Re: Phil Gramm (McCains Chief Economic Advisor) quote

Markwes Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:20 pm

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Maybe we Americans are a bunch of whiners. I like to think this board is a decent slice of the American public, and we've managed to come up with 19 pages of Pet Peeves / Whines of our own...

I thought about that very same thing! But there's a difference as I see it. Pet peeves seem more like inconveniences caused by rudeness or ignorance of others that we encounter personally. Others may or may not be able to relate. On the other hand, gas prices are a global issue, caused by a number of issues, not as simple as the guy who blocked the exit of the fast food place so Meta couldn't exit. Bman would like to see us believe that it's all because of Bush and McCain.

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:41 pm

Markwes wrote:
Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Maybe we Americans are a bunch of whiners. I like to think this board is a decent slice of the American public, and we've managed to come up with 19 pages of Pet Peeves / Whines of our own...
I thought about that very same thing! But there's a difference as I see it. Pet peeves seem more like inconveniences caused by rudeness or ignorance of others that we encounter personally. Others may or may not be able to relate. On the other hand, gas prices are a global issue, caused by a number of issues, not as simple as the guy who blocked the exit of the fast food place so Meta couldn't exit. Bman would like to see us believe that it's all because of Bush and McCain.

Hehe, didn't I blame Doe for that one? Cool

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:43 pm

Markwes wrote:
Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Maybe we Americans are a bunch of whiners. I like to think this board is a decent slice of the American public, and we've managed to come up with 19 pages of Pet Peeves / Whines of our own...
Bman would like to see us believe that it's all because of Bush and McCain.

How is that any different than you Mark who refuses to blame ANYTHING on Bush but some how were able to blame tons of things on Bill Clinton. hmmmm right wingers are like Rush .. anything that goes wrong blame the democrats anything good the conservatives (not republicans) should take credit for.

The hypocricy!!!!

Markwes Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:02 pm

Bman wrote:
Markwes wrote:
Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Maybe we Americans are a bunch of whiners. I like to think this board is a decent slice of the American public, and we've managed to come up with 19 pages of Pet Peeves / Whines of our own...
Bman would like to see us believe that it's all because of Bush and McCain.

How is that any different than you Mark who refuses to blame ANYTHING on Bush but some how were able to blame tons of things on Bill Clinton. hmmmm right wingers are like Rush .. anything that goes wrong blame the democrats anything good the conservatives (not republicans) should take credit for.

The hypocricy!!!!

Oh, believe me, there are things I blame Bush for. But they have already been pointed out. I just try to level the playing field. You only want to talk about the bad.

And I don't ever recall blaming anything on Bill Clinton. And I don't generally listen to Rush.

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:30 pm

cardinal5150 wrote:

So it's the companies fault that they entered into an agreement with someone to loan them money on terms unconventional to you? Ever been to Macedonia? Over there it is unheard of to get a car loan, mortgage or credit card. If you told them you bought a house on a 30 year mortgage they'd think you were as stupid as you are implying those who took out balloon mortgages are.

So it's really all a matter of perspective. To me, if you sign a legal document that means you read the terms of that document and you agree to them. If you don't like the terms, don't sign. It's not like you are picking a doctor to perform life saving surgery.. if you are taking out a loan it's to get something you WANT and maybe need, but not require (you can rent an apartment for shelter and ride a bus or walk for transportation).

So no.. I don't think the execs are to blame for loaning people money in unconventional ways. If they deliberately went out and lied to people, then yes, the company should be blamed. But if they loaned people using ARMs or balloon's, no, it's not their fault, that's the borrowers fault.

As for taking back money.. no, it wouldn't make a huge difference. It'd be like an Aircraft Carrier running over a 15 foot fishing boat. You'd see it, but no one would notice.

If you want to limit/cap executive pay.. just call a spade a spade and admit that you want communism. Not only is that idea one of the dumbest thoughts I've heard come out of the BO camp, it'd be counter productive to turning things around. Merrill Lynch paid John Thain more than any other CEO in America last year to lure him away from the NYSE because he's a proven winner. If you limit pay to $1M you'll get a bunch of CEO's next to nothing and having no incentive to do better.

Putting something in escrow? Sounds kinda like the idea of Social Security.. and we can see how well that's working out...

Well I guess, I've never claimed to be a professional policy maker. I didn't realize I had to carry my license to think on my person at all times. I also didn't realize I worked for the BO camp. I'm not really sure what the difference is between unconventional and unethical or unwise, but I'm sure there's a GREAT explanation somewhere. I'm also not sure WTF Macedonia has to do with the this.

The Execs are not the ones loaning money in unconventional ways, they are the guys/gals at the helm of the corp who decide how much cash they need to have on hand to guarantee the commitments THEY HAVE MADE. They are getting payed a lot to do this and when they fail, they bail with ALL their earnings. The corp is screwed after they leave, it's someone else's problem now.

