how is the SHAREHOLDERS approving compensation packages government intervention?
Did you really not read the article?
If the government passes legislation - that it sounds like Barney Frank wants to introduce - to require shareholder approval of compensation packages, then yes, that would be considered government intervention.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You're right. But, in many cases involving major corporations, boards simply buy up enough of the share block to assume a majority holding status. It's hard to fend off the shear buying power most of these folks have.
Well, for those companies, it would be up to the other shareholders to decide for themselves if the equity position they hold is still worth holding. They certainly have the option to liquidate their positions in any company that isn't performing to their expectations, whether that be issues with gross margins, growth, employee stock plans, ceo compensation packages, etc... No need for government intervention.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
If the government passes legislation - that it sounds like Barney Frank wants to introduce - to require shareholder approval of compensation packages, then yes, that would be considered government intervention.
but the government is not regulating business practices, just mandating that the businesses must be accountable to the people who are funding them. if you wanna turn it around and look at from another direction, it's a measure to prevent theft... companies taking stockholder money and then telling them to go fuck themselves.
bottom line is, the government is not telling the business what to do. it is saying that the government has to listen to its stockholders. seems reasonable enough. the measures id propose would be even more dramatic.
but the government is not regulating business practices, just mandating that the businesses must be accountable to the people who are funding them. if you wanna turn it around and look at from another direction, it's a measure to prevent theft... companies taking stockholder money and then telling them to go fuck themselves.
bottom line is, the government is not telling the business what to do. it is saying that the government has to listen to its stockholders. seems reasonable enough. the measures id propose would be even more dramatic.
Corporations already are accountable to their shareholders. So that isn't the issue. This would mandate that ceo compensation packages would be approved by shareholders. Why stop there? Why not require that corporations get shareholder approval for all employee vacation requests?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Corporations already are accountable to their shareholders. So that isn't the issue. This would mandate that ceo compensation packages would be approved by shareholders. Why stop there? Why not require that corporations get shareholder approval for all employee vacation requests?
maybe they should. it'd be nice to have somebody keeping the rich from abusing their position of power.
despite what your preacher teaches you, this country was not founded on god and getting rich at the expense of anyone and everyone weaker than you. it was founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that the wealthy and powerful should not be able to abuse their positions unchecked and should be held accountable like everyone else. now i know that you're terrified that if the government does something to check CEO's from being paid $200 mil for getting fired then in a matter of months the dirty proletariat peasants will be stealing your jaguar, but let's be realistic here. this is legislation to keep the super-wealthy from abusing their advantageous position at the expense of stockholders. this is not advocating government examination of vacation time and you and i both know that such a thing will never happen. becos despite your best efforts to the contrary, most americans are not insane. we're a relatively reasonable and common sense group of people. we realize that unchecked power corrupts and that excessive meddling is inefficient. thus we reject your ayn rand nonsense about consuming the weak to feed your bank, and we also reject karl marx's nonsense about a totally equal utopia. instead, the great majority support the freedom to mostly do what you want, provided you don't do something really stupid at other people's expense, like drive drunk, drive without insurance, or hand your failing employee $200 mil of stockholder funds with his pink slip. cry me a river. at least you aren't enslaved.
it was founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that the wealthy and powerful should not be able to abuse their positions unchecked and should be held accountable like everyone else.
Why are you so passionate about penalizing successful people for their successes? You have an irrational fear of success. CEO's are not unchecked. They are totally accountable to shareholders and the company's board of directors.
now i know that you're terrified that if the government does something to check CEO's from being paid $200 mil for getting fired then in a matter of months the dirty proletariat peasants will be stealing your jaguar, but let's be realistic here. this is legislation to keep the super-wealthy from abusing their advantageous position at the expense of stockholders.
Shoudn't that be an issue for the shareholders to address?
this is not advocating government examination of vacation time and you and i both know that such a thing will never happen. becos despite your best efforts to the contrary, most americans are not insane. we're a relatively reasonable and common sense group of people.
I don't believe this. With the number of people in favor of anti-smoking legislation, racial hatred, fear of same sex marriages, lightbulb legislation, and government intrusion in business it is clear that common sense plays no part in policy.
we realize that unchecked power corrupts and that excessive meddling is inefficient. thus we reject your ayn rand nonsense about consuming the weak to feed your bank, and we also reject karl marx's nonsense about a totally equal utopia. instead, the great majority support the freedom to mostly do what you want, provided you don't do something really stupid at other people's expense, like drive drunk, drive without insurance, or hand your failing employee $200 mil of stockholder funds with his pink slip. cry me a river. at least you aren't enslaved.
