home

Friday Morning Open thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:32:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Misinformation On The AIG Bonus Issue | Shock and Awe >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Victory Gardens (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    And here I thought that I was making a cheap joke

    When I was actually being incredibly astute...

    Actually, I do think this is a great idea.  We're going to start a local area farmer's market in conjunction with a Summer Concert series that is done in the Town of Duck this Summer.  It's in the planning stages now.

    p.s. hopefully the links work...I might need a primer...

    I think it is a great idea... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:33:43 AM EST
    hopefully it will encourage people to get involved with vegetable gardening, even if it is just a couple of containers of patio tomatoes.

    Parent
    Ah...got it (none / 0) (#8)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    And here I thought that I was making a cheap joke

    When I was actually being incredibly astute...

    Actually, I do think this is a great idea.  We're going to start a local area farmer's market in conjunction with a Summer Concert series that is done in the Town of Duck this Summer.  It's in the planning stages now.

    p.s. hopefully the links work...I might need a primer...


    Parent

    Now i really got it... (none / 0) (#12)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    astute

    Parent
    When Obama (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    appeared on Leno last night he did make a statement that was right on point.

    He said that we have to encourage bright young students to major in engineering and scientific disciplines and be steered away from majoring in  finance. My belief in spades. Finance related majors were only pursued by about 3% of students in the early 50s.  I don't know the percentage now but would wager it is far, far higher.  

    That does get to the core of our real problem, the dominance of finance at the expense of developing and making stuff, the creation of real wealth.  Finance should be a servant not the master.

    Unfortunately his administration appears to be  preserving the finance industry intact instead of getting involved in serious fundamental reform.

    when "financials" are, what, 30-40% (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:20:05 AM EST
     0f GNP, that is just wrong....

    Parent
    The hard sciences... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    ...are our hope from getting out from under our problems.  Be it medical or technological innovation--those are the things that we need to nuture, encourage and develop.  

    Parent
    Somehow we need to stress.. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    that the way to get rich is by building something...a factory, a new product, an innovation....and not by just making money out of money through shady dealing.

    Parent
    agreed, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    chasing money for the sake of only profit seem somehow unhealthy.  

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#34)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    Good ideas should be chasing capital. Not the other way around.  When capital chases ideas, we get into messes...and this is what happened after the dot.com bust...capital flowed into real estate.

    Parent
    But we need to add that... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by EL seattle on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    ... if an individual gets rich by building something...a factory, a new product, an innovation... in China or another offshore site, that may not be much of a solution to the country's financial challenges.

    Parent
    Finance (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    has driven the offshoring.

    Parent
    Universities routinely pay business professors (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    more than regular profs, even if all belong to the same union and even though they're all state employees.  And the business schools have chairs that are funded by corporate America, which means they get extra money there as well.  All of the great business schools have made their mark teaching outsourcing and offshoring, which obviously helps destroy our middle class.  

    The way to compete with corporate America's takeover of universities is to require balanced pay and to fund students in the hard sciences, keeping those fields competitive with the greed based fields.


    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    But Engineering professors are also paid way more than say, Liberal Arts or Education professors.

    Parent
    as are (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    law and medical school profs-- and even within colleges and  departments those who are repsonsible for bringing in more grant money, etc., often are paid more than colleagues.

      Universities are rife with decisions based on market, business, political and other considerations divorced from pure academia.

    Parent

    that's a good point (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:05:28 AM EST
      but a large factor in the increase is that the world of high finance was even more of a closed club in the 50s. Many firms in those days did not hire or had "quotas" for Jews, and blacks or women wouldn't have been considered for anything more than typing or janitorial services.

      To some extent the increased numbers reflect increased and more egalitarian opportunity.

    Parent

    No they don't (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    That has nothing to do with our upside down fundamentals.  What you addressed was a problem in all of society.  Those problems weren't restricted to the finance industry they were everywhere.  Hell I remember filling out job applications that asked about religious affiliation.  

