Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No. it is fascism to put the power of government behind the personal fortunes of failed executives.
Your explanation explained nothing adequately.
U.S. Said to Order Deep Pay Cuts at Bailed-Out Companies
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
No. it is fascism to put the power of government behind the personal fortunes of failed executives.
Your explanation explained nothing adequately.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no, its more akin to communism in the old soviet union, taking from the common folk and giving great wealth to the party elite....mussolini fascism was in fact about more control over corporations, just like obama is doing with pay.....
fascism is about economic control by a central government and that is what obama is doing
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
fascism is collusion between elites in business and government, to form a monolithic totalitarian structure.
To prevent MORE takeovers, executives must be incented to stay out of government control. there is no incentive to stay private if they will be paid the same regardless.
We must look at the structuring of incentives, and how they will effect the society, going forward.
Allowing executives to keep their exorbitant salaries despite failure and takeover is a recipe for a quick descent into fascism.
Yeah, you can tell that by my consistent stance against it, unlike your good will towards it purchased with a cheap PR stunt.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I was steadfastly against the bailout in the first place. You were for "doing it right".
Since it DID HAPPEN, other measures must be taken to keep it from happening more often. There must be real consquences for executives.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're wrong, do you even know what mussolini fascism is? again, what you're describing is more like communism as practiced under the old soviet government.....
but, you just have to be right and claim fascism applies to anything you don't agree with.....
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Im not wrong.
Fascism is when the state apparatus is used merely to increase the personal power of government and business elites.
There is no incentive for executives to keep companies out of the grasp of government if their personal reward remains the same for failure. This is not hard to understand. You are a just a brainwashed fascist who thinks he's for the free market. The free market ended when the bailouts began. To keep more from happening there must be a disincentive.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i never said or thought i was for the "free market" as you are describing it....care to be wrong some more in this thread?
Again, I was not. I was against it and the TARP from the outset, it is true that for a while I toyed with the idea of "doing it right", but not for long and never very seriously.
I do find that the pretense that companies have the same incentives as people to be foolish.
First, all of those who still were in charge have already received powerfully huge bonuses with nary a squeak from this Administration, most got their golden parachutes and simply left with millions of our dollars.
All you have done is ensured that when they seek new leadership there is no possible way they can compete for the best. (BTW - This is the "wrong" way that I warned that the government would start on with this kind of power to pick "winners" and "losers"... this is the way the government will turn the "winners" they selected into even worse losers... the government sucks at business, and when they are in charge they constantly make political rather than sound business decisions.)
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
So NOOOOW the truth comes out.
That's not an argument for why they should continue to get their salaries and bonuses going forward.
Forget the already taken over companies. Think of incentives for executives to avoid bailouts going forward. That's a better usage of your time.
Just stow the cnbc talking points.
"Think of it going forward..."
As I said, your compliance was purchased cheaply.
We know what you are going to do in the future, meekly accept the fascism because they'll "punish" the executives with their newly gained government control. We know what I'll be doing, consistently arguing against it. We shouldn't continue to do the wrong thing because they do this tiny portion "right" in your opinion. It's just plain foolish.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You're making no sense. Executives will work harder to stay out of government control if they're effected personally.
Why is this so hard for you?
Last edited:
They won't care, they know their failures will do them no harm and that the company will continue. They'll get their bonuses, they'll take their parachutes and then when they are gone the government will run the company into the ground with foolish political decisions rather than good business practice. Pretty much everything that I predicted would happen has happened here and "precedent" means nothing with "next time" there is a bail out. This is like hearing Reagan say that they'll set "strong punishments" on companies that hire illegal aliens if you'll just give him the amnesty this time.
Your eager compliance and active participation in the "fascism" you supposedly fight against was purchased with a few words and a political rather than business policy.
You, sir, are a hypocrite, one that spends much time convincing themselves that the political words that changed their minds are good because they "really mean it now"...
Fool.
It isn't hard for me, it is very easy to remain consistent, because I am not twisting reality to meet what I wish rather than what is, nor ignoring history and politics because "this time" they "punished" people that I wanted them to... When politics own the business they make poor decisions because politicians make foolish political decisions, even when it is to supposedly "punish" people that you want "punished"...
The reality is failed businesses should fail, and taking ownership and running companies is not one of the powers of the feds in the constitution, nor a direction we need to continue traveling even if this supposed "precedent" means they'll be punished by getting their bonus and parachute and being replaced with low-paid bureaucrats.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
That's a lot of words to be so stupid.
They seem to care now.
Incentives to avoid failure should be in place, like no more huge salaries.
"Seem" is the operative word, it's PR and that only, it means nothing to the "next time."
Fools and their tax dollars are soon parted, too many fools and they get mine too.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Executives will be more incented to keep their firms private if they must lose their massive salaries. This is simple. Why are you getting all spazzed out and weird?
Again, there is no evidence that the "next time" it will be the same, historically we find quite the opposite. The incentive is non-existent. You are a fool and sold yourself into hypocrisy cheaply.
There is a saying about people like you who refuse to learn from history.
"Weird" is relative.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I would like guarantees it will be different. with laws that say executives receiving bailouts will have drastic salary cuts. This is only reasonable.
Having no personal impact to your income after a bailout is an incentive to allow government takeovers. It's just that simple.
And Administrative choices are not legislation. What you have is a PR decision based in politics with no teeth for any future action.
What is simple is seeing how easily you, and therefore even more Americans, can be fooled into belief in the benevolence of government even with no guarantees, laws, or anything to pin that hope on except one tiny PR move at the right time.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Im saying there should be laws on this. I know there aren't. Why you don't you stop oozing idiocy from every orifice.