bascule Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There ya' go. What else do you need? Are you under the impression that there's such a thing as "overseeing" someone's pay that doesn't....uh...oversee their pay? You do realize that oversight means to supervise, right? Which therefore establishes authority, which is a clear violation of property rights and freedom of speech in this case. I don't know specifically what the Obama administration intends to do based on that sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I don't know specifically what the Obama administration intends to do based on that sentence. I think it's fairly safe to take them at their word that they would like to oversee their pay. What specifics do you need? I was thinking of proposing legislation to oversee rights and privilege exercised by african americans. I don't suppose there would be any objection since I haven't provided any specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think it's fairly safe to take them at their word that they would like to oversee their pay. What specifics do you need? What are they going to do to their pay? Specifically? Are these companies receiving government money (any government money, not just bailout money)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 What are they going to do to their pay? Specifically? I have no idea. I know they want to oversee it. That's egregious enough. More will just inflate the insult, but it will be noted and positions firmed up further. Are these companies receiving government money (any government money, not just bailout money)? Let's review...again. The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said. Does that answer your question? I don't see any "government funding" dividing line in that statement. Look, I realize there aren't any specifics and that will change the detail of anyone's position, and that's exactly why I take a broader issue with the principle that I think is being attacked here. That part is not in question in this article, only how far reaching and dramatic the violation of property rights will actually be. I have a zero tolerance policy concerning the encroachment of a state that's already way too invasive right now. I don't trade liberty for security - or in the case of economics, liberty for pseudo security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Reading some other articles this whole "communism" "socialism" blah blah blah crap seems to be just that, crap. That view is a complete strawman of what they actually want to do. The article you're looking at is overly vague and it would appear you're grossly misinterpreting what the program would actually be. So let's stop overspeculating and look at some other articles with more information. To begin with, right now the government has the power to seize failing banks (like IndyMac) to prevent systemic risk. Geithner and Bernanke want the power to seize other failing institutions which are integral to the financial system: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fi-aig-bonus25-2009mar25,0,844006.story The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., created in 1933, has the ability to seize failing banks and sell their assets, as it did last summer with IndyMac Bank in Pasadena. But the government has no authority or mechanism to seize other types of financial institutions, such as giant insurer AIG, which is why the Fed stepped in last September with an unprecedented $85-billion loan to keep the company from failing. The Fed and Treasury have since expanded bailout commitments to AIG to as much as $182.5 billion and share responsibility for overseeing the government's 80% stake in the company. "If a federal agency had had such tools on Sept. 16, they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties as appropriate," Bernanke told members of the House Financial Services Committee. "That outcome would have been far preferable to the situation we find ourselves in now." Bernanke wants oversight of executive compensation (i.e. to know what it is) as part of determining what institutions are at risk: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fi-bernanke21-2009mar21,0,6014539.story Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Friday called for banking supervisors to pay "close attention" to compensation practices as they examine the soundness of financial institutions. Banking regulators have observed that "poorly designed compensation policies can create perverse incentives that can ultimately jeopardize the health of the banking organization," Bernanke told a meeting of smaller community banks. So it would appear this "oversight" involves little more than factoring in compensation practices when they're doing risk analysis. If you're giving big bonuses to people for going out and securing junk assets, maybe that should be a warning sign. The entire plan is going to be detailed tomorrow. How about holding off on the rampant speculation until then? Edited March 25, 2009 by bascule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Right. What you did is trivialize the degree to which they're going to violate property rights. It's fascinating watching people think themselves around principles. No, I don't agree with disrespecting our rights because it's just a itty bitty bit, as far as you're concerned. I suppose then, you won't mind if we draft some legislation to keep homosexuals off the beach. It's not the 18th century, revisited. The south isn't rising again. The confederacy is still dead. It's just a small little infringement that will give us security at the beaches by keeping jocks from beating them up. No problems, right? Much of my thinking comes from the realization that we will likely not recognize our fallacy if we were to institutionalize bigotry again, like slavery. It requires somewhat static truths to measure up to, to avoid prejudice with legal might. I don't believe in the concept of thinking around principles that serve as that truth. Property rights and freedom of speech are too dear and too close to the business end of any potential legalized oppression. Edited March 25, 2009 by ParanoiA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 How do you go from... Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Friday called for banking supervisors to pay "close attention" to compensation practices as they examine the soundness of financial institutions. Banking regulators have observed that "poorly designed compensation policies can create perverse incentives that can ultimately jeopardize the health of the banking organization," Bernanke told a meeting of smaller community banks. ...to... Right. What you did is trivialize the degree to which they're going to violate property rights. It's fascinating watching people think themselves around principles. No, I don't agree with disrespecting our rights because it's just a itty bitty bit, as far as you're concerned. I suppose then, you won't mind if we draft some legislation to keep homosexuals off the beach. It's not the 18th century, revisited. The south isn't rising again. The confederacy is still dead. It's just a small little infringement that will give us security at the beaches by keeping jocks from beating them up. No problems, right? How does this violate property rights? It's a metric by which they're assessing risk. That's all this thread has really been about the whole time. I think the thread title is incredibly misleading. They're talking about expanding government oversight for all financial companies, not imposing some artificial pay limit on companies that aren't receiving government money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Hedge Fund Managers are the cream of the crop, however the best of all money managers would stand out. This site will list, with pay and a picture of those best. Note the top five each earned more than the total 780M given to AIG, George Soros one of them and the Companies they worked for. If the Federal gets involved with maximum compensation law, Sweden will probably become the Financial Capital of the World in day's... http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/24/business/0324HEDGE_index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If the Federal gets involved with maximum compensation law Yeaaaah... that's not happening here. Nothing to see. Move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 How does this violate property rights? It's a metric by which they're assessing risk. That's all this thread has really been about the whole time. I think the thread title is incredibly misleading. They're talking about expanding government oversight for all financial companies' date=' not imposing some artificial pay limit on companies that aren't receiving government money.[/quote'] The thread title isn't the only misleading element then. How about the opening paragraph I've quoted like 5 times now? The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said. I'm perfectly willing to accept an argument that supposes the article is incorrect and misrepresenting Obama's intents with sloppy language. The media is a business that profits from sensationalism, so it's always possible. Other than that, I'm just commenting on the article. It states, clearly, that oversight of compensation is the mission here. No further details are necessary to see the clear violation of a principle I hold in high esteem. Just like no details are necessary to conclude a will to violate rights if the administration were to announce their desire to oversee the rights exercised by asian americans. The mere mention of that kind of intent, with no quantified value yet, is an assault on equality. No details are necessary to see that, and attack such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The thread title isn't the only misleading element then. How about the opening paragraph I've quoted like 5 times now? You have a made up definition of what "oversight" means in your head. It's not about the government setting a salary cap. It's not about the government punishing companies who pay their executives too much. It's about this: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Friday called for banking supervisors to pay "close attention" to compensation practices as they examine the soundness of financial institutions. Banking regulators have observed that "poorly designed compensation policies can create perverse incentives that can ultimately jeopardize the health of the banking organization," Bernanke told a meeting of smaller community banks. It's about assessing risk. It states, clearly, that oversight of compensation is the mission here. No further details are necessary to see the clear violation of a principle I hold in high esteem. So you don't want the Federal Reserve to assess risks in the financial system? I mean, I guess you're probably in the "abolish the Federal Reserve" camp or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 You have a made up definition of what "oversight" means in your head. Yeah, it was made up and put in dictionaries. Here's some: 1 a: watchful and responsible care b: regulatory supervision <congressional oversight> supervision; watchful care: a person responsible for the oversight of the organization. Here's some synonyms: management, direction, control; surveillance. Different language ought to be used if the intent doesn't match the verbiage. They are essentially calling for more "management, direction, control, surveillance". It's about assessing risk. If it's just about assessing risk, then why use terminology that implies much more? And what IS risk assessment? What is the consequence of a bad risk assessment? Gee, I wonder if "seizure" and "take over" might have something to do with the answer....maybe not. Are you prepared to gamble with your own liberties like this? From the warrantless wiretapping threads, I believe the answer is an emphatic NO. I can only speculate that since it isn't your liberties