>But then you'd still be bitching about how the CEOs are still too close to the money, too close to the pursestrings.
Only if they don't behave better when they're around the money and the pursestrings.
>Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. That's an economic reality you can't get around.
Except for the many, many studies that say otherwise. Yes, doubling the minimum wage overnight might increase unemployment for a while, but there is not a shred of evidence that raising the minimum wage a buck or two an hour raises unemployment appreciably.
>Limiting CEO pay will just make the CEOs compensate themselves in other ways, including moving their compensation offshore or using stock options to get around the limits. You can pass more and more laws like counting the Black-Scholes valuation of said options as part of the compensation, but such micromanagement will be obsolete in a week.
It depends on how good the laws are. Some laws are ultimately toothless, but Glass-Steagall, for instance, worked pretty nicely for decades.
>No matter what, you're never going to succeed in using regulation to move money from the greedy to the needy. Doesn't matter how much you try or how good your intentions are. Any system can be gamed, especially by those writing the rules.
If laws were never effective, there'd be no point to having them at all.
Some people will always game the system. But make it either harder to do, less rewarding if it's done, or have more consequences if caught, and fewer people will game any particular system.
>Besides, if you hate the fact that those closest to the money get the biggest cut, why don't you complain about those who write the law? They always tend to tilt the law in their own favor.
Not always. But it's a good argument for getting money out of politics. And is EVERY politician crooked? I'll grant you that many are, but some really are trying to do the right thing.
-Z |