    You failed to see the point that our direction in the past three decades has been deeply destructive.  I was addressing the dominance of finance to the detriment of science, industry, etc.

    Parent

    not all sectors (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:29:20 AM EST
      I didn't miss your point or disagree with it, if you read my comment. I merely pointed out that part of the reason for the increased numbers is increased opportunity.

       I strongly agree that the biggest problem we face is that our domestic economy has become so skewed to services and management and away from production.

    Parent

    You are completely wrong (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    the reason for the increased numbers is increased opportunity.

    Racial, gender, national origin, etc. opportunity has NOTHING to do with the dominance of the finance industry.

    Parent

    slow down, calm down, think (1.50 / 2) (#39)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    you wrote:

    My belief in spades. Finance related majors were only pursued by about 3% of students in the early 50s.  I don't know the percentage now but would wager it is far, far higher.

      This is to what I was responding  and part of this increase is obviously influenced by the fact more people have access to good jobs in the fields open to majors.

      Otherwise, was not disagreeing with you despite the fact you fly off the handle so easily.

    Parent

    No - You Are Wrong (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    On all counts.

    This is to what I was responding  and part of this increase is obviously influenced by the fact more people have access to good jobs in the fields open to majors.

    Obviously?  Again, various forms of bias have nothing to due with the dominance of the finance industry.

    You seem to have a serious comprehension problem.


    Parent

    various forms of bias (none / 0) (#56)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:54:38 AM EST
     do have an obvious influence on the majors students will choose. If I was a black or woman  in the 1950s, I would be less likely to choose to major in finance because of the unavailability of jobs when I graduated. today, i would be more likely to choose that major because it would be more likely I could get a job using that major.

    Parent
    You so (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    don't understand.

    One last try.  I'll make it very simple.

    The availability of jobs is based on the needs  (size) of the industry and on nothing else.

    Who (gender, race, etc) fills those jobs is not a factor in the size of the industry.  

    The point, is the size and influence of the industry.

    Parent

    Let me make it simple (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:35:42 PM EST
      I was explaining part of the reason we have a higher percentageof finance majors today than in the 50s.

      If you do not see the connection to over 50% of the population in the 1950s knowing that good jobs in finance were not available to them -- not due to market conditions, growth or anything so related but because of racial and gender bias as being a partial explanation why relatively fewer people who attend college majored in finance, I don't know what to tell you. It would appear self-evident to me that when more people believe they have a chance at a job using a certain major more people will take that major.

       That does not mean that the increase in the numbers of students drives the growth in that industry, and i have made no such suggestion. It does mean that schools that educated people in previously restricted fields grew faster relative to schools educating people in fields that were less restricted before.

      I can't believe anyone would argue that the knowen demographic movement  of women on campus from fields such as teaching and social work in the 1950s to previously male dominated majors did not contribute to the increase in relative size of those previously male dominated majors.

     

    Parent

    Tweety was saying some interesting stuff (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    last night.  I only caught part of it but it seemed to be suggesting that Obama was planning to include Health Care and lots of other stuff in some gigantic budget bill.  a bill so huge and sweeping he was comparing it to the civil rights legislation of the 60s.  apparently the reason for this is that it only requires 51 votes.(for a budget?)
    did I hear this right.  anyone else heard anything about this.  personally I think its a fabulous idea,
    that is if I  heard right.  and of course if Tweety had any idea what he was talking about.
    transcript (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    MATTHEWS:  OK.  Go with my theory here.  And I want to ask you, do you think he`s going for the big casino, basically saying, he calls it his budget, what he really means is the whole shebang, health care, education, and energy--cap and trade, that whole thing on climate change?

    I think he wants the Senate to take it up as a big vote, a big bill under the budget rules and pass it up or down.  I think he wants to do that.

    HARRIS:  And I think what he`s trying.

