IBM chief's 2008 pay valued at nearly $21M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Amaster

Yeah, but Bel, what if you're an employee who just lost his job because his boss a hundred tiers further up on the ladder drove the company into the ground? Should you lose your job over something you had absolutely no control over or chance to prevent?

---

Do you understand what's going on in the economy right now? Do you realize how people at every rung of the ladder are affected? If not, take some time to look for the Crisis of Credit animation and watch it. Come back when you're done.

The lenders, bankers, and investors played roulette with their money. This is the savings and investments of the little people they were playing with; the big players had almost no real money but lots of loans that promised to return. Anyway, back to the gambling. The fat cats played roulette because they had a safety net: employees. Once they got burned, they ran to the government. The government lent them money. The fat cats laid off the little people who gave them the money to gamble with in the first place.

Let's say I give you $100 and I tell you that tomorrow I'll give you enough money to make your total money $100. Are you going to invest the $100 I give you in a long-term, safe, low-yield investment and thus get $0 and $103 5 years from now? Or would you rather bet your $100 at gambling? If you gamble, you might make $1000 or you might lose $100, followed by a repayment of $100. You are a fool if you don't gamble; you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

So, we fostered an environment where bankers can gamble with our money, and if they lose they'll get their money back. The trouble is, it's their money they get back; the poor saps who gave them the money get to hope and pray that they get some money back from the banker. This is not a good thing. It's going to prevent an economic disaster now in return for causing a bigger economic disaster in the future. I do not believe in reward without risk at the expense of others. If things were set up such that those who own a corporation were liable for damages out of their personal assets, I believe we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. It's easy to gamble with someone else's money but it stings when you lose your own.

...how is your example contradictory to mine? They seem to complement each other, two different smaller problems in the big main problem.

Atma... I totally 100% agree with you. And when I posted I wasn't even thinking about the knuckleheads that play sports that make *millions and billions* for a salary - that they ain't even worth .0000000000000001% of.

An economy where sports players make that kind of money is just so stupid. It seems like it revels in the fact that they're (sports players, CEO's, Bankers, etc) stomping on the "little guys" so that they can get all they can before someone catches 'em.

And what I can't understand is why these actions/attitudes are all so tolerated. If all the sports fans REFUSED to pay the admissions to all those sports arena's... and refused to pay all the bloated prices and fees... hopefully everything/everyone would smarten up and get things right.

So basically you can't blame the sports industry for the prices... but the fault has to be placed at the feet of those actually agreeing to pay those exorbitant prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prrkitty

So basically you can't blame the sports industry for the prices... but the fault has to be placed at the feet of those actually agreeing to pay those exorbitant prices.

---

Why is it a "fault"? Why is it evil that people are becoming wealthy and enjoying themselves?

If the service they offer is worth value to someone else, and they are willing to pay that value, it is a rational exchange between consenting parties.

There is nothing wrong with "the system" because "the system" is really just the freedom of individuals to choose what they enjoy and what they spend their heard earned money on.

I have no problem with people getting wealthy for providing a service other people are willing to pay for.

I have a huge problem with people getting money as a reward for failing, which is what Obamanomics does.

People may get money for failing under, as you put it Obamanomics, but the sub-clause there is that it has to be used to actually fix the problem. The money isn't going to the corporate bigwigs who ruined everything, that's the point of the salary cap. It's going to (hopefully)save a company and keep hundreds of innocent people from losing their jobs, through no fault of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Amaster

. It's going to (hopefully)save a company and keep hundreds of innocent people from losing their jobs, through no fault of their own.

---

How is it going to save the company? Does it change their business model? Does it improve their products? No. It just props them a little while longer..

It's a tragic waste of money. Only failure and the free market can stimulate a company to adapt and survive. Failure is good. It teaches managers not to be greedy and stupid. If companies are not allowed to fail, there will be no inspiration to try and survive.

Obama is the champion of mediocrity, inspiring true and lasting mediocrity in a mediocre generation of mediocre americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beldaran

Obamanomics

---

Huh. I could've sworn Henry Paulson was a member of the Bush cabinet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDragon

Huh. I could've sworn Henry Paulson was a member of the Bush cabinet.

---

Yes, exactly. Bush the left wing spender, government grower, just like Obama.

Have you seen Obama's budget? Obamanomics indeed.