Robin Hood

"Lynch robbed"?

Hey, we'll leave them with a cool mill so their golf games and weekend caviar remain unaffected. Doesn't sound like a lynch mobbing more like Robin Hood.

"Sounds just like Pol Pot but I expect that was before your time and you've never heard of him and his charming methods of purification"

Pol Pot was the only one eating caviar in Cambodia and it's unlikely he played golf.

innocent

"What a charming society you propose (will you call your arbitrary appropriation the 'trickle up effect?') and to kick it all off you're going to punish over three million you know are innocent."

Nobody's innocent, esp. the ultra-wealthy.

Did you mean 'innocent' or 'not caught'?

Please clarify

Are you saying that ALL wealthy people are culpable? All 100%, even if they fit into your supposed 1% who are not in the neocon group? All the successful writers, artists, musicians, actors, inventors, doctors, etc... Just who are you guys stringing up?

Pretty much

Nobody, unless they earned their booty by pulling a lucky number in the lotto, gets to have millions of bucks without fashioning a long series of crimes against their fellow men.

I'd lay off the writers and artists because, as Pee Wee discovered to his horror, their average income is considerably below the poverty line.

BTW, not stringing up anyone...that's your line.

As for the docs and many professionals, let them pay back the cost (with interest) of the public education they got from the people they are pledged to serve - I think you'll find it knocks a lot of them off the high-pay ladder.

As for the remedy - just change the tax system so every dollar earned is a dollar available to tax and then we'll talk.

Fair's fair after all. The rich tend to think they live in a bubble - I'd be happy to burst it for them, anytime.

When we've got the rates of pay set up so the average industrial wage is no less than 1/10 of the top remuneration level in the country I'll start to worry about the lack of incentives for invention and innovation.

Until then, sorry, no dice - the rich deserve their day in the dock.

g west...

And since there are sooooo many wealthy New Democrats, as an experiment let's send all of these wealthy new Democrats into the dock first.

It certainly would be a socially progressive experiment, n'est pas?

Then society can decide whether it works, before society decides how to move on.

Fine with me

Only I don't think there are that many wealthy NDPers so can we leave them to about the fifth or sixth court session - except for Jack Munro - you can have him and we'll deal with him with the Socreds

Nope, sorry won't wash

We've just come through a period of about 3 decades when that kind of corporate clap-trap has held sway over the economy, the country and the vast majority of peoples' lives.

Not only doesn't it work, it flies in the face of reality and the facts.

Like Allan Greenspan's fascination with Ayn Rand and the 'virtue' of selfishness, it's time to remind the banks and business that they need rules too.

The last thirty years, and especially the period since 1989 have been marked, no they've been typified by the idea that business had no stake in the social fabric of society. This began with the attitude among businessmen and women (and a lot of governments too) that they didn’t have to give a shit for the people whose sweat and loyalty sowed the seeds of business success and profitability.

As Ed Deak points out here accurately and regularly, as long as Greenspan and Freidman and their cronies have been ‘involved’ in the financial planning area companies and banks and sadly, a lot of public agencies have treated workers and employees as nothing more than another ‘expense’. Wall Street and Bay Street and Howe Street – not to mention the provincial legislature has rewarded – in fact has ‘worshipped’ the idea that companies should be practical and tough enough to treat workers and their families as akin to a utility bill.

So suck it up fellas – if the tide is changing, it’s about time.

ME2...

I agree that the spread in terms of exec salaries, sports salaries, etc. ...you name it ... is wayyyyyy out of whack.

That said, I was responding to g west's rather silly comment:

As an example, GrowthWorks, a Vancouver venture-capital co. owned by New Democrat David Levi, the son of former NDP MLA Norm Levi, made an investment of $4 million over 10 years ago and and walked away with a cool $120 million in profit 5 years later.

I suggest that people like g west should eat and devour their own first and then lock 'em up as a "socially progressive" statement prior to throwing rocks at unknown glass houses.

I'll stand by the comment

There may be the odd exception which proves the rule - but not many - and certainly a lot fewer among NDP supporters than Liberals or Conservatives.

A 120 million dollar profit is unconscionable in any kind of society with even a hint of equality at its core.

The tax system, as I've pointed out numerous times is the biggest problem in this area and also the easiest to remedy.

There is no moral reason why some kinds of income should be treated any differently than other kinds of income.

