patrick.net

Patrick,

I would suggest you take a lesson from Winston Churchill, e.g. his declaration of war on Japan in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_declares_war_on_Japan_(1941)

"But after all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." ;)

What is up with American Airlines? All this stuff about safety inspections and grounded flights seems mighty fishy to me. Lots of airlines have fleets of MD-80 airplanes, but why is it mostly Delta and AA that are grounded?

AA has a large fleet of MD-80's. Continental and Southwest have none.

I hate old planes. I choose my flights base on the aircrafts. And I don't like flying in anything from MD.

What is up with American Airlines? All this stuff about safety inspections and grounded flights seems mighty fishy to me.

Someone at the FAA is short American Airlines!

And OK, "silly tool of the banks" deleted.

The Bill doesn't do much for housing. It's plain robbery. Giving out benefits to shareholders of big builders and may be a few speculators in the name of helping housing. Still worth the fight against bad bills.

surfer-x said:
I say the US military pull out everywhere and just let the fuckers fight amongst themselves.

Actually, I can see the logic in this. Secure our borders, deploy the world's greatest military in defensive mode, and tell everyone to sort it out by themselves. We only get involved if someone:
1. is dumb enough to f*ck with us
2. is getting big enough to be a threat to us
3. is beginning to wave their nukes around

Sure, while the war is raging, our "economy" will be a fraction of its pre-war size, and we will need to deal with the privations imposed by self-sufficiency for a few years. The best part of it is that the banksters will be too busy lending to the warring parties, and hopefully will leave us alone for a while...

Oh, forgot to add: "Not Foreign Policy Advice" :-)

Wow, your letter was pretty rough. You're obviously dead on though.

By the way, I heard the NPR story the other day with your interview. I ended up sending a note to the journalist and got a response.

The one thing that bugs me most about bailout reporting and the legislation to date is that neither deals with the fact that many people who stand to be bailed out are in the position they're in simply because they took equity out of their homes. So, the question is, is this bailout a subsidy intended to keep poor innocent folks in their homes, or is it a subsidy for whatever people felt like buying (cars, boats, remodels, vacations) with their home equity?

I heard the NPR story too. One lady commented, People need those Home Equity Loans, They have build a life style around it.

We should add that to constitution. It's a fundamental right of people.

Great email, but unless you include a very LARGE donation, just expect more boilerplate, and no consideration.

It sounds like you should have shorted Frontier instead.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/10/financial/f232455D98.DTL&tsp=1

I would say that any email that calls a Congresswaoman a ’silly tool of the banks’ is not intended to be taken seriously.

Well he could've called her a silly cow if he wanted to be offensive. Silly tool of the banks is accurate and therefore not 'namecalling'. Besides, see HARM @ 9:04am for how to be listened to. Politeness is irrelevant in this case.

What does this tell us about Obama?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1116676020080411

Obama denounces big corporate pay packages

Pay packages are determined by the market. If someone wants changes, he better be a shareholder.

What is next? Workers of blue states unite?

The best weapon against outrageous executive pay is hostile takeover.

Peter P
the link you provided answers your question:

in a drive to convert middle-class anger about the U.S. economy into votes.

That's all it tells us and nothing else. We know absolutely nothing about this man and have absolutely no idea what he would do if elected. Consequently, I am stunned at his level of support!

McCain is surprisingly quiet nowadays.

Who will be his VP? Rice? Romney?

shareholders don't get to approve executives pay.

The best weapon against outrageous executive pay is hostile takeover.

That is just naive. First, it's a highly inefficient method. Second, the probability of hostile takeovers, especially with the express purpose of curtailing executive pay, is near zero. Third, there is no motivation or rationale from the perspective of of the hostile takeover advocate to act solely for executive pay. I doubt activist shareholders have exec pay on the top of their lists right now, or anytime in the near future.

shareholders don’t get to approve executives pay.

But they can fire the board who approves the pay.

Any non-shareholder should not have any say over executive pay because it is none of his f*cking business.

Skibum, if executive pay by itself is not significant enough to warrant an arbitrage condition than the excessiveness of the pay is a moot point.

But they can fire the board who approves the pay.
Highly unlikely... although majority shareholder voting for the BOD holds out some hope for reforming the system.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/11/making-directors-account.html

And then there are proxy wars. Fun!

Remember, minority shareholders are not forced to hold company shares.

The best investor protection is the freedom to invest and divest.

Is excessive executive pay unfair? Probably. Should someone do something about it? Only the shareholders should, if they can. Caveat emptor.

Peter says:
Any non-shareholder should not have any say over executive pay because it is none of his f*cking business.

True in your free market which doesn't exist. In current market when tax payers have to take losses, it is my business. Also most people's 401k's are invested in all big companies.

