How many businesses are given cash in exchange for a vote?

I think that pretty much sums up the corporate board pay structure these days.

I think that pretty much sums up the corporate board pay structure these days.

 

And what are they getting in exchange for it?

And what are they getting in exchange for it?

I vote for your salary while sitting on the corporate board of the company you're running, you vote for my salary on the corporate board of the company I'm running.

I vote for your salary while sitting on the corporate board of the company you're running, you vote for my salary on the corporate board of the company I'm running.

 

Which of course is very close to something like $300,000,000 for your state...

Which of course is very close to something like $300,000,000 for your state...

Actually, for a lot of them, AT&T, Home Depot, etc., have put $200-$300 million in private pockets of their CEO's as retirement compensation packages.

Actually, for a lot of them, AT&T, Home Depot, etc., have put $200-$300 million in private pockets of their CEO's as retirement compensation packages.

 

And send billions home for pork packages, or trillions for stimulus bills?

And send billions home for pork packages, or trillions for stimulus bills?

Depends on how specifically you're going to let me define pork. If you're going to allow me to define it as spending money on something that winds up being a particularly poor investment but which allows some small person/interest to make a killing, then I can come up with quite a few examples.

Interesting note on this topic... One of the natural flaws in corporate governance via the public markets that I (and others) have pointed out before, is the fact that Boards are too intertwined with the companies they are supposed to control. Another is that shareholders weren't doing what they were supposed to do in the ideal market - keep corporations' over compensation of their executives in check. These two things combined to give us executives that have pay which has risen far more than would be natural or expected in the past decade or two.

 

Well, with executive pay getting SO extreme now, there have been signs lately that shareholders are finally holding their companies to the fire. Not often, but occasionally. Yesterday's example: John Deere.

 

Interesting note on this topic... One of the natural flaws in corporate governance via the public markets that I (and others) have pointed out before, is the fact that Boards are too intertwined with the companies they are supposed to control. Another is that shareholders weren't doing what they were supposed to do in the ideal market - keep corporations' over compensation of their executives in check. These two things combined to give us executives that have pay which has risen far more than would be natural or expected in the past decade or two.

Well, with executive pay getting SO extreme now, there have been signs lately that shareholders are finally holding their companies to the fire. Not often, but occasionally. Yesterday's example: John Deere.

 

Yeah, the government did a great job solving that problem

Yeah, the government did a great job solving that problem

And the private sector has?

And the private sector has?

 

The public isn't obligated to the private sector. They are obligated to the public sector. We literally paid people to make sure that we gave CEO's the tools to get tons more money. Genius. I can't wait until the next problem is solved by the federal government.

The public isn't obligated to the private sector. They are obligated to the public sector. We literally paid people to make sure that we gave CEO's the tools to get tons more money. Genius. I can't wait until the next problem is solved by the federal government.

So I ask then...if you're willing to admit it's something that needs "solved"...who else is there to solve it?

So I ask then...if you're willing to admit it's something that needs "solved"...who else is there to solve it?

 

The difference is, I believe it is the corporations own problem to solve. If they don't solve it, they should suffer the financial consequences.

The difference is, I believe it is the corporations own problem to solve. If they don't solve it, they should suffer the financial consequences.

And alternatively, I believe it's a situation where they've insulated themselves from accountability so well that there is no way that any corporation can solve it on its own, and furthermore it's actually a situation that has affected all of us through incentivizing short term gains with no punishment for substantial long-term losses.

And alternatively, I believe it's a situation where they've insulated themselves from accountability so well that there is no way that any corporation can solve it on its own, and furthermore it's actually a situation that has affected all of us through incentivizing short term gains with no punishment for substantial long-term losses.

 

And why is that? Because they know the government is going to protect them. Its the exact reason the whole banking crisis happened in the first place, starting right at Freddie and Fannie, and their bribes of people like Barney Frank.

 

So at the end of the day, it is the precious federal government that is very literally subsidizing all of the wreckless behavior that you are so worried about. You know what solves that problem? Stop the federal governments involvement. If corporations die, they don't take those chances.

If corporations die, they don't take those chances.

Yes they do. Once they're large enough that they know their death would pose a "Systemic risk". This is the whole "To big to fail" discussion in a nutshell. Goldman Sachs right now knows implicitly that they can't be allowed to fall, because they'll take every single other bank in the country with them. Thus, they're gambling even bigger than they were in 2007. Those gambles then feed right back into the bonus/compensation issue we've been off on today? Can you offer a solution to "Too big to fail", a key point in all of this, through the private sector?

Yes they do. Once they're large enough that they know their death would pose a "Systemic risk". This is the whole "To big to fail" discussion in a nutshell. Goldman Sachs right now knows implicitly that they can't be allowed to fall, because they'll take every single other bank in the country with them. Thus, they're gambling even bigger than they were in 2007. Those gambles then feed right back into the bonus/compensation issue we've been off on today? Can you offer a solution to "Too big to fail", a key point in all of this, through the private sector?

 

And why did they get too big to fail? Because they government offered them incentive and backing if they did. Again, brilliant. You notice their was no such thing as subprime lending until the federal government set up companies to do it, and showed the rest of the sector exactly how profitable it was.

And why did they get too big to fail? Because they government offered them incentive and backing if they did. Again, brilliant. You notice their was no such thing as subprime lending until the federal government set up companies to do it, and showed the rest of the sector exactly how profitable it was.

LOL, this canard again. Time for me to be the one to call it quits here. I'm out.

LOL, this canard again. Time for me to be the one to call it quits here. I'm out.

 

And if you don't like that one, how about inforcing the laws we already have and trust-busting companies that are too big to fail?

LOL, this canard again. Time for me to be the one to call it quits here. I'm out.

 

 

Yep. Government is the only solution. "Government Saves".

How many businesses are given cash in exchange for a vote?

 

None. How many businesses are required to post notices of bids in local media outlets, announce bid deadlines, open bids publically, and accept the low bidder?

Yep. Government is the only solution. "Government Saves".

 

 

In some instances, it has to be the government. We are a society of laws. Allowing businesses to look after themselves has led to unsafe working conditions, slavery, and a host of other problems that only government could solve.

In some instances, it has to be the government. We are a society of laws. Allowing businesses to look after themselves has led to unsafe working conditions, slavery, and a host of other problems that only government could solve.

 

Actually it was our government who protected slavery in the constitution.

Who do you work for? You think your vote is better then a company you work for? Just using that as an example. Go to work for the government, private sector be damned. Rice fields for everyone! (yes, Kaperbole ™ )

 

You people honestly think that government is less corrupt and is more responsible then the private sector? NO ONE has said that corruption doesn't exist on both sides of the fence. But, it kills me to see that you all think there's some pious intent of government.

 

No, I don't.

 

"Both sides are going to screw you over. At least with government, you get a vote."

 

But plenty of conservatives do like to assert that the magical, er, "invisible" hand of the market is the cure for all economic problems, as if the market is some magical land where things just sort themselves out.

 

I work for a company that does both private and a bunch of government work. It's staffed by a lot of ex-military.

 

 

 

Actually it was our government who protected slavery in the constitution.

 

 

Valid point, but remember slavery predated the Constitution, and sadly there were compromises that were made to get a strong federal government established.