You act as if you speak for the majority. I'm not sure the majority are actually in favor of this "stick it to the rich, punish success" mantra that drives you. Perhaps the majority on this board, but not in real life.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
If insider trading is illegal, then the mere fact that these boards have the power to give their candidates for CEO enough shares to override any vote for CEO by the shareholders is pretty crooked to me. Read a little about Robert Nardelli. The guy basically had no idea what he was doing with Home Depot and cashed in $250 million dollars for his efforts. If the board didn't have the power to effectively stuff the ballot boxes this probably could have been avoided. Of course, they aren't offering the new incoming CEO a severance package up front this time.
All people have to do is not invest money in the company stock if they do not like how the CEO is compensated. It's simple, people.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I have to say I am pleasantly suprised by the President's stance on this and in agreement with him.
Yeah, what he said can be summed up basically like this:
"I don't like the fact that these CEOs make so much money, but I'm not gonna fuck with them....you people can fight that battle. I'll just keep smoking cigars with the CEOs who heavily funded my campaign."
Yeah, what he said can be summed up basically like this:
"I don't like the fact that these CEOs make so much money, but I'm not gonna fuck with them....you people can fight that battle. I'll just keep smoking cigars with the CEOs who heavily funded my campaign."
True. But what I wish he'd have said was:
"I may not like the fact that these CEOs make so much money. You may not like it either. But as long as they aren't breaking any laws, and as long as the Board of Directors and shareholders of the company don't have an issue with it, then it is none of our god damned business."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Did you really not read the article?
If the government passes legislation - that it sounds like Barney Frank wants to introduce - to require shareholder approval of compensation packages, then yes, that would be considered government intervention.
Well, for those companies, it would be up to the other shareholders to decide for themselves if the equity position they hold is still worth holding. They certainly have the option to liquidate their positions in any company that isn't performing to their expectations, whether that be issues with gross margins, growth, employee stock plans, ceo compensation packages, etc... No need for government intervention.
but the government is not regulating business practices, just mandating that the businesses must be accountable to the people who are funding them. if you wanna turn it around and look at from another direction, it's a measure to prevent theft... companies taking stockholder money and then telling them to go fuck themselves.
bottom line is, the government is not telling the business what to do. it is saying that the government has to listen to its stockholders. seems reasonable enough. the measures id propose would be even more dramatic.
Corporations already are accountable to their shareholders. So that isn't the issue. This would mandate that ceo compensation packages would be approved by shareholders. Why stop there? Why not require that corporations get shareholder approval for all employee vacation requests?
maybe they should. it'd be nice to have somebody keeping the rich from abusing their position of power.
despite what your preacher teaches you, this country was not founded on god and getting rich at the expense of anyone and everyone weaker than you. it was founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that the wealthy and powerful should not be able to abuse their positions unchecked and should be held accountable like everyone else. now i know that you're terrified that if the government does something to check CEO's from being paid $200 mil for getting fired then in a matter of months the dirty proletariat peasants will be stealing your jaguar, but let's be realistic here. this is legislation to keep the super-wealthy from abusing their advantageous position at the expense of stockholders. this is not advocating government examination of vacation time and you and i both know that such a thing will never happen. becos despite your best efforts to the contrary, most americans are not insane. we're a relatively reasonable and common sense group of people. we realize that unchecked power corrupts and that excessive meddling is inefficient. thus we reject your ayn rand nonsense about consuming the weak to feed your bank, and we also reject karl marx's nonsense about a totally equal utopia. instead, the great majority support the freedom to mostly do what you want, provided you don't do something really stupid at other people's expense, like drive drunk, drive without insurance, or hand your failing employee $200 mil of stockholder funds with his pink slip. cry me a river. at least you aren't enslaved.
Greed and averice are ugly vices. Demonizing the rich is a lazy way to avoid talking about real issues.
I'm not sure where you got the preacher nonsense from. I don't have a preacher, a church or a religion.
Why are you so passionate about penalizing successful people for their successes? You have an irrational fear of success. CEO's are not unchecked. They are totally accountable to shareholders and the company's board of directors.
Shoudn't that be an issue for the shareholders to address?
I don't believe this. With the number of people in favor of anti-smoking legislation, racial hatred, fear of same sex marriages, lightbulb legislation, and government intrusion in business it is clear that common sense plays no part in policy.
You act as if you speak for the majority. I'm not sure the majority are actually in favor of this "stick it to the rich, punish success" mantra that drives you. Perhaps the majority on this board, but not in real life.
All people have to do is not invest money in the company stock if they do not like how the CEO is compensated. It's simple, people.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"I don't like the fact that these CEOs make so much money, but I'm not gonna fuck with them....you people can fight that battle. I'll just keep smoking cigars with the CEOs who heavily funded my campaign."
True. But what I wish he'd have said was:
"I may not like the fact that these CEOs make so much money. You may not like it either. But as long as they aren't breaking any laws, and as long as the Board of Directors and shareholders of the company don't have an issue with it, then it is none of our god damned business."