I personally don't have anything against pay on performance. People like gates, jobs and co can take whatever they want. CEO's of oil companies, financial companies (basically not performance based) who get paid huge bonuses just because markets were favourable to them or booked profits early and left others to eat losses later would be my concern.

Peter P,

I have to say this, so excuse me if it offends you.

It seems like you have never worked in the corporate world and you really have no handle of what a "free market" is.

Executive pay is a result of "you scratch my back and I scratch your back" and it has absolutely nothing to do with market pay. How do you determine the executive pay through open market, by bidding? Do you know how you even get into the line of executives available for bidding? Do you know how the board of directors are selected? Have you even participated in something remotely related to selection of board of directors?

What Obama said is exactly right. There is no such thing as pure freedom, if you desire pure freedom, pack and move to Mars. We all live in regulated freedom.

Also most people’s 401k’s are invested in all big companies.

Why invest in companies whose leaders don't even own 10% of the shares?

And the sad thing is, Peter P, I don't even think that you are up there in the food chain to enjoy such state of "freedom". You are quite far removed from the powers who are enjoying the "freedom", so why are you defending it?

If I were up there with the powers, I would do everything I could to defend such a "free market". But since I am not, I would like to rattle the cage a bit and regulate the powers up there so there may a chance some day that I can end up at the top of the food chain.

Until then, I am not going to root for other people's causes. I root for my own cause, which is to redistribute the money from the top, gently to people like myself through regulation or whatever force we deem legitimate because we are in absolute larger number. But I don't want to rattle the cage that much because I am still quite satisfied with my social pecking order and I don't want to end up slipping.

And the sad thing is, Peter P, I don’t even think that you are up there in the food chain to enjoy such state of “freedom”. You are quite far removed from the powers who are enjoying the “freedom”, so why are you defending it?

Perhaps because it makes no difference one way or the other? Our choice: self-serving politicians or self-serving businessmen.

Until then, I am not going to root for other people’s causes.

And you think regulations will actually work in your favor?

If the people "up there" really prefer a truly free market, Ron Paul would have a lot more support.

Regulations will actually work in my favor, because regulations will always have to take care of the the group in larger number, at least in a democratic society. Until I have amassed so much fortune that I start to become one of the 1% controlling 70% of the US wealth, I think regulation will work in my favor. By then, I will donate heavily to politicians through lobbyists for NO regulations whatsoever.

People "up there" never prefer a true free market. True free market does not exist in this world, get that into your head. People "up there" only want free market to their own advantage, which is exactly what we are seeing today. You can't argue that the mortgage market was not truly a free market in the last 5 years, it was as free as it gets. Is that what you want for everything?

A democracy will never be put in real practice until we have self-serving citizens. Everyone thinking thoroughly through about what he wants, what he needs, what other people want and need and try to find a balance in between.

Democracy was obviously in hibernation in this country for the last 8 years since everyone was scared sh*tless because of 911.

People “up there” only want free market to their own advantage, which is exactly what we are seeing today.

So you can be assured that any new regulation will also be an implementation of their version of Free Market. ;)

You can’t argue that the mortgage market was not truly a free market in the last 5 years, it was as free as it gets. Is that what you want for everything?

It was not free because people were not allowed to fail.

My guess. Peter P simply makes a wild one-liner remark to pick an argument. There is always some intellectual basis to it, but ...

The argument is quite relevant, don't you think? I thought the thread was about policy makers trying to decide what is good for the people. ;)

Look, I don't have to peddle Free Market. I can go back to sushi talks...

I only know one thing: I, and people in my financial position are not the biggest beneficiary of the current "free market" or whatever market you want to call it. So I want a change. To be more precise, I want a change that will redistribute the X millions or billions that people "up there" make to the rest of us, even if I don't get the biggest stake in the redistribution of wealth.

Why do I want such a change? Because I don't think the people "up there" deserve their millions. I have no problems with Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs or even Bill Gates making whatever they made, I have lots of problems with Wall Street making what they make.

I have no problems with Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs or even Bill Gates making whatever they made, I have lots of problems with Wall Street making what they make.

Who are you to judge? ;)

My moto:

Nobody deserves to have anything. Everybody deserves to get anything.

Peter P

I want to say in advance that I'm not trying to be offensive - I only jest.

But every time you get on your free market "high horse" followed by nihilism, when challenged, I have an almost uncontrollable urge to quote Inigo Montoya:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Peter P,

I don't comment frequently (but read every thread). I value your contributions and don't want to seem like I'm piling on but I need ask (and sincerely ask) do you really believe the comments you make? Do you really believe that:

Pay packages are determined by the market.

or

They (Shareholders) can fire the board who approves the pay.

Tell me the truth, Peter P, you don't really believe these, do you? You're really just a fun loving Randian/Libertarian who enjoys throwing out baiting comments for grins, right?

Right?

Well... I will leave you guessing. ;)