Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well to play devil's advocate..shouldn't the toy companies be responsible for that and not the government ?
Sure, the toy companies should be responsible, but I think it's also a good idea to have some regulation over things like this. Most parents want to feel confident that they their child won't die from simply playing with a toy.
I agree that shareholders should make that decision and in general I think pay should not be regulated.
HOWEVER, having said that, I also think that if an institution is "too big to fail" and the American taxpayers would end up having to bail them out because they took big gambles that didn't pay off that something needs to be done about that too.
I feel though that risk-taking should be tempered by clawback provisions or perhaps delayed compensation. That way if they take huge risks and the downside of their risk y moves isn't immediately felt, that the bankers don't pocket ill-gotten gains while the taxpayers are left holding the bag.
there is no "too big to fail". there may be a "too connected to fail" however. what needs to be done is the government who forced these bailouts on the american public should be voted out. we were told that the united states economy would implode if GM failed, taking everything with it, and then we were told that failure wasn't that big a deal once they were headed toward bankruptcy. we were lied to by the government.
there is no "too big to fail". there may be a "too connected to fail" however. what needs to be done is the government who forced these bailouts on the american public should be voted out. we were told that the united states economy would implode if GM failed, taking everything with it, and then we were told that failure wasn't that big a deal once they were headed toward bankruptcy. we were lied to by the government.
"too connected to too many jobs and small businesses across three states" to fail. We were not told the entire economy would implode if GM failed. If GM HAD failed, the resulting devastation would have been even more expensive for the govt to try to manage.
They can try all they want to restrict pay to people in Wall Street, but one thing they fail to remember. The people in Wall Street are by far more intelligent than most polititions, so they will get there money no matter what restrictions they put upon them. But if it makes them feel better and the public I am sure Wall Street will not object.
So you support white-collar crime committed by the rich. Great.
If you havent noticed the white collar criminals are being punished. You can blame the so called government regulator (SEC) for being asleep at the wheel while these swindlers took people for millions.
Tell me something... why do people go to financial advisors who charge rediculous commissions and fees? When they now have options such as Schwab? People are choosing to pay these so called financial advisors for financial advice. They can get for much cheaper then with some hot shot ubs FA.
Good. Right now the bank executives have an incentive to partake in the risky behavior that got us into the financial crisis. The hopes of hitting the jackpot is what leads these executives to take huge risks. If it goes well, they make a ton of money; if it goes bad, they get the taxpayers to bail them out and still make a ton of money. Either way we loose and that's why I support this bill.
If it were up to me, the bailout would have never happened in the first place. We would have allowed the financial institutions to collapse, insure all the deposits through the FDIC in order to prevent a run on the bank, have the government take over the failed institutions for the time being, and restructure the instituions and/or break the too big to fail institutions into multiple institutions. This is what prominent economists such as nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Nouriel Rabini suggested doing and it is how Sweeden and Norway resolved their banking crisis in the 90's.
Good. Right now the bank executives have an incentive to partake in the risky behavior that got us into the financial crisis. The hopes of hitting the jackpot is what leads these executives to take huge risks. If it goes well, they make a ton of money; if it goes bad, they get the taxpayers to bail them out and still make a ton of money. Either way we loose and that's why I support this bill.
If it were up to me, the bailout would have never happened in the first place. We would have allowed the financial institutions to collapse, insure all the deposits through the FDIC in order to prevent a run on the bank, have the government take over the failed institutions for the time being, and restructure the instituions and/or break the too big to fail institutions into multiple institutions. This is what prominent economists such as nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Nouriel Rabini suggested doing and it is how Sweeden and Norway resolved their banking crisis in the 90's.
One thing you are forgetting is the government laid out the ground work for these banks to leverage up so high. Now they are saying, damn that did not work out to good, lets make them out to be the bad guys, but don't worry boys (bankers) we got your back. In a way it's like a ponzi scheme and the tax payer foots the bill. In the end wall street will come out on top.
"Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives, so lawmakers included a mechanism for reviewing executive compensation and penalizing firms that break the rules.
But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said.
..
Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives. "
One thing you are forgetting is the government laid out the ground work for these banks to leverage up so high. Now they are saying, damn that did not work out to good, lets make them out to be the bad guys, but don't worry boys (bankers) we got your back. In a way it's like a ponzi scheme and the tax payer foots the bill. In the end wall street will come out on top.
Well they should have never repealed Glass-Steagel. Also, Bush had 8 years to stop this derivative trading and subprime mortgage mess and he didn't do a damn thing. There were warnings. Noriel Rabini predicted the whole thing. But since when did Bush pay any attention to warnings? He didn't do it with 9/11 and he didn't do it with the banking crisis. I think that 2 out of the 3 stupidest things that Obama has done so far have been to continue Bush's TARP bailout and give Tim Geithner his job as Treasury Secretary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