ME2

I imagine the debacle on Wall Street readily answers that. Of course they deserve them -- if only because they can get away with it (which is the name of the game nowadays - patriotism being so yesterday)! Or, as Ambrose Bierce would have it: "patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel.."

"Are you saying that ALL

"Are you saying that ALL wealthy people are culpable?"

Not culpable, but somewhat anomalous. Wealth on a grand scale does not happen, because you're simply really good at your job, and then things just sort of come floating by themselves. It is amassed because people have a drive to do it. In itself, it is a somewhat weird pursuit, because you can only spend so much in a lifetime, and you can't take it with you. What stands when you are gone are the trees you planted, not the dollars you could stack up, and which could become worthless overnight, and which for sure you can't eat. If all you can do is throw money around you, the value of that is totally dependent on the presence of decent and capable people to do something useful with it. Setting your mark on posterity by proxy is a bit pitiful, I think. Personal action and effort would have counted for more.

I think it is a question of running on an entirely different track through life, and what counts. How well one has understood life. Not 'the game', or 'the score', but life, and what frames it.

Dorothy says it - "Wealth on

Dorothy says it - "Wealth on a grand scale" - not your doctor or dentist who owns an apartment building, not a local business person with 50 employees, but wealth at the level of obscenity. The very notion of "billionaire" should make a healthy person feel ill. To be a billionaire is to live with contempt for the 99.9999999% of the population who aren't, not to mention the third of the worlds population who are on the borders of malnutrition. To be a billionaire means act like a sociopath, a narcissist and a megalomaniac. And the only people worse than billionaires are those who apologize for them.

the born slaves

"And the only people worse than billionaires are those who apologize for them."

Well said, anarcho.

Well said, G West - yo, Luke

To Luke you said:

"You appear to care more for the odd millionaire with a heart of gold and ethical standards of business behavior (and I use that phrase advisedly) than you do for the hundreds of thousands of hard working people, children and retired folks who are victimized every year by a regime that cares more about profits than it does about people.

I think that's sad."

I worry for your soul, Luke. I have been reading your volumes of nearly single-minded posts. At times, you appear to have a smidgeon of caring for your fellow humans and the future of living things on this planet. That quickly fades as you seemingly fall back upon (what are to me) dark neo-con imaginings of the good of greed. Sometimes I wonder if you really care about anything but yourself and the power you seek. I wonder if when you use some caring-type words whether you have compassion or if you just pretend empathy to gain argumentative footholds...

Please enlighten us as to your raison d'ete. Do you have a personal motto, Luke? It would help us understand your arguments if you define yourself better. I think it is time or the Tyee readers to understand. After-all, I think a good number of us have read more from you than we have from Barrack and John these last two years.

RMan

I don't think Graef Crystal would welcome ANY serious regulation by gov't, so putting a cap on exec's salaries, bonuses, etc, is then as he says, unworkable.

But a start could be made. If an executive is to be paid so handsomely for good performance, he / she then should receive NO bonus or salary if the operation tanks or loses money.

Too rich

Wow, Luke. You found the son of an NDP politician who's done well in the markets. How long y'all been waiting to use that piece of info? Well, that clearly justifies the excesses of Wall Street, Bay Street and all the other streets currently awash in worthless paper.

Shall we tar and feather all Liberals as drinking-driving philanderers since one man can clearly stand for all?

good stuff by george:

"I’m talking about the real owners now… The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. They’re irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice.

You have OWNERS. They OWN YOU.

They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses; the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the information you get to hear. They’ve got you by the BALLS.”

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want: they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

George Carlin

Right on

"And the only people worse than billionaires are those who apologize for them."

Do you mean this to include those front minions, who are oh, so eager to serve, those BIRGers, who are always in the business of telling the rest of us that we just don't get it, and that if it was up to people like us, it would all go into the ditch. Well, out of having no choice, we left it up to them, and look where we are - in the ditch. Hello.

It was their party, their song and dance and their pipe-dream, and now it's going to be everyone's pain, because, as Lynn points out, they own the politicians enough that they can yet pickpocket the rest of us for a bailout, even though they deserve no such thing. Just remember, next time some grubber with a PORTFOLIO talks down to you, they don't have a damn thing to tell the rest of us. Every humble ditch-digger or farmer or carpenter understands economics better than these blokes combined, and now it is finally out where everyone can see it. Maybe the next few years of belt-tightening are worth it, if it will only serve to have cleared the air on that and make those insufferable self-styled 'wiz kids' shut up and learn some humility.

dorothy

Very interesting lead editorial in the New York Times this morning....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/opinion/29wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

It's a bit long to paste the whole thing... but I might be able to sneak in a bit - which underlines exactly what you and others have been pointing out:

Loans? Did We Say We’d Do Loans?