    MATTHEWS:  Don`t you?

    HARRIS:  Yes.  What he`s trying to get voters to believe in is this notion that the White House has been selling which is that you can`t fix the economy without also fixing energy, without also fixing health care.

    MATTHEWS:  Yes.

    HARRIS:  And I don`t think that the average person sees all of those things as related together.  The White House is trying to sell it...

    MATTHEWS:  Well, they will if they`re in one bill and he`s asking for one vote.

    HARRIS:  Right, right, right, up and down, right.

    MATTHEWS:  This is going to be the hottest vote in a long time since the civil rights bills.  If he forces the Senate to vote up or down with 50 votes being enough and says to hell with this 60-vote anti-filibuster requirement, just says no, this is under the budget act, I`m allowed to pass this thing with 50 votes, and the Republicans raise hell about it, and Harry Reid holds firm, and Dick Durbin holds firm and says, damn it, we`re going to vote this thing, that`s why we had this election last November, boy, that is big time.  Don`t you think?  

    Parent

    A budget resolution (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    cannot be filibustered, against Senate rules.

    Parent
    London police.... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    gearing up for the G20 summit, or as the protestors are calling it, "Financial Fools Day".  

    Hopefully the authorities don't go overboard...its very important for the summit attendees to see, up close and personal, the anger their greed and excess has sparked, and for them to realize what is at stake if they don't start flying right and quick.

    Part of what got us here is the insulation the masters of the universe enjoy,  the seperation of the "haves" from the "have nots".  Hopefully the police don't insulate the attendees from the protests too much.

    cnbc (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:28:43 AM EST
    runs the headline:

    Pros Say: This Is the Bottom

    When you click on the link there is ONE pro named Clem Chambers, with only 3 googleable news items citing his name, one on March 4, 6th and today.

    A more fitting headline would have been PRO says or even more appropriate, Clem Chambers, guy who said on 10-20-08:

    "At this moment the market is around its natural low, but there is no reason to brave the market at this point because the market has two signals to tell you when to get in. The first is volatility.

    Until wild volatility ceases we are not safe to enter the market. Volatility is a function of market confusion and it is hard to be in a sustained bull market when the market is confused. You can happily leave bottom picking and volatility for those brave enough to risk big losses. When the market knows it's going up it doesn't go on rural routes, it takes the freeway. Secondly, most bottoms make a "W." As such, there is no need to buy the first bottom, you can buy after the second bottom when volatility has dropped and the market finally seems to be making the last leg of the W.

    There is little point in trying to buy the bottom of the first crash move; it's the kind of fun most of us can do without. Meanwhile, waiting a couple of weeks won't hurt. If the market fell further, the same rules apply. Let volatility die and let the market clearly start on the last leg of the W. It's frustrating to wait, but it's better than watching your money burn on the bonfire of a crash.

    In Pictures: Stocks For Ken Fisher's Daddy

    So I suppose I'm saying I'm now a bull, because we are now at the moment when a bottom is going to be hit."

    forbes

    or this:

    Time To Buy Cleverly
    Clem Chambers, ADVFN, 11.11.08, 05:00 PM EST
    The time to be fearful was a few months ago. After the crash, we're now near the bottom.

    "Readers of my monthly soapboxes must not only be bored of my bearish pronouncements over the last two years but must also be thoroughly sick of all the bearishness in general.

    Now that everyone has woken up to a crash, everything you read is full of gloom. However, the accident has happened, the rest is now just an ugly clean up. The disaster is over; the only way is up."

    In defense, Chambers was out in front stating the market was inflated in 2007, but I do find it ridiculous that he has stated we are at bottom 3x since 10-08.

    Jlvngstn..... (none / 0) (#49)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    Just curious, do you comment at a financial site called Minyanville?

    Parent
    no, never heard of it (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    is there an ignorant white dude posting there also?

