Politics, News & Issues >
Economic News
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government bailout for the financial industry include restrictions on executive pay?
Results so far:
| Yes | 85% | 142 votes | Total: 168 votes | |
| No | 15% | 26 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesExcessive executive compensation is one of the main culprits that helped bring down the economy at large. The CEO and chairman of Lehman Brothers is a prime example of this abuse of public interest and fiduciary betrayal of the investors trust in terms of their shares in stocks. Mr. Richard Fuld took home $480 million dollars in compensation between the years 2000 until 2007 according to congressional hearings. Mr. Fuld sought approval from the compensation committee for 20 million dollars in special payments for three of the departing executives four days before filing bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers., the largest bankruptcy in US history. At this time on behalf of Lehman Brothers he sought bailout from the US government. When the public owns the company then salaries should be kept in check by an outside agency rather than the board of directors and its CEO's, a third party that has no interest in the potential earnings of the company for personal gain. When the public's interest is at stake then the risk is high. No one should be allowed to mishandle someone else's money in trust and be exempt from both private and public scrutiny. If the taxpayer is going to foot the bill then the salaries should be set to government caps because now the company no longer is held in the private sector and becomes the property of the people through government intervention. All assets both at home and abroad should be liquidated and distributed among the shareholders. The CEO's would forfeit their shares and would serve to recover loses and paid back to the general public shareholders.
If salaries aren't kept in check in regards to public trust and interest then that gives rise to "hyperinflation", another words an extorted value of the stock, commodity rather than the actual value, based on performance, determined by supply and demand. Hyperinflation, over compensation and overstated value along with low wages among the middle class is the bedrock of the overall meltdown in the housing and credit market which affects the economy in which our society depends on. We are a credit driven economy!
The government should not bail out the system, the system is bankrupt, and it's insolvent. Let the system go down the tubes and let the market correct itself. Once the market stabilizes through consumer confidence then the flow of money can once again flow freely, the channels become open through spending.
The government should take control of the banking system and take it out of the hands of private manipulation of the international banking cartel. The government can and has in the past done this very thing and as a result showed the world what free enterprise coupled with human potential and productivity can achieve. The government can and should for the sake of the nation along with its people operate on the basis of non profit. The supply of money can be issued on the basis of population and productivity of the people at low interest rates to allow the build up of the US Treasury.
Abraham Lincoln at the start of his presidency was faced with a situation very much like we face today. The country was on the very brink of war, it was in a depression and the US Treasury was bankrupt. Abraham Lincoln was a man of great character, integrity that loved his country. He stood in the pivotal point in history that would have either destroyed the whole nation or bring it out of poverty and despair through determination with resilient to the international baking cartel. He went to New York to borrow money to finance the war, the interest rates that the private bankers were going to charge him was between 26 and 30% this was outrageous to say the least. He came back with a mandate on his mind of winning the war between the very ones that funded the confederacy in hopes of dividing the country for their own private financial gain. He was the only president that took the US Constitution at its written word; the government shall have the sole right to print and coin money, and began issuing what was known then as the "greenback". He printed and pumped in $400 and something million dollars and financed the whole war interest free! After the Civil war the country became the most productive and prosperous nation on the planet. He saved the Union, the Nation, brought it out depression and poverty and paved the way to becoming the youngest superpower in the history of the world. From the end of the war to the financial crisis of 1907 the country grew so fast that it became the first industrialized nation on the planet. Abe Lincoln bridged the gap between poverty, instability and prosperity with the greenback.
Yes the executives pay should be regulated when it comes to public trust. On a private basis that is determined between the two parties involved. Remove the bedrock of hyperinflation along with the despots that control it and you have liberated the people from poverty and despair and empowered them with productivity coupled with their creativity to give birth and rise to a superpower beyond comprehension.
Can we do it again? Yes we can with a stroke of a pen and the collective voices of the people from around the globe the human spirit can revive and thrive with productivity through creativity. Open the mouth of the people and you can unshackle the chains of poverty and despair and rid the world of the despots of the money changers.
Learn more about this author, Dewy Morris.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
To begin, the bailout in and of itself goes against the grain, as I see our country slipping further and further into socialism. The government really should not be a safety net for business gone bad. After all, who is the government? According to the United States Constitution, it is US. When I am struggling to pay my mortgage, why must I take on the added burden of someone elses?
There is plenty of fault to go around in this scandal, and it is certainly not just the executives of the companies. They probably could not have managed anything on the scope of this fiasco without "friends in high places". Though perhaps not for long, we are still a free capitalist society and a ceiing on the salary of anyone in private business is not something that should be considered, particularly unless a cap is also placed on the salary of legislators who have no problem voting themselves a raise no matter what the state of the economy.
Just this morning I read an article from the New York Times by someone named Steve White who explained the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac programs and discussed how the pressure from government entities was being weilded for the banks to make the loans almost down payment free to persons who obviously could not show ability to pay. He specified Bill Clinton and Barney Frank as well as others. Countless people have gotten rich on the backs of the American public in schemes, but this is the topper. Many of the people who profited are people whom we should be able to trust as our representatives. Why should company executives bear the brunt of this alone. There is plenty of blame to go around.
If companies are legitimately profitable enough to pay the CEO a large salary, so be it. The stockholder will have to be more diligent in overseeing company activities in these situations. Are they not the ones who usually vote the CEO's their raises? When these raises begin to get exhorbitant, someone should investigate the financial activities.
In the last few days, I have seen several videos of people who, at a time when it would not have been too late to remedy the situation, insisted that there was nothing amiss and who severly criticised anyone who said otherwise. People have tried to blow the whistle on these precarious loans for years, but they met roadblocks at every turn. What about the organizations such as ACORN, an extreme liberal activist group, receiving "donations" or "kickbacks" from the monies from these business practices-organizati ons that in turn gave large donations to liberal politicians. Who is going to put a cap on this?
It is unreasonable to put a cap on one entity of this problem. If we can't control them all, we shouldn't control any of them.
Learn more about this author, Linda Burleson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