"... flooding the banks with taxpayers’ money was supposed to get them to start lending freely again. And that, in turn, was supposed to stabilize the markets and prevent the downturn from being worse than it otherwise would be.

...

Now, lo and behold, with $250 billion in bailout funds committed to dozens of large and regional banks, it turns out that many of the recipients of this investment from taxpayers are not all that interested in making loans. And it appears that Mr. Paulson is not so bothered by their reluctance.

Mr. Paulson and the bailout recipients have some explaining to do. Congress should plan hearings as soon as possible — and take action to set a clear strategy.

In his column on Saturday, The Times’s Joe Nocera told about a conference call that he had listened in on recently between employees and executives of JPMorgan Chase. Asked how an infusion of $25 billion of bailout funds would change the bank’s lending policy, an executive said the money would be used to buy other banks.

...

There was not a word about lending — not to businesses or home buyers or car buyers or students or other consumers. Just the opposite. In response to another question, the executive said that the bank expected to continue to tighten credit.

JPMorgan Chase is not alone. The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that some regional-bank recipients of the bailout money had acknowledged that only a small portion would be used for loans and the rest for acquisitions and other purposes.

It is prudent for government officials to encourage healthy banks to acquire weak banks. Doing so prevents bank failures and avoids the taxpayer costs and economic disruption that accompany such collapses.

... when they’re using taxpayer-provided capital, as they are now, Congress and the public have every right to require that the money be used to benefit the public directly, even if doing so crimps the banks’ profits. If Treasury won’t impose conditions, Congress must, including a requirement that banks accepting bailout money increase their loans to creditworthy borrowers and limit their acquisitions to failing banks, such as those listed as troubled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The bailout should not be an occasion for banks to make a killing."

It remains to be seen whether or not that last sentence will come true or not

Wall Street still plans to give out bonuses

Nothing surprises anymore... and nothing, it appears, is beneath these guys:

Quote:

"Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional investigators demanded Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and seven other banks justify billions of dollars in pay and bonuses after they accepted $125 billion as part of a taxpayer-funded bailout.

In letters to the nine firms today, Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said they collectively will pay $108 billion in employee compensation and bonuses in the first nine months of 2008, almost the same amount as last year.

``I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry's worst years on record,'' Waxman wrote. He cited an Oct. 27 Bloomberg News article detailing how Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co. have already accrued $20 billion to pay bonuses this year.

The letter was also sent to Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. Waxman asked the firms to supply the information by Nov. 10."

capitalism is mere bullyism, extortion and theft

Time to replace capitalism with cooperative endeavors. Time to take from the rich and give to everyone else. The rich don't do good things with their over-wealth, anyway. They give less to charity than my dead cat. They run roughshod over the planet in their greed for more stuff. They don't have an "I've got enough" mechanism in their pea-brains. It's a disease and a crime. We need to lock the bullies up and spread their wealth around. We need to fix the environment which they've wrecked and in which we all have to live, sustainably. The world is overpopulated with humans. I know some who really should step off the planet...

whose reality ?

Realisticman wrote :

And if ... I have a company doing x amount of business
and if ... Ms. ABC comes along as a partner with the agreement that she'll be paid x+y (y being 20% of added growth)
and if ... she finds new efficiencies
and if ... she finds new markets,
and if ... she cuts waste
and if ... she cuts pollution
and if ... she increases productivity which leads to more wages for everyone;
and if ... now gross is x+500 - how much is Ms. ABC worth?

" If ifs and ands were pots and pans - there'd be no need for tinkers "

RMan

You might have a point if bonuses and salaries were tied to net increases in production, or as Ed says, without shifting costs of production onto someone else.

Should a CEO get a bonus for selling off capital assets?

Or, as your posting suggests is logical, should salaries be directly tied to profit and loss? Since you think high profits justify very high remuneration, shouldn't low profits or losses justify very low remuneration?

Without fail, RMan, the policies you neocons advocate are predicated upon a sense of entitlement for the rich which requires a denial of the same for everyone else.