RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut --

RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/8/2009 9:17:32 PM)
The thing is- America voted 3 weeks after TARP- voted for those who were in favor of TARP. Think of it- 3 weeks later- no attention span. "we' voted them all back in.

Mercnbeth -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/8/2009 9:43:58 PM)
quote: "If that stops, global economic activity stops," he said. "We don't know that that would have happened, but it seemed like a real possibility. And that was why the government stepped in." When it comes to justifying the actions of the government no source is better than NPR. I agree with one thing they said; "We don't know that that would have happened..." However we know what did - executives with ties to insider Washington got their stock payouts and bonuses. The taxpayers got the bill. I'm happy to see you in support of bailing out public corporations with public money. Personally, I would disagree with the NPR expert by the very fact that a restructuring bankruptcy would have essentially had the same result, without the same impact on the deficit, the value of the dollar compared to world currencies, and the economy. Considering the distribution of funds went mainly offshore - this was a unilateral move by the US government to implement a global redistribution of wealth.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/8/2009 10:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain In my opinion, they all should have been fired a long time ago for stupidity and incompetence. In addition, there is no doubt in my mind they are all significantly overpaid. The truth is, without taxpayer money this company will be bankrupt and the world economy would be in a major depression. We need transparency and appropriate regulation of this industry in the future and I say cut their pay and Let Them All Quit!!! And if they don’t like it they can lump it! I think AIG should have been put into bankruptcy, its assets auctioned off and if necessary the functions and insurance policies that other banks relied on been backed up on an emergency basis by the government until those obligations could have been assumed by other insitituions or expired. Now that the crisis is past, I think AIG should be allowed to expire and die a well-deserved death. It's kind of a pity that now we own it.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 5:04:21 AM)
Interestingly enough, IF any had entered into any kind of bankruptcy, all those contracts containing bonus promises would have been null and void. And now they threaten to quit?

Silence8 -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 8:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex At some point, Congress is going to have to break up the banks like Goldman Sachs and Citibank, as well as AIG, to prevent this kind of mostronsity from happening again. So Big It Will Cause Massive Economic Damage If Allowed To Fail means Too Big to Exist. The fix is as wrong as the original. Care to explain? No, really I am curious as to your take on it. Should they have been bailed out? If not, do you think it would have been a systemic collapse, as most experts predicted? Is there such as thing as a entity so big the government is entitled to break it up? No, there should have been no bailouts and no there would have been no systemic collapse. I disagree that "most experts" even predicted that. Most of the experts you see on TV and read about in the print media, maybe, but not most economists and businessmen overall, it was pretty much evenly divided. And no, there is no entity so big the government is entitled to break it up. Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. Again, government should only be involved when there is a common good with a significant free rider problem (which includes negative externalities and natural monopolies as I use the term "free rider". Essentially any time there is a difference between the social cost and the market cost some entity is free riding ). Well, for one, it's not clear who would be free riders in the context of banking. It's also not clear that companies get big because they're good at what they do, except, perhaps, when 'what they do' is make money in some abstract sense divorced from their more obvious 'product' (whether it's shoes or cars or the like). In cases of health insurance, monopolies occur as providers get really good at not doing what they're supposed to do, that is, provide health care.

AnimusRex -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 10:09:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. Again, government should only be involved when there is a common good with a significant free rider problem (which includes negative externalities and natural monopolies as I use the term "free rider". Essentially any time there is a difference between the social cost and the market cost some entity is free riding ). Again, Ma Bell comes to mind. I was thinking more of Teddy Roosevelt breaking up Standard Oil, and the other trusts. The trouble with capitalism is that the first rule of capitalists is to destroy competition; which is the necessary ingredient to free markets. AIG and Goldman Sachs didn't become near-monopolies because they alone had magic powers- they became near-monopolies through their government connections, which allowed them to succeed where other (Lehman brothers) failed. Government, in my view, has not only a right, but a public obligation to break up monopolies and oligarchies, restoring open competition and balance to the system.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 10:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Government, in my view, has not only a right, but a public obligation to break up monopolies and oligarchies, restoring open competition and balance to the system. Agreed.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:08:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex At some point, Congress is going to have to break up the banks like Goldman Sachs and Citibank, as well as AIG, to prevent this kind of mostronsity from happening again. So Big It Will Cause Massive Economic Damage If Allowed To Fail means Too Big to Exist. The fix is as wrong as the original. Care to explain? No, really I am curious as to your take on it. Should they have been bailed out? If not, do you think it would have been a systemic collapse, as most experts predicted? Is there such as thing as a entity so big the government is entitled to break it up? No, there should have been no bailouts and no there would have been no systemic collapse. I disagree that "most experts" even predicted that. Most of the experts you see on TV and read about in the print media, maybe, but not most economists and businessmen overall, it was pretty much evenly divided. And no, there is no entity so big the government is entitled to break it up. Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. Again, government should only be involved when there is a common good with a significant free rider problem (which includes negative externalities and natural monopolies as I use the term "free rider". Essentially any time there is a difference between the social cost and the market cost some entity is free riding ). Again, Ma Bell comes to mind. Exactly...having consulted to ATT at the time of the breakup, it accomplished nothing other than to increase marketing and administrative costs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. If they were "good at what it is they do" then why did they need a government bailout? If you bother to read in the context of the thread, this portion of the discussion was about companies that are succesful and don't need bailouts.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex At some point, Congress is going to have to break up the banks like Goldman Sachs and Citibank, as well as AIG, to prevent this kind of mostronsity from happening again. So Big It Will Cause Massive Economic Damage If Allowed To Fail means Too Big to Exist. The fix is as wrong as the original. Care to explain? No, really I am curious as to your take on it. Should they have been bailed out? If not, do you think it would have been a systemic collapse, as most experts predicted? Is there such as thing as a entity so big the government is entitled to break it up? No, there should have been no bailouts and no there would have been no systemic collapse. I disagree that "most experts" even predicted that. Most of the experts you see on TV and read about in the print media, maybe, but not most economists and businessmen overall, it was pretty much evenly divided. And no, there is no entity so big the government is entitled to break it up. Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. Again, government should only be involved when there is a common good with a significant free rider problem (which includes negative externalities and natural monopolies as I use the term "free rider". Essentially any time there is a difference between the social cost and the market cost some entity is free riding ). Well, for one, it's not clear who would be free riders in the context of banking. It's also not clear that companies get big because they're good at what they do, except, perhaps, when 'what they do' is make money in some abstract sense divorced from their more obvious 'product' (whether it's shoes or cars or the like). In cases of health insurance, monopolies occur as providers get really good at not doing what they're supposed to do, that is, provide health care. There are several potential areas for free riders in banking, that's why regulation is necessary and appropriate. And "making money" is always the result of a product, service or being better at what you do (invest) than the other guy. Health insurance monopolies? First, there are none that I know of, and to the extent that there is limited competition that is enabled/forced by regulation. It is impossible in a free market for a monopoly to occur by "not doing what they're supposed to do".

