Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (270519)	9/26/2008 3:13:57 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793691

I'm not sure if band-aiding the situation will correct it. Perhaps we're in for a collapse either way. Of course, the free market response is that if some companies fail, there will be others that come along to satisfy demand. Any offer of assistance provided to troubled firms should keep that market reality in mind.

To: miraje who wrote (270519)	9/26/2008 3:37:33 PM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793691

punishing Wall Street sounds good on a gut level, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is more than stupid. I don't support 'punishing' Wall Street, but I do support holding it accountable. Particularly executives. CEOs should be compensated for what they're worth, and what they're worth is determined by the value of their company's stock. Their compensation should come from profits they earn, and not a single penny should come from the tax payer solution. Putting pay caps on CEO compensation is the wrong way to approach this. Build in accountability to the bailout, and make them show a clear trail of the money that they get. And another thing, if companies' balance sheets would turn from red to black after CEOs benefit packages are taken out of the formula, then they are getting paid too much.