    Parent
    No, I only post here. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:01:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Who you callin' ignorant? (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and insight J....it's the brainiacs in charge who look ignorant to me.

    Now if I could just keep so much of it from flying right over my simple head...:)

    Parent

    LOL.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    just someone using a similar moniker. Since many of your posts here tend to be about the markets, I wondered if it was you.

    Parent
    Query: re Megan McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:51:47 AM EST
    Am I missing anything if I just ignore her and everyone who attacks or defends her?

    Only you can answer that... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    ...Oculus.  Myself, I think Megan looks fine just the way she is, even if she does come off as a spoiled little rich girl at times (i.e., this whole "oh woe is me, I can't find anyone to date me because of my Father" thing.  

    She does have a point about the elements that are taking over the GOP and alientating it from the younger generation, I think.

    It is sad that her own Father has decided not to defend her at all.  But not really surprising.

    Parent

    Becase big tent (1.50 / 2) (#13)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:12:20 AM EST
      won't let me put this in the proper place.

     His statement that it's not surprising Dodd would receive a lot of money from AIG people because so many live and vote in CT is true. Most people, however,  might  view that as another  reason why he would be more likely to agree to provisions favorable to them  and not a very compelling basis for claiming his relationship with people at AIG did not influence him.

      Don't tell him I said this. It will make him mad.

     

    Really, REALLY tiresome (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    I don't blame BTD for banning you from his threads.  This comment could have been made without any reference to him whatsoever and would have lost no substance.

    It would have actually gained some.

    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:36:21 AM EST
      without the context that it was a response to BTD's assertion it is dishonest to suggest that Dodd's ties to AIG people might influence his actions as a Senator, it would have been a confusing non sequitur.

    Parent
    This is an open thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    They are ALL non sequiturs.  And it would not have been confusing in the slightest.  Not to your target audience anyway.

    For example, anything related to March Madness sounds to me like an adult in a Charlie Brown special.

    Your comment would have meant something to me.  However, if your actual target is BTD then the aspersion stuff has to remain, and you can leave out any reference to AIG altogether and still make your point.  

    Parent

    a couple of questions (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:45:13 AM EST
      How many people accept big Tent calling a person who mentions Dodd's AIG related donations dishonest because BTD has declared there is no spossibility those donation had any influence on dodd's decision to accede to Geithner's request that the legislation permit such bonuses?

      Is it really impossible for Dodd to have been more likely to agree to something helpful to AIG when he was a beneficiary of those donations?

     BTD keeps deleting my posts in his threads because he seems to resent people who actually challenge to back up his assertions with something more than bluster. He has done this numerous times and I find it remarkable that a person with such a high sense of self esteem feels so incapable of actually defending his positions. for instance he dismissed the argument theat Bailout bonus tax bill might have constitutional problems with the profounf response "nonsense." Yet when i wrote a couple of posts stating arguments why that is far from nonsense he deleted them.

       If he is so sure he is correct why would he not take the approach of answering the arguments suggesting constitutional concerns are not "nonsense" and instead censor the comments so others could not see the arguments contrary to his position?

     

    Your personal attacks on me (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    are precisely why you are banned from my threads and why I never address your responses in substantive fashion.

    You are free to comment in Open Threads and in the posts of Jeralyn, TChris and Ethan.

    I thank you for abiding by my decision here and hope you enjoy the site.

    Have a good day.

    Parent

    how is that a "personal" attack? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:52:13 AM EST
      I attacked your positions and I criticize your unwillingness to defend them through means other than deleting comments.

      What is unfair about that?

    I read your comment (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    It was a personal attack.

    Parent
    in what way? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:16:16 AM EST
     quote it!

    Parent
    As I said (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    I am not responding to you on substance. I hope you can move on and enjoy discussing substance on issues covered by J, TChris and Ethan.

    In any event, you are free to vent against me here in the open thread.