mnottertail -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:15:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Size should have nothing to do with government involvement, because there is a reason companies get big..they are good at what it is they do. If they were "good at what it is they do" then why did they need a government bailout? If you bother to read in the context of the thread, this portion of the discussion was about companies that are succesful and don't need bailouts. And having read that and mindful of the context, perhaps there are other reasons..... S&L . Arthur Anderson, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Madoff, Global Crossing, Qwest, ImClone, Adelphia, Kirch, Vivendi......... Well, somebody gets the gimmick. Ron

Silence8 -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:28:35 AM)
quote: quote: Well, for one, it's not clear who would be free riders in the context of banking. It's also not clear that companies get big because they're good at what they do, except, perhaps, when 'what they do' is make money in some abstract sense divorced from their more obvious 'product' (whether it's shoes or cars or the like). In cases of health insurance, monopolies occur as providers get really good at not doing what they're supposed to do, that is, provide health care. There are several potential areas for free riders in banking, that's why regulation is necessary and appropriate. And "making money" is always the result of a product, service or being better at what you do (invest) than the other guy. Health insurance monopolies? First, there are none that I know of, and to the extent that there is limited competition that is enabled/forced by regulation. It is impossible in a free market for a monopoly to occur by "not doing what they're supposed to do". Health insurance is largely monopolistic. In many if not most areas of the U.S., you only have one choice. That's a monopoly. As I believe AnimusRex pointed out above, the whole point of competition (or 'capitalism', if you prefer) is to set up a monopoly; phrase it however you want (entry costs = infinity), the effect is the same. Another example: who honestly believes that Microsoft grew huge because it created the best operating system? It grew huge by its business practices; these practices have no strong connection to the process of creating a good operating system. Actually, as I'm considering the issue now, it seems that companies often grow big when precisely they aren't doing well. Is that some of the logic of acquisitions and mergers? If so, that's the opposite of what you're describing.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: AIG execs threaten to quit if pay is cut -- (12/9/2009 11:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: quote: Well, for one, it's not clear who would be free riders in the context of banking. It's also not clear that companies get big because they're good at what they do, except, perhaps, when 'what they do' is make money in some abstract sense divorced from their more obvious 'product' (whether it's shoes or cars or the like). In cases of health insurance, monopolies occur as providers get really good at not doing what they're supposed to do, that is, provide health care. There are several potential areas for free riders in banking, that's why regulation is necessary and appropriate. And "making money" is always the result of a product, service or being better at what you do (invest) than the other guy. Health insurance monopolies? First, there are none that I know of, and to the extent that there is limited competition that is enabled/forced by regulation. It is impossible in a free market for a monopoly to occur by "not doing what they're supposed to do". Health insurance is largely monopolistic. In many if not most areas of the U.S., you only have one choice. That's a monopoly. First, I dont know of anywhere in the US where there is only one operating health insurance company. Second, the limitations that enable the near-monopolies are imposed by government, not the market. As I believe AnimusRex pointed out above, the whole point of competition (or 'capitalism', if you prefer) is to set up a monopoly; phrase it however you want (entry costs = infinity), the effect is the same. That is an extremely simplistic view of the free market. There are businesses where that is true, and there are businesses where having healthy competition increases the market so everyone grows. Another example: who honestly believes that Microsoft grew huge because it created the best operating system? It grew huge by its business practices; these practices have no strong connection to the process of creating a good operating system. Doing something well is not limited to having the best product. I never said it was Actually, as I'm considering the issue now, it seems that companies often grow big when precisely they aren't doing well. Is that some of the logic of acquisitions and mergers? If so, that's the opposite of what you're describing. I have no clue what youre talking about. Examples?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125