being "overseen", then you're picking this thread to death with lawyer objections. But, of course, now we are getting into specifics and details that are not available. That's why I focused my attention on the insult that "oversight" of such liberties should even be open for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 If it's just about assessing risk, then why use terminology that implies much more? And what IS risk assessment? What is the consequence of a bad risk assessment? Gee, I wonder if "seizure" and "take over" might have something to do with the answer....maybe not. Are you prepared to gamble with your own liberties like this? From the warrantless wiretapping threads, I believe the answer is an emphatic NO. I can only speculate that since it isn't your liberties being "overseen", then you're picking this thread to death with lawyer objections. I think there's a mountain of difference between respecting individual liberties and respecting the "liberties" of a corporation which is so large it poses a systemic risk to the entire financial sector if it were to collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/house.bonus.bill/index.html?eref=rss_topstories The House passed a bill to limit executive compensation today. Executive compensation... at companies receiving bailout money. There's no grand scheme to limit compensation everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Next thing you know, they'll be sodomizing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) Yah the right-wing blogosphere was aflame yesterday over the news that this was about to come up for a vote, and refreshing Barney Frank's comments about having it apply to all companies, but either the provision never made it into the bill or it was all smoke and mirrors to begin with, I'm still not clear which. I wouldn't put it past Barney Frank to throw it out there just to annoy the far right, but then I also wouldn't put it past him to mean it sincerely, so who knows. ------------- Edit: Wups, I just realized, this is the wrong thread, Bascule. I can't find the old discussion about Barney Frank and compensation caps for ALL companies -- it must have been buried inside another thread (I think it was). The story here (see OP) was that Obama wanted executive compensation caps for all financial services companies. He didn't get that either -- the final bill was only for companies receiving bailouts (just as you say). Edited April 2, 2009 by Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 And that's how it should be. Maybe it was smoke and mirrors, or maybe just bad journalism. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 The story here (see OP) was that Obama wanted executive compensation caps for all financial services companies. He didn't get that either -- the final bill was only for companies receiving bailouts (just as you say). I still haven't been shown where Obama wanted executive compensation caps for financial services companies not receiving bailout money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I still haven't been shown where Obama wanted executive compensation caps for financial services companies not receiving bailout money He has not made such a request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 I still haven't been shown where Obama wanted executive compensation caps for financial services companies not receiving bailout money The story was reported in the New York Times on March 21st, as I mentioned in the opening post. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=2&ref=business The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said. He wanted it (or at least said he did). But as waitforufo points out, he decided in the end not to ask for it. Probably a wise move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I still haven't been shown where Obama wanted executive compensation caps for financial services companies not receiving bailout money The story was reported in the New York Times on March 21st, as I mentioned in the opening post. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=2&ref=business He wanted it (or at least said he did). But as waitforufo points out, he decided in the end not to ask for it. Probably a wise move. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Obama administration (and Bernanke) want increased oversight of systemic risks in the financial system, including ones stemming from irresponsible compensation programs, such as giving people bonuses for selling unsustainable financial products of the sort which lead to this crisis in the first place: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=478638#post478638 This is not the same thing as setting salary caps. You are claiming Obama wanted something he never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 Forgive me, I remember that now -- too many threads, too poor a memory. I agree that oversight is not the same thing as a salary cap. Of course, that's the purpose of oversight -- to have the ability to set that salary cap. One can certainly envision the threat of a salary cap having sufficient impact at a bargaining table such that an actual cap becomes unnecessary, but it's reasonable to suggest that the power would be exercised if the appropriate circumstances arose (as outlined in your post above) -- that's the whole point, right? But certainly this is a very different situation from Barney Frank's punative-sounding threat about salary caps for all US corporations. It's an interesting distinction and really it's not all that much of an extrapolation from current powers. We already control the financial sector, and we've been talking about correctly regulating the industry to prevent future abuses. Though it might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that executive compensation is a "systemic risk". Compared with the kinds of sums that crashed the system it's pocket change. Like killing their corporate jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now