Comments on: Getting in Deeper

By: Dr. Steve

Dr. Steve — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:40:10 +0000

Will the government wait for an invitation in the future? How much of a stretch is the notion to “protect” the economy big brother will need to be proactive? The foot is in the door…….

By: MarkZ

MarkZ — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:33 +0000

When you sell your soul to the devil, you actually have to give up your soul in the exchange. In this case, “soul” happens to be CEO pay. Ok, bad analogy.

Sheldon, you talk about the bad precedent it sets. That’s rather obvious. But (how’s this for silver lining?), I think it may also serve to deter companies in the future from plunging mouth-first onto the government’s teet. If a CEO, or a board, or whatever (wealthy) decision-makers realize that asking for a handout will mean that they’ll have to trade in their Rolls-Royces for BMWs, then they’ll probably think twice.

Forced to choose between the precedent of limiting exhorbitant pay and nationalization of industry, I think most of us would take the former. Unless you’re like me and you want to see the empire unravel as quickly as possible…

By: FriendsOfLiberty

FriendsOfLiberty — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:13 +0000

Sometimes I long for a rich person to found his own bank, one that would be ultra-competitive with the rest of the banking cartel. But then, he’d become regulated anyway. When is this insanity going to end?

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:38:04 +0000

Alma writes: “We’ve seen what de-regulation has wrought. It ran rampant during the Reagan/Bush years. It was during the Clinton years that we discovered that the ‘market’ leaves much to be desired….:

Your history is off. The era of deregulation was launched by President Carter and Sen. Kennedy: trucking, airlines, oil prices, etc. It was completed but not initiated under Reagan. The last major piece of bank deregulation, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, came under Clinton when was Summers of secretary of the Treasury. Shakes your worldview a bit, no? By the way, none of this deregulation caused the financial crisis.

Another point: deregulation is not all that’s required by the laissez faire advocates. Just as important is abolition of all business subsidies, guarantees, and privileges, such as the “too big to fail” doctrine. Deregulating without desubsidizing is a fraud because the downside of risk is socialized, while the upside is private. So even if deregulation had occurred, it would not be to blame because all the privileges were still in place.

By: Novista

Novista — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:58:08 +0000

Funny thing about those “robber barons” (a term created by Matther Josephson)
of the 19th century — all the railroads, save one, were subsidized by the U.S. government. With ‘free land’ and other perks. And the inevitable fraud, corruption and ineptitude that comes with crony ‘capitalism’.

The one successful railroad, the Great Northern, began with James J. Hill’s own capital, expanded with private investment, was efficiently built with the most efficient route planning — and made a profit. Not a penny from government. Nor land.

Fraud was illegal even then … so nothing has really changed.

By: Dredd

Dredd — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:45:05 +0000

The "intervention" into the private sector which the government has done is to be "point man" for the plunder barons; those who used to be called the "robber barons" when it was illegal to plunder the public treasury.

By: MBA

MBA — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:30:11 +0000

Pay czar Kenneth Feinberg has said that he will have to move to Pluto to escape the anger that his decision to cap pay will produce. No, Mr. Feinberg. You should move to Moscow circa 1950.

By: Capt. A.

Capt. A. — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:06:30 +0000

To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises from an interview long ago in which the interviewer was asking about another problem the government had created, “What should the government have done to stem or solve this horrendous problem?” Mises reflected for a moment and then said, “They (the government) should have done ‘nothing’ … earlier!”

Since Mr. Starr lives about 2-blocks up the street from me (La Condamine), I shan’t even consider that Mr. Starr would mind if I quote him; chatting with him at the sidewalk café on occasion, he’s friendly enough to confab with Monégasque—Monacans, and I’ve first-hand heard him make his well-known statement about the British government:

Beatles drummer Ringo Starr: “Everything the government touches turns to crap.”

**************
That succinctly sums up EVERYTHING dealing with or about the United States government as well. Now the U.S. government setting limits on pay? Poppycock! There is no real freedom, liberty, privacy or private property in the “land of the free.” The United States is a place to be FROM.

C’est la guerre,

Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00 CET

By: Alma Jurgensen

Alma Jurgensen — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:59:45 +0000

We’ve seen what de-regulation has wrought. It ran rampant during the Reagan/Bush years. It was during the Clinton years that we discovered that the ‘market’leaves much to be desired: Messrs Greenspan, Rubin and Sommers were warned by one, Brookslie Born, that the derivative market demanded watching. She was roundly condemned by the aforementioned threesome. Her position in a non-descript overseeing job left her unable to make a difference. She offered her resignation to Pres. Clinton and we’ve not heard from her since. When asked by a Congressional Committee why she was so focused on the derivative market she replied that she was worried for the American people. The derivative market lives without anyone watching over it and worse few to none (including Greenspan) can tell you how it operates. Yes to regulation…if companies take one dime then that dime comes with strings attached.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:50:21 +0000

Ben, it is a different story — but not different enough. Every time I find myself leaning your way, I think about who would be setting the pay rules. Then I lean back the other way. Giving the state additional power even for a “good reason” is a very dangerous thing.