Thursday, February 12, 2009

Leave CEOs alone

In the teeth of the Obamessiah’s assault on CEOs’ salaries, Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute says CEOs’ salaries are the business of shareholders, and of shareholders only.

Join the debate at the Business Week Debate Room.

Labels: , ,

7 Comments:

Anonymous twr said...

With the bailouts, isn't the government taking an equity stake, and therefore becoming a major shareholder with a say in governance?

2/12/2009 10:25:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama and the American people are the shareholders. The banks are bankrupt and therefore existing shareholders shouldn't get any say. None of the banks would still be there without taxpayer intervention.

2/12/2009 02:41:00 pm  
Blogger Jeff Perren said...

"None of the banks would still be there without taxpayer intervention."

Huh?

Even very healthy institutions like Wells Fargo were forced to take capital they didn't need or want. Only a couple of dozen banks have failed and the only major one was WaMu, open for business the very next day before the TARP funds were forced on the banks.

Why do Progressives need to continually lie to make their case? Oh, yeah. It's because they don't have one that will bear scrutiny.
Obama is NOT the CEO of Amerika and we are not the shareholders. Those terms only apply to private businesses. You are describing Fascism.

2/12/2009 03:02:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Anon

The banks are bankrupt BECAUSE of government intervention. What do you think the Fed has been doing with the currency all these years?



LGM

2/13/2009 08:00:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree the Fed and the Federal Government are whores who should be jailed for what they have done. However, financial systems need regulation to ensure greed doesn't get the better of them i.e. the present system where banking reserves have been forgotten about and a pyramid of derivatives written as insurance is a ponzi scheme that should never have been permitted in the first place. We should have stuck to fractional reserves of 10% rather than letting the banks go wily nilly with 0.01% reserves underwritten by a pyramid of derivatives. Also agree there should have been NO BAILOUTS! The idiots who caused this should go under and the strong taken over.

2/15/2009 03:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last sentence should say the strong should take over from the incompetents.

2/15/2009 03:08:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Anonymous

"We should have stuck to fractional reserves of 10%..."

No! That's just as fraudulent as that which you excoriate in the rest of your post. Reserves should be 100% or more.

LGM

2/16/2009 08:15:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

<< Home