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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (13188)	1/30/2009 2:53:14 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

You heard but did not pay attention. It is you who failed to listen. Everything I said was expressed. He said, "WS bank execs gave themselves bonuses of $20B. Doing so is the height of irresponsibility". Fact is, it's nobody's business but those execs and their boards as to their level of bonus. He said, "awarding themselves bonuses is like digging a bigger hole that we have to fill". Who is "we"? This is the mistake that I identified earlier about blaming the wrong people for an apparent problem. He said, "there will be a time for those execs to get bonuses, but now is not the time". The president decides WS compensation? The American people as a group decide WS compensation? Sorry to tell you but this constitutes socialism, that is, anti-liberty. If the stock market falls, yet an exec at a WS firm has done a good job, then why shouldn't the exec get a bonus? Maybe terminating MER was a good job, yes. When the people decide they want to hurt someone for their own misbehavior they always only hurt themselves. Capitalist corporations serve demand. They don't serve what's stylish, proper, and politically correct after the fact. It's a standard capitalist practice to renegotiate compensation after a change of ownership. Nothing to do with capitalism and not generally true. Those financial institutions who ran to mother state and cried for protection have to accept her rules. But the president is talking about imposing "her rules" on all banks, or did you miss those comments? He who pays the piper calls the tune. Who is in charge? Government or "we", the people? If what you say is true, and the people pay, government won't be in charge for long. So Obama won't be filling any holes but he will be making many huge new ones that the people will have to fill by the sweat off their backs.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (13188)	2/4/2009 12:23:43 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

Obama administration to issue executive pay limits Tuesday February 3, 11:42 pm ET By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer Obama admin. to issue executive pay limits for government-assisted financial institutions WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration plans to limit pay to $500,000 a year for executives of government-assisted financial institutions in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street, a senior administration official said Tuesday. Obama plans to announce the new limits Wednesday at the White House with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. "If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," President Barack Obama said in an interview with "NBC Nightly News". An administration official familiar with the new restrictions said they would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. They would not apply to healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital. ah ha ha. Told ya. Widening the gap between the weak and the strong. Don't you think the execs at reduced salary would quit and join the "healthy banks"?