... Yet they've done nothing wrong, they've just been "unconventional" in their approach.

Dreamy! I love you

I can't wait to see the "automagic" fix for this!

scratch

How many 15' fishing boats would need to be run over before people stop using 15' fishing boats?

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:36 pm

I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Canuck Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:38 pm

Meta, you're in contempt of the board...I order you to produce your licence to think card or else you will be fined. Razz

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:44 pm

Canuck wrote:Meta, you're in contempt of the board...I order you to produce your licence to think card or else you will be fined.

well, to borrow a recent phrase from Pez...

If you prove that I actually *thought* then I'm in contempt... otherwise, I am above the board! Razz

Guest Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:46 pm

Bman wrote:I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Maybe we should check up on Europe, which has got an excellent record of "non-whining" or maybe Macedonia because they all have their shit together!

**Cincy Fan 44** Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:46 pm

Canuck wrote:Meta, you're in contempt of the board...I order you to produce your licence to think card or else you will be fined.

Whatever his card looks like, it should have his avatar as his logo... Laughing

Canuck Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:51 pm

Okay Cincy, you get the job to design his card, you have 24 hours. cheers

**Cincy Fan 44** Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:00 pm

Canuck wrote:Okay Cincy, you get the job to design his card, you have 24 hours.

Don't tease me.

Canuck Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:03 pm

Really I am not teasing you Cincy. You got the job.

We might be yelled at for tangenting though...

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am

Bman wrote:I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Great example.. go take a look at the Japanese economy and get back to me on that philosophy..... (hint.. you couldn't have picked a worse example)

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:02 am

cardinal5150 wrote:
Bman wrote:I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Great example.. go take a look at the Japanese economy and get back to me on that philosophy..... (hint.. you couldn't have picked a worse example)

HINT: Japanese made products are competitive on the world market and we are not .. hint hint hint.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 am

meta4 wrote:
Well I guess, I've never claimed to be a professional policy maker. I didn't realize I had to carry my license to think on my person at all times. I also didn't realize I worked for the BO camp. I'm not really sure what the difference is between unconventional and unethical or unwise, but I'm sure there's a GREAT explanation somewhere. I'm also not sure WTF Macedonia has to do with the this.

The point about Macedonia was the show that what YOU view as standard others will view as asinine... Similarly you view some of these balloon mortgages as asinine and others don't. So it's all on your vantage point. To claim that the lenders were at fault for giving a loan that the other person agreed to is completely absolving the person from their bad decision in the first place.

It's like the example of a man and woman having an affair. If the husband catches his wife with another man he goes after the man usually, when they are both (wife and lover) to blame. In mortgages you are going after the other person, completely ignoring your spouse to have any fault.

Why should I have to pay for my neighbors bad decision? It's one thing to take a hit on my market value, it's another to take that hit AND have to pay in more taxes to make their payment for them.

The Execs are not the ones loaning money in unconventional ways, they are the guys/gals at the helm of the corp who decide how much cash they need to have on hand to guarantee the commitments THEY HAVE MADE. They are getting payed a lot to do this and when they fail, they bail with ALL their earnings. The corp is screwed after they leave, it's someone else's problem now.

... Yet they've done nothing wrong, they've just been "unconventional" in their approach.

Dreamy! I can't wait to see the "automagic" fix for this!

How many 15' fishing boats would need to be run over before people stop using 15' fishing boats?

Actually, the federal government has more to say about how much cash they have to have on hand. Most CEO's get stock options for their severance, so they are tied into the profits of the company. The Countrywide CEO for example received almost his entire severance in stock options he had earned from when he started the company.

But again.. cutting down the CEO salary from say $15M to $5M isn't going to do anything for the employee and that $10M won't effect shareholders either. Well, maybe they'll get an extra half a cent dividend if they're lucky. So if you want to cap their pay, have a blast.. to me that runs 180 degrees to what a Free Market is though.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:09 am

Bman wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:
Bman wrote:I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Great example.. go take a look at the Japanese economy and get back to me on that philosophy..... (hint.. you couldn't have picked a worse example)

HINT: Japanese made products are competitive on the world market and we are not .. hint hint hint.

So do Cathy Lee's kids in the sweatshops in Thailand (as does Mexico and China)..... care to make any other brilliant economic statements?

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:36 am

cardinal5150 wrote:To claim that the lenders were at fault for giving a loan that the other person agreed to is completely absolving the person from their bad decision in the first place.

Why should I have to pay for my neighbors bad decision? It's one thing to take a hit on my market value, it's another to take that hit AND have to pay in more taxes to make their payment for them.