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:01:08 AM EST
     you defend your decision to evade a substantive response to arguments challenging your assertions with a simple refusal to do so?

     But, then, how do you defend your  belief you are acting in an ethical fashion by censoring my substantive rebuttals? Why must  you make sure no one can see what I said about  constitutional concerns about the tax proposals not being nonsense for very specific reasons?

    I won't engage you anymore (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    Agree or disagree, that is my decision and choice.

    As I said, enjoy the site, but do not comment in my threads.

    Cheers.

    Parent

    the budget (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:23:11 AM EST
     requires a majority vote for ultimate passage as with other legislation. I'd assume the thinking is more along the lines that opponents would be unwilling to be put in a position of being held responsible for "shutting down" government during a crisis by resorting to parliamentary maneuvers such as  the fillibuster which requires a 60 to stop with a cloture vote.

    I'd say (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:35:54 AM EST
      the market is helping him right now.

      More long-term, if you want to steer people to choose certain courses of study, it makes sense to provide greater financial assistance for those choosing those courses and to use the power of government to create more and better-paying jobs in the fields requiring those courses of study.

      If you want, say,  engineers, expand or create programs which will lead to increased demand for engineers. That can be infrastructure spending, defense spending, etc.

    Whoo whoo violater gone already nice work TL (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:48:44 AM EST


    Does anyone think it may get hard (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    to keep and find top executives and top producers at Wall St/TARP companies, if salary is limited to $500,000 and bonuses are taxed at 90%?

    While the House's tax bill is limited to the top 9 TARP recipients, the Senate's tax bill does not have that limitation.

    This is yet another example of why government should be involved in running or regulating business only in limited situations and only when it is clearly necessary.

    Congress is acting like a bunch of buffoons, in my view.

     

    I'm against the tax bill.... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    but I must say I am confident there are qualified financial wizards in India who will work for 500k....outsource, if its good enough for line workers its good enough for pencil pushers.

    Executive compensation in America was my first that clue that we do not have a free market in this country.  It is impossible to believe that there are no qualified applicants in the world who will work for less than your average American CEO....impossible to believe. Hence we have a rigged market.

    Parent

    I don't think we even... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    ...have to look to India to find those people.  I'm sure there are plenty here in the good ol' USA who possess the skills and abilities to run these companies and would jump at the chance to "only" make a half-mil per year.  

    Parent
    Including early retirees (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    who ran companies well -- but now have lost part of pensions, investments, etc., and would be willing to go back to work.  Even I know several of them.

    Parent
    Absolutely... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    these guys must not realize they are exactly like the protectionist trade unionists they supposedly despise.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    It will have some impact but nowhere near what the apologists suggest. That's still good money for work requiring no heavy lifting and the vast majority of people will not have better options.
      If some leave and go to other sectors not so limited there likely will be people just as smart eager to accept jobs on those terms. And, if the people who leave really are so brilliant, maybe it will be good to diffuse them throughout the economy so they can work their magic in other sectors which also need improvement.

      If the guy sitting at a screen and packaging deals has capabilities beyond mere mortals and simply can't survive on that money, maybe he'll go put together a consortium that cures cancer and discovers a clean and cehap energy source and has only been deterred from doing so by the lure of the  guaranteed big money.

    Parent

    The Answer to this is to pose the question... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    Were there any good U.S. corporate executives in the 1950's and 1960's when the top income tax rates were 91%?
    I believe that there were.
    If we can't curb reckless short-term behavior at the expense of the long-term health of the companies that they head, then we just might need to return to the pre-Reagan tax rate structures.

    Parent
    The top marginal tax rate (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    in those periods, which kicked in at $400,000, was not catching many people.

    In 1955, the median family income was $4,599.

    1.5% of families earned over $15,000.

    Senior executive pay has increased significantly in the past 20 or 25 years.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    You really asked two separate questions.  Producers need to be paid in proportion to the revenue they generate, even if the amount gets obscene.  If someone is responsible for bringing $50 million in investment banking business into the firm, the firm is going to have to pay them more than $500,000, no question about it.

