem is the opposite. The financial sector is an oligarchy. Compensation in financial companies have grown into an obscene system of enriching the few. That can’t be stopped when the companies are operating on their own dime. When they are bailed out with taxpayer money, and the state (or the people) is a major shareholder, you better believe they need to answer to demands for common decency.

By: rbottoms

rbottoms — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:29:14 +0000

Tell the cry babies to pay back our money and there won’t be anything to complain about.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:10:28 +0000

I think that we are all agreed that as a first principle, the Federal Government should not be bailing out large corporations.

Now we need to figure out how to fix the system so that the concept “too big to fail” is never uttered once again.