How do you know that the decision was made at the executive level? How do you know that a new executive would be more knowledgeable about the workings of the company and its people, as to be able to make the corrections to verify that the same mistake didn’t happen twice?
People make mistakes. If they’re in a high position in a large financial organization, those mistakes are going to be costly. And you can add all the double checking and red tape you want, but still eventually something is going to slip through. People shouldn’t be fired or blamed for making -one- mistake. If they consistently bungle, like how GM has been screwing up consistently for the last couple of decades, then sure throw them out. But otherwise, you should be sure that you’re not just getting rid of them for simple psychological catharsis.
How do you try the king in his own court? The government of the USA exists to serve these business & investment interests. To even suggest the reverse is to be condemned as a communist in much of the country.
You won’t hear establishment Democrats espouse these ideas like ritual suicide because establishment Democrats, even more than establishment Pubbies, would be aghast at it. (I guess because they don’t like violence, & they don’t think in terms of accountability.) The GOP survives because it elevates people like Grassley, & the Dems do not.
It would take a Frank Castle to bring the CEO’s to account, because the revolution is not coming.
Did you read the full text of the amendment? Very reasonable. Now, whoever added the line you quote, might have done it just to make it clear there was no attempt to unconstitutionally invalidate a pre-existing contract. Not adding it wouldn’t have affected the situation one little bit.
if the bonus contracts were signed Feb 10, I’d be very suspicious - but they were made in 2008, much earlier.
I hardly blame Dodd for not wanting the mobs to come after him for a line that has no real effect on the situation.
For Og’s sake: Claims that we live in an irredeemable plutocracy might have a tiny point in this thread, (although they do nothing to promote an actual discussion). “Love it or leave it.” and “Republicans (or Democrats) are eeevullll” do nothing more than pander to emotions.
We still have a functioning BBQ Pit for those who are more interested in flaming folks or situations than in discussing the topic at hand.
BTW, some companies were pressed to take bailout money by Treasury so that not only sick banks got it. The theory was that in that case there might a flight from them. That is why some of the banks would be able to give the money back if they don’t like the restrictions - they didn’t really need it.
Again, I haven’t even seen anything which indicates that the mistake was theirs and not some flunkies down three layers in the hierarchy. But more importantly, how are the heads of AIG any more complicit than Christopher Dodd, Alan Greenspan, the heads of all of the banks that handed out the loans, the heads of the companies that rated the loan packages, and every other person?
So far as I can tell, at the core the problem is simply that -universally- everyone believed that housing prices would continue to rise eternally. Sure there may have been a few naysayers, but you just don’t get this many separate, professional parties all buying in on the same deal unless they’re all making the same basic assumptions.
And I mean really, there’s no particular reason that this needed to become an economic crisis. If back in August/September when this all happened, President Bush had gotten up and said, “Alright all you banks, whatever average rate of appreciation you were assuming, we’re going to pretend like that’s what’s happening. We’ll make up the difference that the home-owner can’t. If they can’t pay their portion, then they’re still out the house. In the meantime, we’re going to launch an investigation to find where all the holes in the current system were and in two months we’ll have legislation in the line to make sure this doesn’t happen again.” Well then there wouldn’t be a crisis. Letting it fester and get drummed up by the media and the presidential election while people were losing jobs and homes, nullifying the ability to solve it all in a single, simple move, is what made it a crisis.
The America I know has a little something called “freedom of speech” and a right to “petition the government for a dress of grievances” right in in the bloody first amendment of the government’s defining documents.
For someone who thinks so little of that government I’m surprised you still live here under it. I don’t see any border exits stopping you from leaving.
That double-standard is severe indeed, and yet it is so deeply enmeshed in our society that conservatives, at least, can’t even see it! When we in the reality-based community point these things out, conservatives simply mock us as cry-babies, and the public at large, from all across the political spectrum, too readily agree with them, sadly.
While Grassley’s point is valid as is the anger behind it, it’s pretty ironic coming from a member of the Party of Deliberately Dubious Business Ethics, more commonly known as the GOP. The Republicans are complicit with them in both enabling their behavior and applauding such figurative or even literal larceny as the “best of the American Way”. Gordon Gekko is still their hero, openly or otherwise.
I don’t have any problem with people making as much money as they legally can. What I do have a problem with is when they don’t adequately reimburse us by paying taxes at a rate commensurate to the amount they exploited our entire system, from a vastly greater degree of infrastructure consumption to extensive usage of the government and legal systems which made it possible for them to own anything in the first place. And that rate should be far higher than the measly 35% rate they’re supposed to pay, but seldom do even that.
Our nation’s economy was never stronger than the years after WW II, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. To lower their tax burden, the very wealthy individuals and corporations built great public works or foundations which repaid their debts even better than just paying their taxes alone. Would that today’s giga-rich would display even a significant fraction of that kind of patriotism. Yes, paying taxes is one of the highest forms of patriotism, no matter how malevolently the ugly Right mocks that idea.
Free Enterprise is deservedly dead. Long live Regulated Enterprise!
Remind me again why any of these grotesque incompetents are still in employment?
Such is the level of catastrophe these people have caused an International Financial Crimes Against Humanity Court should be set up along the lines of Nuremberg and executions and life imprisonment should be on the table.
Simply proving that a person was a senior manager or director of a failing bank, hedge fund or whatever should be sufficient evidence for conviction.
The Sen. Grassley statement is only a manifestation of right wing populism that is surfacing in this era of economic discontent. It is convenient, simple and easy to say “off with their heads” and gets a good crowd reaction from nearly everyone. If you do that, then you DO NOT have to go through the complicated,difficult and divisive business of actually
*** investigating all the causes of this economic mess
*** assigning blame to all the participants
*** crafting new laws and regulations to control it and makesure it does not happen again
*** staff and fund the people to do it
That is what the free market advocates and philosophical libertarians badly want to avoid at all costs. Suggesting some folks commit seppuku is their alternative to actual work and reform.
Let’s go with the current EPA value for a human life, about $7m. Bernie Madoff alone made $50b vanish. That’s the value of 7142 human lives. The billions AIG has burned is the equivalent of tens of thousands more lives. Now, no one was killed by their BS, but how many lives have been ruined, both directly and by the indirect effects on the economy?
I oppose the death penalty, but taking a sledge hammer to the economy like this is certainly as bad as murdering someone. So why do we electrocute a serial killer, but we let people who impact far more people walk away, probably richer than when they started?
Grassley may have been a bit over the top here, but he makes a good point and I don’t fault him for it.
ETA: Yeah, I’m pretty sure the senator is playing CYA, but even a stopped clock…