Your post asked how much money they received

Post #325,623 by beepster 5/3/10 3:36:45 PM Reply	Your post asked how much money they received from the government, that would be you thinking it made a difference, not me. And on TALF, from your link... "As TALF money does not originate from the US Treasury, the program does not require congressional approval to disburse funds." So, again, it appears your initial litmus test was fed funds. If not, then I should have seen complete outrage at the level of pay for these gentlemen. (funny, that wasn't the first reaction for any of the secondary posts, was it?) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #325,626 by Another Scott 5/3/10 4:50:18 PM Reply	That's what I get for trying to be terse. More later.
Post #325,628 by drook 5/3/10 6:43:38 PM Reply	Oh, that's how it's specious Anyone advocating a "litmus test" is creating a false dichotomy. Isn't it possible to oppose extravagant CEO compensation and argue that paying that compensation via federal funds is even worse? Excessive executive compensation is not only bad for society and for the economy, it's not even in the (long term) best interests of the company. The current system encourages extreme short term thinking, so that's exactly what we get. Since officers of publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the shareholders, there's a strong argument that the current system is a violation of securities law. That's the systemic argument, and people have been making it for at least a decade. Corporations -- via their officers -- have been opposing that argument just as long. But once the government steps in to "support" these companies, it seems reasonable that the government should be able to impose some conditions on that support. So even if the systemic problem didn't exist, or you disagree that it's a problem, the government would still have an independent reason to assert some control now. As for the red herring that "it's been paid back", I disagree that it has been paid back. Consider all funds provided since the beginning of the crisis, via all facilities, and the discounted (or non-existent) amount of interest paid -- plus the revolving door from the discount window to short-term bonds and back -- and the big banks have been given billions of tax dollars. So pointing out executive compensation in Hollywood does nothing to mitigate or excuse what's happening on Wall Street. Instead, it's an example of the continuation of a problem that pre-existed the current crisis. That problem still exists, and what is happening on Wall Street now is still worse. And once again, "conservatives" are making the argument that someone else is doing something sort of similar that's also bad, so no one should criticize the massively larger offenses of the financial set. -- Drew
Post #325,632 by Another Scott 5/3/10 8:55:52 PM Reply	Thanks. Well said.
Post #325,631 by Another Scott 5/3/10 8:55:34 PM Reply	Ok, some more. Sometimes I think I've become a glutton for punishment... ;-) Your post asked how much money they received from the government, that would be you thinking it made a difference, not me. And on TALF, from your link... "As TALF money does not originate from the US Treasury, the program does not require congressional approval to disburse funds." My first link had a graph showing the various ways that the Treasury was trying to dump liquidity into the financial system to free up lending and to keep banks, insurance companies, etc., from going under. The companies were given guarantees that the US Treasury would cover any losses ("non-recourse"). Since potential losses could be shifted to the Treasury, the banks and insurance companies were able to have stronger balance sheets than they would have been otherwise. Even if Uncle Sam didn't cut them a check, the participants received a subsidy. You know this. CalculatedRisk says that the US effectively put up *$13.7T* through the first quarter of 2009 - http://www.calculate...m-government.html The US guaranteed *$309B* of Citigroup assets. Citigroup paid back $20B in TARP money in December 2009 ($3B cash, $17B stock). The principal reason they did it was so they could pay their management more money. That's just one example. The TALF was government created and government guaranteed. Yes, the Congress didn't get involved - that was the whole point (it wouldn't have made it through Congress, so the Treasury and Fed got creative). People are upset about the banks high-level employees making so much money because: 1) they wouldn't be in business if the US hadn't rescued them; 2) they're fighting efforts to fix the mortgage crisis and keep people in their homes; 3) they act as if they're Masters of the Universe while the rest of the economy is still in the toilet (especially employment); 4) they refuse to accept or even acknowledge personal responsibility for the crisis. As Crazy said, Moonves didn't blow up the economy. So, again, it appears your initial litmus test was fed funds. If not, then I should have seen complete outrage at the level of pay for these gentlemen. (funny, that wasn't the first reaction for any of the secondary posts, was it?) Your title created the comparison between Wall Street and the Entertainment conglomerates. The NY Times story didn't make the comparison and include mention of the bailouts until the 7th paragraph. If you didn't want people to make that comparison, why did you mention it? As I said earlier, I believe that most US CEOs are paid far too much. Yeah, Moonves shouldn't have made $43M last year. At this time, though, it's not worth the distraction from the larger problems with the finance sector. Hope that clears things up a little. Cheers, Scott.
Post #325,645 by beepster 5/3/10 10:22:51 PM Reply	Ok then, I'll wait to hear the hue and cry for a few more weeks then. Funny how I don't have confidence that I will...but I can always be surprised. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #325,647 by drook 5/3/10 10:36:44 PM Reply	Duh There shouldn't be a hue and cry. There are bigger fish to fry right now. Once they're cooked, it will be time to look at the systemic problems again. -- Drew
Post #325,648 by boxley 5/3/10 11:50:30 PM Reply	cooked in oil perhaps? If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #325,651 by drook 5/4/10 1:47:49 AM 5/4/10 1:51:18 AM Reply	Hydrogenated corn, yup IRememberLRPD: Do you have any idea how long it takes to roast a whole human? And it turns out, someone does: http://everything2.c...2528Long+pig%2529 -- Drew Edited by drook May 4, 2010, 01:51:18 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!