    Executives who don't directly generate business are a different matter.  About 90% of these people are just faking it, in my view.  I don't particularly care if they have to settle for a mere $500,000.

    Anyway, these firms are perfectly free to refuse government assistance and pay their people as much as they darn well please.  Of course, since they'd be bankrupt without government assistance, the amount would be zero, but it's their call.

    Parent

    blah. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    don't like this answer at all.
    So income generators like the sales and marketing people get the lion's share and the income consumers, like software engineers who actually produce the product that is being sold get less!
    This is precisely why we have a glut of snake oil salesman in top executive positions in the U.S.
    In Europe and the Far East, it's more common for say a technical doctorate to head a technology company than in the U.S.
    And here when it comes time to produce the financials for the annual report, we get the "marketing embelishments" that predominate in those fields.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    The financial industry is a unique animal.  I am not suggesting that a car salesman is more intrinsically valuable than someone who builds cars.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#75)
    by gtesta on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    But a financial services industry is selling financial service.  And those things include: good online access, good report generation, good financial statements, etc.  And the IT division produces those things.

    Parent
    Steve: (none / 0) (#44)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    If someone is responsible for bringing $50 million in investment banking business into the firm, the firm is going to have to pay them more than $500,000, no question about it.

     Why is there "no question about it." I assume the answer is that person will take his $50,000,000 dollar book elsewhere. But where? If he takes it to a competitor what is the actual net loss to the economy? If he starts his own firm, doesn't that aid the goal of those who suggest we need to breakd down these behemoths into smaller entities so that individual firm failures will not have such drastic ripple effect?

    Parent

    I don't follow you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:02:23 PM EST
    If they don't pay that employee for the revenue he generates, he leaves and the firm loses all that revenue.  It's a suicidal way to run a company.

    Parent
    Hence attorneys and the (financial) gratitude (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    for their billable hours.

    Hey, shouldn't you be counting tiny fingers and toes right about now?

    Parent

    Any day now! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:47:54 PM EST


    Parent
    He needs to stop cooking now! (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    I bet mamma feels the same way!

    Parent
    That may be (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:18:02 PM EST
     But, as a stakeholder now, is your goal to save AIG as a company or to do what is best for the national economy?

      It seems too many people are buying at face value that "what is good for AIG is good for America."  I'm far from sold on that proposition and if the best argument is we risk AIG having to be reorganized or liquidated, then it is incumbent to show why reorganization or liquidation of AIG will have an appreciably worse impact on the whole society than spending billions anfter billions to allow it operate quasi-privately on my dime.

     

    Parent

    C'mon, didn't you get the memo? (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    The retention bonuses were BS. No one would want to hire an AIG exec, therefore, why pay them to stay? They've got nowhere else to go.

    Oops, 52 of them already found other jobs...

    Parent

    Great.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    I hope all 52 went to the same company, we can't afford to follow these guys around and keep bailing out the companies they tank.

    Parent
    52 (none / 0) (#63)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:06:32 PM EST
     is not a large number in relative terms.

      Additionally, how do we  know how many of them took jobs that are equally or more lucrative and how many people might have moved to less remunerative positions for reasons of greater long-term security, family reasons, and all the other reasons a person might switch. More importantly, probably, what reason do we have to believe that AIG cannot perform the functions of those people with other people who are not paid quite so handsomely? Even further, what reason do we have to believe the world will end if AIG can't perform those functions and they are either eliminated or performed elsewhere?

    Parent

    Details, details. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    You're no fun.

    Parent
    From AIGFP? (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:32:29 PM EST
    Or AIG in general? And over what time period?

    Obviously, I missed your memo  :)

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 11:05:25 AM EST
     It will have some impact but nowhere near what the apologists suggest. That's still good money for work requiring no heavy lifting and the vast majority of people will not have better options.