If the lender agrees to loan me 15 million dollars (you know I'm not a $15M player, right?), wouldn't that be foolish for the lender? Even a teeny tiny bit?

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:52 am

cardinal5150 wrote:
Bman wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:
Bman wrote:I disagree Card, CEO salaries should be capped. I think there needs to be some ratio of CEO salary to the average workers salary for that company. I think *think* the quote I heard on this topic this weekend was in America our average CEO makes 400 times of the average worker for that company in Japan it is like 10x the pay of the average worker.

Great example.. go take a look at the Japanese economy and get back to me on that philosophy..... (hint.. you couldn't have picked a worse example)

HINT: Japanese made products are competitive on the world market and we are not .. hint hint hint.

So do Cathy Lee's kids in the sweatshops in Thailand (as does Mexico and China)..... care to make any other brilliant economic statements?

That SHIT is really weak. Trying to compare sweatshops to limiting Corp CEO salaries ... fucking hilarious Card ... I sense a third part time job for you, call Snickers and see if they need an opening act for someone. Truly that shit is weak ... sweatshop laborers vs. simply limiting Corp Exec salaries at some limit of the average worker pay ... once again ... HILARIOUS. That shit is not true shit, that is the runs man.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:03 pm

meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:To claim that the lenders were at fault for giving a loan that the other person agreed to is completely absolving the person from their bad decision in the first place.

Why should I have to pay for my neighbors bad decision? It's one thing to take a hit on my market value, it's another to take that hit AND have to pay in more taxes to make their payment for them.

If the lender agrees to loan me 15 million dollars (you know I'm not a $15M player, right?), wouldn't that be foolish for the lender? Even a teeny tiny bit?

Not really... the lender can loan you 15 million, then wrap that debt in a security and sell the security to someone else. This is at the crux of the mortgage "crisis"... the securitization of vast amounts of bad mortgage debt in an attempt to conceal the fact that it was a bad loan to begin with. It's a legal pyramid scheme.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:06 pm

For the record too, I don't agree with limiting CEO's salaries. I dont see the economic impact of doing so. If I can convince someone to pay me 30 million a year, I think I will take the job.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:18 pm

pez wrote:For the record too, I don't agree with limiting CEO's salaries. I dont see the economic impact of doing so. If I can convince someone to pay me 30 million a year, I think I will take the job.

But you might be less likely to "F" it up too bad if you knew that you wouldn't get paid all of it for 10 years. Lets face it, what makes a CEO's salary worth hitting the jackpot in the lottery? Take the challenge, get paid for results, nobody get's "F'd up", your team wins, game over.

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:25 pm

pez wrote:
meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:To claim that the lenders were at fault for giving a loan that the other person agreed to is completely absolving the person from their bad decision in the first place.

Why should I have to pay for my neighbors bad decision? It's one thing to take a hit on my market value, it's another to take that hit AND have to pay in more taxes to make their payment for them.

If the lender agrees to loan me 15 million dollars (you know I'm not a $15M player, right?), wouldn't that be foolish for the lender? Even a teeny tiny bit?

Not really... the lender can loan you 15 million, then wrap that debt in a security and sell the security to someone else. This is at the crux of the mortgage "crisis"... the securitization of vast amounts of bad mortgage debt in an attempt to conceal the fact that it was a bad loan to begin with. It's a legal pyramid scheme.

So you're saying that legal pyramid schemes which cause crises are not foolish? clown

Canuck Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:34 pm

meta4 wrote:
pez wrote:
meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:To claim that the lenders were at fault for giving a loan that the other person agreed to is completely absolving the person from their bad decision in the first place.

Why should I have to pay for my neighbors bad decision? It's one thing to take a hit on my market value, it's another to take that hit AND have to pay in more taxes to make their payment for them.

If the lender agrees to loan me 15 million dollars (you know I'm not a $15M player, right?), wouldn't that be foolish for the lender? Even a teeny tiny bit?

Not really... the lender can loan you 15 million, then wrap that debt in a security and sell the security to someone else. This is at the crux of the mortgage "crisis"... the securitization of vast amounts of bad mortgage debt in an attempt to conceal the fact that it was a bad loan to begin with. It's a legal pyramid scheme.

So you're saying that legal pyramid schemes which cause crises are not foolish?

You see him saying that really? I don't, I got the impression he is just pointing out how it works...I also think you are just being sarcastic towards him...lol, right?

Guest Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:37 pm

Canuck wrote:
meta4 wrote:
So you're saying that legal pyramid schemes which cause crises are not foolish?

You see him saying that really? I don't, I got the impression he is just pointing out how it works...I also think you are just being sarcastic towards him...lol, right?

Yeah, sorry... I thought the drunk passed out clown would suggest sarcasm Wink

The drunk, passed out clown was a meta4 for ... uhm... meta4 Very Happy

Sponsored content