Good Advice For McCain

I really like the idea of limiting personal wealth achievable by subverting congressmen. If such a law could be passed, it would be a true paradigm shift - companies would be driven to get away from government.

Of course, there is no way that would ever get passed...

Terrible idea. Yes, there would be some appeal if the end result were simply to stop private corporations from becoming "joint ventures" with the federal government. But realistically it would end up being a club for career bureaucrats with leftist tendencies to beat on the "evil corporations".

it would end up being a club for career bureaucrats with leftist tendencies to beat on the "evil corporations".

We already have that, with Fannie and Freddie. At least this way being the head of institutions like that would be a lot less lucrative.

I really like the idea of limiting personal wealth achievable by subverting congressmen.

I'd rather limit congressmen who subvert personal wealth.

I think many people find some of the salaries paid to the CEOs of non government chartered companies just as egregious. I certainly do. I don't think there is any reason why the previous head of Home Depot, for example, should be paid hundreds of millions of dollars for screwing up (it's stock dropped dramatically, and they essentially paid him to make him go away). And the problem lies with the boards who set pay levels - many of them, themselves current, past, or future CEOs. This would seem to be a conflict of interest, which the SEC ought to investigate as a breech of fiduciary responsibility.

I don't think there is any reason why the previous head of Home Depot, for example, should be paid hundreds of millions of dollars for screwing up (it's stock dropped dramatically, and they essentially paid him to make him go away).

So? Who cares what you think?

That's the stockholders' business, not yours.

"Rand Simberg wrote:

So? Who cares what you think?

That's the stockholders' business, not yours."

Yes, that's true. And I imagine that many stockholders are not happy with CEO's who, in collusion with their boards, loot the companies they are supposed to manage. I don't think the boards are fairly representing the interests they are charged to represent. If they were, there wouldn't be as many gold-plated coporate headquarters, executive jets, junkets to Davos, or "charitable" contributions to organizations like La Raza and the NAACP.

Many american business leaders believe that they should be allowed to hire people from oversees, because they're cheaper. After all, there are plenty of programmers in India who can do the job for a lot less than Americans. I would like to see the same standard applied to the CEOs. I bet there are plenty of people in India who could manage a fortune 500 company for far less than our resident masters-of-the-universe.

I would like to see the same standard applied to the CEOs. I bet there are plenty of people in India who could manage a fortune 500 company for far less than our resident masters-of-the-universe.

Again, I don't know why you tell us what standards you'd like to apply. Buy stock in those companies, and vote. Otherwise, it's none of your damned business.

Yes it is my business, stockholder or no. When private enterprise buys influence with congress, and in so doing buys legislation favorable to them - when they flout public morals and subvert the historical character of this nation simply because they find it profitable - it damn well is my business. And I don't mind if legal recourse is taken against them.

If a company were enslaving people, or making snuff films, would you then say "well, if you don't like it, buy stock in them, and vote"?

If a company were enslaving people, or making snuff films, would you then say "well, if you don't like it, buy stock in them, and vote"?

No. But unfortunately for your (non)argument, that has absolutely nothing to do with executive salaries.