      If some leave and go to other sectors not so limited there likelty will be people just as smart eager to accept jobs on those terms. and, if the peole who leave really are so brilliant, maybe it will be good to diffuse them throughout the economy so they can work their magic in other sectors which also need improvement.

      If the guy sitting at a screen and packaging deals has capabilities beyond mere mortals and simpluy can't survive on that money maybe he'll go put together a consortium that cures cancer and discovers a clean and cehap energy source and has only been deterred from doing so by the lure of the big money.

    Hey Oculus... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    did you get a slice of the drug dealer funded taxpayer bailout that occured yesterday in San Diego or did the men in blue get it all?

    I'm hoping at least a couple bucks made its way to some strapped taxpayers...better than the evidence locker:)

    KDOG!! This one's for YOU :) (none / 0) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    Hope for the "responsible" gambler.

    Parent
    Too funny.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    its like the writer has been reading my ramblings on TL:)

    Though I must say "responsible gamblers" know how easy it is too lose your head with the chips flying around like hotcakes and greed fever in the air...and take extra special care not to lose their heads...hence "responsible gamblers" never fall so far into the hole like an AIG or Citi, only irresponsible gamblers do, otherwise known as candidates for G.A.

    Parent

    Well, that explains both the (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    traffic jams and the driver who cut across a couple lanes and the gore point to exit to another freeway.  But, no, I missed out.  Crazy.

    Parent
    It's a recurring daydream... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    of mine, but usually it involves the doors to an armored car swinging open in front of me on the highway.

    I'd feel funny taking it from a drug dealer on the run...he/she earned it:)

    Parent

    How about the teenager who (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    turned $500 plus over to police?  

    Parent
    Heart is in the right place... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    I'm sure, but I think that kid is terribly misguided.

    I woulda (I hope) gave it to charity before I gave it to the fuzz.  Or back to the dealer when they get released, AKA the rightful owner.

    Parent

    I doubt the "rightful" ower (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    will ever see that cash.

    P.S.  Who knew drug dealers w/that much cash drove pick up trucks?

    Parent

    It's a cash business... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    I wouldn't assume any real wealth...he mighta owed the whole knot to his connect for a re-up.

    One thing I've learned playing alotta cards is a big knot of cash in a cash business can be deceiving.  

    Parent

    ANd This (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    ROSEMOUNT, Minn. --  A 16-year-old Minnesota boy has given away thousands of dollars to fellow students and a school aide. The bag full of money he found was apparently tossed by a drug dealer.

    When asked how he got the $100 bills, the student first said it was his allowance. He later said he found it in a ditch -- and led police to a spot by a highway where they also found marijuana and scales.

    The kid is learning disabled.

    Parent

    I was ready to read bad news... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    like the kid was gonna be charged with something, I'm relieved and pleasantly suprised he won't be charged.

    Sounds like a very charitable young man...I wish I coulda taught him about the right to remain silent:)

    Parent

    What about... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    ...finding a bale or two or you-know-what washed up on a deserted beach?  

    Parent
    I dream bigger than that...:) (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:10:42 PM EST
    That daydream involves finding a massive field while hiking....and ready for harvest:)

    Parent
    It may turn into (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    kdog Van Winkle and you'll wind playing hackie sack with little people and waking up in a hundred years.

    Parent
    BTD argument on nationalization (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    to your point, which for the record I have never agreed with regarding citi or boa:

    http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09042.html

    Some states (none / 0) (#83)
    by Natal on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    have rejected some of the stimulus funds because they are concerned about the strings attached to accepting the funds? When the funds run out they say they'll be legally obligated to continue the funding programs. For example, Jindal has said his state can't afford to carry out the unemployment benefit program after it expires. Is this a legitimate concern?  Any commentary on this appreciated.

