http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/06summers.html?ref=us
A Rich Education for Summers (After Harvard)
Published: April 5, 200
Mr. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president who is now the chief economic adviser to President Obama, earned nearly $5.2 million in just the last of his two years at one of the world’s largest funds, according to financial records released Friday by the White House.
Impressive as that might sound, it is all the more considering that Mr. Summers worked there just one day a week.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat $5.2 million per year for 1 day per week work - isn't this what the furore is about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/06summers.html?ref=us
A Rich Education for Summers (After Harvard)
Published: April 5, 200
Mr. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president who is now the chief economic adviser to President Obama, earned nearly $5.2 million in just the last of his two years at one of the world’s largest ...[text shortened]... t might sound, it is all the more considering that Mr. Summers worked there just one day a week.
Why aren't you horrified by another 'high level' 'fat cat' 'ripping off' the system. I read where names of highly paid executives were being released (some with addresses) for public villification.
I thought your congress was in the act creating laws limiting these unconscionable salaries and bonuses and demanding money returned!
Yet, comments here seem to be giving this fellow a clap on the back. Why?
2 edits
I don't care that he made good money. He's a very smart economist so it's not surprising that he cleaned up in the financial market. Then again I'm not one to complain about "fat cats" either.
I support a woman's right to choose. I think Bush was a bad President. I'm on the fence about the death penalty. I support gay marriage. I don't believe in god. But all that doesn't mean that I hate rich people.
Originally posted by zeeblebotWe don't seem to have a problem that a Picasso painting or the Hope diamond or a Bugatti have high value -- but a human BEING!?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/06summers.html?ref=us
A Rich Education for Summers (After Harvard)
Published: April 5, 200
Mr. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president who is now the chief economic adviser to President Obama, earned nearly $5.2 million in just the last of his two years at one of the world’s largest ...[text shortened]... t might sound, it is all the more considering that Mr. Summers worked there just one day a week.
I thought we were all equal?!? (NB. it doesn't say that; it says CREATED equal -- after birth, your stock may have tanked faster than Lehman, Sam the Sham. Just kidding.)
It is a fundamental rule of human society that it is up to the buyer to decide whether he is being ripped off. Even the Romans knew this: 'caveat emptor'.
The problem with executive pay is that shareholders aren't even aware that they ARE buying/paying -- and don't seem to care as long as their personal share value rises. Which is also understandable to a degree. When prices fall, though, people start asking questions.
Originally posted by MacSwainI repeat:
That $5.2 million per year for 1 day per week work - isn't this what the furore is about.
Why aren't you horrified by another 'high level' 'fat cat' 'ripping off' the system. I read where names of highly paid executives were being released (some with addresses) for public villification.
I thought your congress was in the act creating laws limiting t ...[text shortened]... y returned!
Yet, comments here seem to be giving this fellow a clap on the back. Why?
Why is this fellow receiving a pass, not to mention praise, for what others have been publicly and legally crucified for during past months?
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainBecause the government didn't give him billions of dollars as a bailout before he provided himself million dollar bonuses. that's what the villification was for.
I repeat:
Why is this fellow receiving a pass, not to mention praise, for what others have been publicly and legally crucified for during past months?
No one has been criticized for just making money.
Usually people give up after one failed trolling attempt...
Originally posted by forkedknightAhh... In that case my dear, it must mean that your congress is debating putting limits on executive pay....That will only apply to those who receive "bail out" monies???
Because the government didn't give him billions of dollars as a bailout before he provided himself million dollar bonuses. that's what the villification was for.
No one has been criticized for just making money.
Usually people give up after one failed trolling attempt...
Are you sure madam? Doesn't seem very well thought out on their part...or is it you are confused!
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThat is exactly the proposal.
Ahh... In that case my dear, it must mean that your congress is debating putting limits on executive pay....That will only apply to those who receive "bail out" monies???
Are you sure madam? Doesn't seem very well thought out on their part...or is it you are confused!
Pledging to take "the air out of golden parachutes," President Obama announced Wednesday that executives of companies receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a revised financial compensation plan.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.executive.pay/index.html
The one who is confused is you.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I have read what is included in the particular bill you reference. However, here is just one discussion I had saved after read.
That is exactly the proposal.
Pledging to take "the air out of golden parachutes," President Obama announced Wednesday that executives of companies [b]receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a revised financial compensation plan.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.executive.pay/index.html
The one who is confused is you.[/b]
http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001976.html
Indications appear to be the governments reach has not neared an end and thoughts to institute limitations with 'non-bailouts' to prevent future pay exploitation are in play.
Obviously you believe your governments reach will not exceed the reach of tax-payer funds. Of course, you may be correct, but if that were to be the case, there would be great disappointment amongst rank and file voters causing further dip in popularity poles - so I would not place a wager on that outcome. It's all political after all. Also, when any democratic country's elected head finds no restraint exists preventing his firing the head of a private corporation....can you rule out setting pay rates country wide?
It still remains why is Mr Summers being lauded for working 52 days and receiving over $5 millions...? What happened to: "The Tinbergen Norm?"