so we the taxpayers of the united states are going to be spending around one trillion dollars bailing out banks and investment houses and car companies.
at the end of the day we probably don't have much of a choice, as to let these companies fail would result in catastrophic job losses and a complete end to available capital. but as the people who are bailing out these companies we should have a say in how they are going to comport themselves in the future.
we should insist on new regulations, especially ones that prevent collusion between corporations and accounting companies. we should restrict institutions ability to invest in egregiously risky investment vehicles, especially with borrowed money.
we should insist on updated business models/plans (especially from the car companies). and we should insist on executive pay restrictions while these companies are being, essentially, saved by us.
the average 2007 take home pay for the ceo's who ran their companies into the ground was, according to the new york times, $8,000,000. the obama administration is proposing a $500,000 pay cap for ceo's and top executives of corporations while they are accepting tarp assistance. here's what one executive had to say:
“That is pretty draconian — $500,000 is not a lot of money.” said James F. Reda, founder and managing director of James F. Reda & Associates, a compensation consulting firm.
could you possibly find anyone outside of a corporate boardroom who thinks that a $500,000 salary is not a lot of money? i mean, these ceo's and executives show up, fire a bunch of employees, outsource jobs to other countries, engage in shifty and illegal corporate and accounting practices, get paid millions of dollars, run their companies into the ground, come begging for taxpayer money in order to keep their jobs, and then complain about a $500,000 salary cap?? perhaps a degree of humility and contrition might serve them better than complaining about 'only' making $500,000 a year while accepting taxpayer bailout money? i guess if they don't like making $500,000 they could look for work elsewhere. i'm sure that there are tons and tons of jobs for chief executives whose last resumee item consists of: '2005 - 2009: ran huge financial institution. while ceo i oversaw an 80% reduction in my companies market capitalization, fired 70% of my employees, lost billions of dollars of investors retirement funds, had a hand in creating the biggest financial meltdown since the great depression, and had to borrow $85 billion dollars from the taxpayers just to keep the companies doors open.' yes, i'm sure there are lots of job opportunities for someone with that sort of work experience. or perhaps if the ceo's don't like the terms of the bailout they could get a job at kinko's. no work experience required, $8.50 an hour, 1 hour lunch break, and you can probably make lots of free copies when the manager isn't looking.