    Jindal's complaint assumes that (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    his state will have the same level of unemployment when the funds expire; I think the idea is to help those who need it now, but that in what is expected to be an improving economy, unemployment will go down and these states will find themselves not needing to keep unemployment funded at the level it is today.

    Parent
    But even if unemployment goes down (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    doesn't it widen the eligibility for unemployment (part time workers, etc)?


    Parent
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    What if he's right and the economy stays bad for a couple of years and the rate stays high?  What if then, these states do have to pay when the stimulus runs out, so then they have to raise taxes - what are people going to say then? "Gee, we assumed it would go down so the states wouldn't have this burden.  Sorry  :)"

    I'm not whole heartedly agreeing with him, but I think it's a valid point these governors raise, one that needs to be seriously discussed, but because Republicans are not in favor right now, this idea has just gotten pooh-poohed and shoved to the side by those who think everything will be hunky-dory in 2 years.


    Parent

    If the economy stays bad (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    Then the federal government better provide more funding for unemployment.

    Parent
    Because we'll be loaded with cash by then? (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    That's snark, but I think part of the reason we are so divided in this country is that we don't actually listen to people with whom we disagree.  Now, both sides have made it very hard when all they do is blather and posture and give soundbites that will sound good on TV, and lie and don't speak to substance,  but one thing this past election has taught me is that Democrats are not always the good guys and can be just as disgusting and as sleazy as Republicans.  From stealing votes, to back door sweetheart deals for the elite, to lying to our faces, they are truly just as bad. (I guess I knew that before, but it was so obvious and in-your-face this year).

    I also learned that I (and everyone else) sound incredibly stupid (and not at all progressive) by initially dismissing all thoughts and ideas from people who hold different ideological thoughts from us, just because we don't like the people personally. Me, I probably still won't agree with them, but that's how civilized people engage in discourse.  For example,  you just can't say, "Well, I think ___ at TL is a jack-a-ma-hole, so everything they write MUST be wrong."

    That's why I think Jindal, while posturing, asked a legitimate question that no one can answer except to say "It's not going to be like that in 3 years" (as if they have a crystal ball).

    Unfortunately, I don't see it getting better with the Olbermanns, Matthews, Maddows, Limbaughs, and O'Reillys of the world having access to audiences with short attention spans, it's only going to get worse.

    Parent

    Thanks for the edification (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    as to the reason states are doing this; I meant to go read some of those stories.

    If these will turn into unfunded mandates, I can see the concern.  My city is saddled with many of those from my state already, and they have been devastating -- in addition to the federal unfunded mandates on my state (and many others).

    I'll watch with you to see if this is so.

    Parent

    Anyone seen Noel Coward's (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    Blythe Spirit on Broadway?  I iid read Brantley's review in NYT.  

    Making lemonade out of lemons (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    Link

    Computer Programmer who lost finger in an accident, replaced it with a prosthetic that has a USB drive built into it.

    Yeah, he's right (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    about switching to wireless technology.  If you're going to have a finger-drive, why USB?  Why not bluetooth?

    Parent
    Lots of Money (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 06:39:58 PM EST
    Being spent on art these days.. The Versace collection was swooped up in a frenzy.

    Works of art that belonged to Gianni Versace sold at a London auction on Thursday for almost three times the presale estimate..

    And boom times in Maastricht

    MAASTRICHT, the Netherlands: Business is blooming against all odds in the art market when the rest of the world economy shrinks.

    As the 22nd European Fine Art Fair, which closes on Sunday, opened its doors to the private viewing on March 12, the rush of hundreds of well-heeled prospective buyers to get in first was as feverish as ever. Transactions were concluded there and then at prices that would not have been higher the previous year.

    Evidentially people with lots of cash need somewhere to put it. No better place than fine art, imo..


    Hero or Villan? (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 07:23:07 PM EST
    Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.

    CNN

    Wonder if the 90% tax rate had anything to do with it?

    Friday Morning Open thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment