Cenk: Banning Everyone From Two Dumb Points About The Collapse/Bailout (Featured At DKos Yesterday)

[ihavenobias]

NOTE: After you read this piece, .


By Cenk Uygur

I am banning everyone from making these two dumb points anymore about the financial collapse and the ensuing bailout. I'm sorry I have to impose this ban, but people keep making these points when they are so painfully stupid, it hurts me to hear them.

1. Expressing disappointment in the greed of the bankers.

People play within the rules you give them. Humans are almost infinitely greedy by our nature. What were these bankers going to say, "Golly, you know everyone is allowed to take massive risks and reap massive bonuses for their efforts, but no, I have no interest in all that money. I'll just play it safe because one day this might wind up hurting the American taxpayer."

On which planet would anyone, let alone a Wall Street CEO, say that? In fact, they would be fired if they had that attitude. How are you going to tell your board that all the other companies are a making tremendous amount of money but you have chosen not to because you think that risk might wind up in the taxpayers' lap? Not only would you be laughed out of the boardroom, but you would be removed from office.

It is the job of the government to set the rules by which we play this game. They are supposed to be the refs. They are charged with oversight and regulations that do not allow this kind of excessive risk taking. Because if you allow it, people will do it! Don't you get it? The executives of these companies already took home the money in tremendous bonuses for all the years they showed a profit. They don't give a shit that it was a house of cards. That's your problem, not their problem. They already have the money.

Now, the controversial part - I don't really blame them much. If you set up a system where someone gets rewarded for doing the wrong things, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will. I would never take steroids because I value my testicles too much, but am I surprised that all of the top baseball players took steroids when Major League Baseball had no punishment for doing so? Of course, not. It's not the "right" thing to do, but it is the obvious thing to do.

Alex Rodriguez got two contracts worth over half a billion dollars for taking steroids and improving his numbers. What lesson do you think the other players are going to learn from that? If you don't set boundaries against it, you incentivize bad behavior. So, please don't pretend to be surprised when it happens.

The real responsibility is not with the players as much as it is with the league (and in this case, the federal government). So, when I hear John McCain (and many others, including some progressives) bemoaning the greed of the bankers and talking about how they should have voluntarily made less money, I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Yes, there is a real problem with greed. And that greed came into play when the lobbyists of those industries pushed for looser regulation and corrupt and/or stupid politicians allowed them to do that under the guise of "free and unfettered markets." The real greed is when they changed the rules of the game. But after that, it is tilting against the windmills to think anyone playing that game wouldn't do exactly what the bankers wound up doing.

2. Saying the banks might not take the bailout money if the conditions of the bailout are too tough.

Our Treasury Secretary, and I lost all respect for him. More importantly, I lost all trust in him. There is an ironclad rule that we all know - beggars can't be choosers. Except, of course, unless you have your own guys on the inside.

In private industry, the borrower - especially a desperate borrower and one who is already bankrupt - does not get to dictate the terms of his bailout loan. If my company runs out of money, I don't get to go around telling people how they will give me a loan and how much money I will make going forward. No, they are the ones giving the money. They will set the rules. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

But Geithner, and Paulson before him, told us that these financial companies will not take the bailout money if it hurts the personal, financial interest of their executives. That is certainly their prerogative. Well, then, they can piss off.

There are other ways to clean up that mess so it does not cause more damage to our economy. We can guarantee some or all of the money in those banks. We can take over some of their assets at reduced prices. That's what happens in a bankruptcy. But here the government can also back up the consumers and even other industries involved, so there is an additional layer of protection. So, it's not like I don't understand the gravity of the circumstances or that these banks are connected to other parts of our economy. But it's also not right to pretend that the only solution is to make sure these particular banks - and their executives - survive and thrive.

In fact, I have some of top economists in the world on my side. Economists like Joseph Stiglitz who believes for a short period of time to stabilize the financial system and then sell them off.

But here's one thing we definitely do not have to do - kowtow to the demands of the Wall Street executives. We should put the most stringent pay caps on all of their executives and any other rule and regulation we think is necessary. You see, they can't demand more money when they bankrupted their companies! If they don't want the bailout, they can take a long walk off a short Wall Street.

So, when I hear our Treasury Secretary make this completely disingenuous point, it is impossible not to think that he isn't one of their inside guys. At the very least, he is a guy that has bought into the concept that business as usual on Wall Street must continue. The obscene profits, the complete lack of long-term accountability, the whole bubble of Wall Street is justifiable and must be maintained. Well, that's what I'm not buying.

When I read Geithner defend this broken system and beg the companies for their cooperation as he gives them trillions of dollars of our money, I get a clear sign that he is not one of us. He is one of them. This is an inside job...

To read the reat of this piece along with hundreds of comments at DailyKos, .

Also, join the (which is quickly blowing up) and the .

Finally, watch as .

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Cenk just never misses, does he?

:applause: for saying what needs to be said!

[Orsino]

61. Except when confusing feelings of greed...

...with epic pillaging. Yes, we're still supposed to be surprised when nearly an entire class of people rape the economy, and when nearly another entire class (Congress) applauds or snoozes all the while.

Being jaded is cool, I guess, but I believe that low expectations are a major part of the problem.

[FiveGoodMen]

67. Cenk was hardly defending it. He just said why should we be surprised.

And why should we?

Did we really believe that greed was self-limiting?

[Orsino]

68. We should be surprised at such breathtaking immorality.

But I won't think less of you for having been taught otherwise over eight years of Bush/Cheney.

Perhaps you and Cenk are right, though. Why waste time being surprised, when we can just go straight to outraged?

[FiveGoodMen]

71. More importantly: how do we stop it?

Moral outrage is fun and all, but it doesn't fix anything by itself.

[Orsino]

74. Sometimes outrage alone resolves things.

But that usually entails setting stuff on fire and the song of Madame Guillotine. :scared:

Peaceful action is definitely preferable.

[bvar22]

72. Not just 8 years of Bush/Cheney.....

The whole insane theory of "Corporations will regulate themselves" and "the invisible hand of the market" started under Reagan and snowballed under Clinton. The whole mess merely reached the inevitable conclusion under Bush/Cheney.

Our whole system of corporations is designed to "Maximize Profits". That is not a bad thing, as long as the voices of LABOR/Environment/Human Rights/Fair competition are enforced by our government (the collective voice of the people).

Historically, Corporations without oversight have behaved very badly (See: Gilded Age). It should be no surprise that they operate as designed.

What IS a surprise is that they were able to do so again so shortly after the S&L catastrophe (Reagan) and Enron and friends (Clinton). The people who supposedly represent us (the voice of The People) were either asleep at the switch (incompetent), or participating in the unrestrained looting (Democrats & Republicans).

[ihavenobias]

70. Wall Street attracts many greedy personalities, that's why they often succeed (in the short run)

If this were a case of people at non-profits (let's use animal shelters as an example), then yes, of course we'd be shocked.

But it's not. These people didn't get into this business to generate smiles and hugs, they did it to get very, very rich. In *that* context no, we shouldn't be surprised that they take advantage of lax rules.

Just as we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds and (fill in the blank) used steroids in the context of lax rules. Billions of dollars, egos and reputations are at stake. That's an abnormal, charged environment, so I don't think being cynical about those abnormal, high stakes environments makes one "jaded". It makes one pragmatic.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

Love it!!!!

[elocs]

3. Thankfully, DU is not so heavy handed.

Imagine the long list of topics that we could have that could be banned from being made. I think I'll just avoid Dkos which is easy since I don't read it now.

[tblue37]

8. Please. *DKos* did *not* ban these points. Cenk wrote an essay that was

featured on DKos, in which he said he was "banning" people from making those points. But of course his "ban" is merely rhetorical, not real, since he has no power to ban anyone from saying anything they want.

[ihavenobias]

28. Exactly. n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

55. Someone doesn't understand the use of hyperbole in rhetoric. (N/T)

[navarth]

4. recommend.

[bjobotts]

46. Like saying"if they're carnivore, then naturally you can expect cannabalism from them"

[bjobotts]

47. Capitalism is okay even if they destroy our democracy with it Cenk?

[bjobotts]

48. You said premarital sex was okay so We raped all the young girls we found.

[bjobotts]

49. Only greedy self interested a-holes act completely without restraint

[bjobotts]

50. So no Cenk, we didn't expect them to destroy the econiomy with greed because they could.

[bjobotts]

51. I would charge them for the collapse.Confiscate their holdings.

[bjobotts]

52. Point 2 is right...they'll take anybody's money.They've already stolen as much as the bailout

[bjobotts]

53. Reversing Reagan's tax cuts on the wealthy would net $500billion in 2yrs.

[CherylK]

5. K & R!!!

:applause:

:patriot:

[pleah]

6. K&R "When I red Geithner defend this broken system and

beg the companies for their cooperation as he gives them trillions of dollars of our money, I get a clear sign that he is not one of us. He is one of them. This is an inside job.....".

Yep.

Great read, thanks.

[lark]

65. Why are we stuck with Geithner?

Is it because Wall St. was such a huge donor to Obama? Sorry to be so cynical, but where's the change, and it doesn't appear we have a lot of hope either. The stimulus bill isn't bad, although it's too timid and the tax cuts are useless for the most part, but the Treasury rape of America continues unabated under Obama. What do you expect when he appoints one of the main creators of the awful TARP to be his guy? Where's the accountability, hell it doesn't even mandate how the money will be used - just another give away to the rapists.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[pleah]

69. Yep.

:banghead:

[bvar22]

76. +1

Nail on the Head.

Geithner, Summers, Rubin??!!

This is by design.

Meet the new boss....

[mmonk]

7. I agree, Salient points. Recommended.

Let the terms be dictated to them.

[Wetzelbill]

9. k and r

[veganlush]

10. Yes! this reminds me of a stupid episode..

:kick: K&R! ....I saw an episode of Texas Ranger while surfing once..it was hilariously poorly written. I don't recall the details, but the guy who had the gun held to the side of his head was the one giving the ultimatums. It's sad for those of us who are optimistic about the new administration when we see this kind of either cluelessness or collaboration.:shrug: Good on Cenk for telling it like it is, not how we wish it was...

[tclambert]

54. Isn't that what Bart did in Blazing Saddles?

He held a gun to his own head and demanded, "Drop your weapons, or I'll shoot the nigger!"

[Seldona]

11. K&R

Great article. Until we change this system we are screwn. Leaving the people in charge who caused the mess in the first place isn't going to get us anywhere.

[lonestarnot]

12. K & R again!

[Locrian]

13. hey!

I was JUST watching this when I found the post! GREAT analysis.

KR

[malaise]

14. K & R

Very good

[Locrian]

15. man - we are so fucked

Geithner's is the WORST. He's exactly the problem = business as usual.

[hfojvt]

16. I think he is wrong on both points, and kind of a jerk about it too.

Yeah, let's make excuses for the greedy. Sorry, I don't buy it. "Sure they were greedy a$$holes, but it was just because the rules allowed them to be greedy a$$holes." They themselves are blameless, or mostly blameless.

As for the second part, I can see a point of that. Suppose I am walking through a desert and somebody offers help, but the help is very expensive. If it's too expensive, then I might just decide to push on by myself and take my chances. "Well, then they can piss off."

Except they can't. They are huge corporations, and if they piss off, they take a whole bunch of people down with them. If they are a bank, then the FDIC ends up bailing them out anyway, perhaps at much higher cost.

So I think there is a case to be made and that it is not so obviously ridiculous or conspiratorial to say what Geithner said.

[ihavenobias]

18. He's not a jerk about it anymore than when Thom Hartmann makes the same first point.

As Hartmann is fond of saying, don't blame the rule followers, blame the rule makers (lax regulators, illegal employers, etc.). More often than not if you follow that advice you're likely to get to the root of the problem. But yes, going after those who followed the (flawed) rules is much easier and safer to do, whether the topic is wall street or torture at Gitmo.

As for the second point, they are beggars and they will NOT piss off. They're bluffing, and the fact that we cave in to the bluff is very damaging to the country, not to mention incredibly expensive and pathetic.

Finally, there is nothing "conspirational" about it. By using that specific phrase you seek to marginalize the reality of the situation, and make it seem like some tin-foil hat nonsense when the fact is it's far more logical and LESS complicated than assuming good, honest intentions.

[hfojvt]

20. right, calling people who disagree with me automatically dumb

is not being a jerk. And there is no such thing as "following rules". You make it sound like the rules somehow demand people be greedy. The rules allowed it, they did not force it. It's like a bank operated by Potter vs. a building and loan. If somebody falls behind on their payments, the rules ALLOW Potter to foreclose on them and take their house. Potter does it, because he is a greedy a$$hole. George Bailey doesn't do it, because "people are human beings to him" whereas to Potter, "a warped frustrated old man, they're cattle." The Potters need to be held accountable, not excused because "the rules allowed it".

As far as conspiratorial. That's how this sounds to me

"When I read Geithner defend this broken system and beg the companies for their cooperation as he gives them trillions of dollars of our money, I get a clear sign that he is not one of us. He is one of them. This is an inside job..."

[ihavenobias]

22. Would you prefer some euphemism in place of "dumb"?

Let's agree to disagree on that style point, it has nothing to do with the substance of the piece. As for your second point, I completely disagree.

If you decide to take the referees out of your favorite sport, do you really think that ANY of the players will avoid doing what is normally considered cheating? OF COURSE they would all "cheat" in that context, which is why we have the rules in the first place.

No Rules = No Game

It devolves into chaos. Yes, there is such a thing is *too many* rules, but we're not even close to that point. And it's not about giving greedy assholes a pass, it's about recognizing the fact that many people will engage in greedy asshole behavior if given the opportunity. Going after them doesn't treat the actual problem any more than arresting low level military officers who tortured detainees treats the problem.

Unless you go up the chain of command, the problems will persist and the real people to blame will never be held accountable.

[hfojvt]

33. that's kinda crazy

since people play basketball all the time without any refs. Most pick-up games are played that way.

Just because I am chiding people for being a$$holes does not mean I am arguing that there should be no rules or fewer rules. Whereas Cenk does say basically "it is stupid to complain about people being greedy a$$holes because it is not their fault. It's what anybody would do if there were no rules to prevent it."

Presumably the low level people are less responsible since they were given orders and not just "doing what the rules allowed".

It's not really a "style point" to say "I think X and people who disagree are stupid." Shows a huge amount of arrogance and intolerance IMO. It may have nothing to do with the substance, but it was, unfortunately, how he chose to lead into the subject.

[CherylK]

34. I disagree.

The lower level folks weren't more irresponsible, the higher level folks abused their power!

[ihavenobias]

39. Ah, but that's exactly it

Wall Street isn't pick-up basketball. It's like professional basketball because the stakes are billions and billions and billions of dollars, as well as personal glory and publicity, etc.

In THAT context people DO go nuts with no rules, and even WITH rules . Wall Street is very similar in that regard. Increase the potential for personal gain, and the chances of someone being a greedy asshole increases right along with it.

And again, we simply disagree on the style points. He's not a journalist (never claimed to be), so I personally happen to enjoy his colorful language and hyperbole from time to time. Even better, I enjoy bold proclamations (and a dismissal of the other side IF the other side makes no damn sense) if they're well supported.

[NashVegas]

89. Wall St Does Have Rules, And People Turn the World Upside Down Creating/Looking For Loopholes

Off shore business offices, tax shelters, and all those other nifty little tricks Michael Lewis lays out in his great essay, The End of Wall St.

"You would, too," arguments are a refuge for those who measure their standards of behavior in millimeters, and delude themselves into thinking everyone else does the same.

[DWilliamsamh]

57. Yes and even in pickup ball there are mutually agreed upon RULES

And pickup games are a wilder less in control game than the ones with refs. Sometimes they even devolve into violence. No game indeed. When one team or one player refuses to follow even the lax set of rules those rules, they get kicked off the court. They don't get to play any more.

[DWilliamsamh]

56. If the rules allow Banks to leverage assets 30:1, as opposed to say 5:1

The rules are flawed and leave the door open to the kind of risk taking that leads to collapse. If an executive (and I am NOT making an excuse for the individual executive) doesn't do the things that will make the corporation the MOST money possible, then the executive is guilty of malfeasance and dereliction of their fiduciary responsibility.

Ironically you seem to suffer the same delusion that free market capitalists suffer: the idea of the morality of the market. In reality the entire point of a corporation is to make money - nothing else is important. Nothing. THAT is WHY we have regulation of all kinds on business. Otherwise ANY action taken that raises profit and reduces costs are the imperative, and would be followed without exception.

So YES, the rules need to be set to PREVENT the natural excesses of unregulated capitalism. People, with VERY few exceptions are greedy, and will take risks to make more money for themselves and their friends: especially when the short term rewards are large and unable to be recaptured after the collapse. The failure of the banks, is the direct result of the failure of regulation. The individual players don't matter. If these particular CEO's had been more "moral" and said in essence, "my company will not take these huge profits, will not use every legal means to make a higher profit because it wouldn't be 'right,' " they would have been replaced by someone who had a more profit-centric point of view. Period.

And certainly once the business has failed - they don't get to make demands of the rescuers. Not by a long shot. They can piss off. The result would be painful, but in the end better than propping up and rewarding the very behavior that lead to the collapse in the first place. Private profit begets private LOSS when things go bad. If you want to socialize the losses, then I say we socialize the profits as well - at LEAST until the public money is paid back.

[hfojvt]

62. having owned a business I certainly don't buy that

This nonsense that a corporation MUST do what makes the most profit. Your story about a CEO who didn't make the most profit being replaced is just myth. CEOs have lost money without being replaced, so a CEO who makes a good 8% profit even though 10% or 15% was theoretically possible by taking higher risks is still gonna keep his/her job. Every corporation at least pays lip service to higher ideals than maximum profit, especially short-term profit.

Also, my point is that many of the businesses have not failed - yet. They are in the middle of a lake, maybe, flailing in the water. Throw them a life preserver and they will take it and reduce their danger. Throw them a life preserver with onerous conditions attached to it, and they will say "screw you, I think I might be able to reach land". But then some of them won't and when they crash they take many workers and large parts of the economy down with them, making a bigger mess that needs to be cleaned up.

People with VERY few exceptions are greedy. That may depend on how you define greedy. There are levels of it. I think that many people, given a choice between $500,000 and saving the lives of 5 children, would choose to save the lives over taking the money. I also believe that if some a$$hole chooses the money, then I am not gonna be part of a group that says "well, almost anybody woulda done it. It's not his fault, the rules allowed him to do that." What's happening now is not as clear cut as this, but my Kantian principle is "people who do the wrong thing do not get a free pass when the consequences of the wrong thing are severe."

[ihavenobias]

63. BY LAW the #1 responsibility of a corporation is to increase profits.

By law.

As long as they don't break the law, that MUST be the #1 motive for each decision. Even decisions that seem to be beneficial to society (donations to charity, etc.) often have a PR motive behind them. That doesn't mean it's a bunch of monsters working there, but it does mean that people who are willing to put profit above all else are more likely to get the job and excel.

[hfojvt]

73. show me that law

I have never heard of such a law, and I don't believe it exists. If it does, it needs to be re-written while we have control of Congress and the Presidency.

edit: it appears that such a law exists only in the minds of corporate law theorists, of some Friedmanite school. It's not an actual law, although it may be taught as such by business schools dedicated to training the next generation of self-justifying a$$holes.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692862

"Second, ethical investing is not inconsistent with the nexus of contracts conception, but it is awkward for corporate law theorists who advocate a rule of exclusive profit-maximization.

Third, these theorists respond by characterizing ethical investing as either irrational and aberrant, or else rational and pernicious, both of which characterizations are misguided."

[ihavenobias]

75. You're joking right?

You weren't aware that the #1 responsibility (above all else, within the law of course) is to get as much profit/return as possible to the shareholders?

[hfojvt]

77. I found that to be a business school theory

the link I found says "corporate law THEORISTS". I don't see that as a legal requirement. So, no, I am not at all joking. Don't try to defend your untrue premise by claiming "everybody knows that" (or should). Show me where it is written.

edit: did you see my edit of my last post?

[ihavenobias]

79. It's common knowledge.

The primary responsibility of execs is to the shareholders. The only argument you have is that *technically* the shareholders might not have profits as their top priority.

While that's possible, we both know it's absurd pragmatically speaking.

[hfojvt]

86. common knowledge is often wrong

Sure their primary responsibility is to shareholders. That just gives shareholders the power to replace them if they so desire. It does not require them to maximize profits, whatever that means. There is no such law, except in business school theory. Again, the link I found

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6928...

"Second, ethical investing is not inconsistent with the nexus of contracts conception, but it is awkward for corporate law theorists who advocate a rule of exclusive profit-maximization.

Third, these theorists respond by characterizing ethical investing as either irrational and aberrant, or else rational and pernicious, both of which characterizations are misguided."

to emphasize "corporate law THEORISTS who ADVOCATE a RULE of exclusive profit-maximization."

In other words, no such law or rule exists.

[Locrian]

19. no

He's not saying there isnt greed, but that all people are greedy and will do what's natural - what do you expect them to do w/o rules, esp with the amount of money involved?

Part of it is a rhetorical trick to avoid just blaming it on "greed".

The point is correct: w/o rules it's stupid to not expect "greed" or whatever you want to call it to happen. And I like the angle, because just saying its "greedy bankers" doesnt get to the root cause / correction which is to FIX THE SYSTEM with regulation (real regulation not wink wink regulation).

[hfojvt]

35. yeah I don't buy the excuse that all people are greedy

nor that it's okay to let greed outweigh every other principle people claim to hold.

It's got nothing to do with not "expecting" greed. Yeah, I know there are a$$holes in the world. Lots of them. Waaaay too many of them. That does not mean I am gonna just say "well, anybody woulda done that" when they do something evil.

Plus, does Cenk think that these greedy SOBs had nothing to do with making sure that there were no rules to prevent them from doing what they wanted to do?

Blaming the greedy bankers does not take away from a desire to regulate said greedy bankers. In fact, it helps to motivate it.

[Oak2004]

45. I agree -- in fact I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people would not have done

what those bankers did. Why? They have an active conscience.

However, when we set up a system that rewards greed, what we do is insure that the people who climb to the top are people with little or no moral scruples. We, essentially, create a sieve that filters out the sociopaths and the narcissists among us and put them in charge.

Any mystery why the system doesn't work?

[DireStrike]

25. Blamelessness

Blame really isn't important. Punishment is. Legality is. What actually occurs in a system is.

If we stopped punishing.... lets say thieves, the rate of theft would rise. Doesn't make the people doing it not thieves, but it does make them not criminals. Shady activity, especially if it makes money, will be embraced if allowed.

The problem isn't that these people were greedy, it's that they were allowed to do things which they should not have been. Cenk's explanation rightfully places the blame on the aspect of the problem that we can control - not human greed, but rather on what sort of behavior is allowed in our market system.

[hfojvt]

37. I think we can control human greed, at least a little

Part of the way we do that is when people do those things, we point at them and say, collectively, YOU FU$%ING A$$HOLES!!! It sets an example for them and for any who might be tempted to follow their example. For some reason Cenk wants to let them off the hook. Like it's okay for the guy who stole my bicycle. Since it wasn't locked to anything, he was able to carry it away. Clearly that was allowed, so why blame a perpetrator? Rules won't stop people either though if they are motivated enough to find their way around them and also confident that they will not get caught. Internal rules and social rules are important too.

[ihavenobias]

38. No, he doesn't want to "let them off the hook".

There's more than enough evidence of that in his previous clips. The point is that far too many in Congress use the damn greedy Wall Street meme to cover for the ACTUAL problem, i.e. a lack of sensible regulation.

[DWilliamsamh]

58. NO. He does NOT want to let them off the hook.....

He wants them to be told to piss off, with their demands. AND he wants regulation that would make what they did illegal, so that it can't be DONE again. His point is if the rules aren't changed, the same thing WILL happen again. And it WILL.

But what else CAN be done with THIS set of folks? What they did was WRONG, but completely legal. There is no penalty beyond limiting their pay that can be imposed. The company's board of directors could fire them, but then they still get to go home and look at their bank accounts stuffed with millions. Seems like more of a penalty to make them clean up the mess they caused, under revised and sensible regulation i.e., NEW RULES.



Edited for spelling

[ut oh]

80. Do you really think any of those bank execs

care if you call them names? Pointing a finger and saying hey that guy's and a-hole, will typically garner the response of 'yeah, so what?' from said a-hole.

There has to be REAL consequences to poor/greedy/unethical performance, but we unfortunately have a system where the Carlie Fiorna's (sp?) and bankers of the world get huge payouts even when the f*** over a company. If no negative consequence occurs, then where is the incentive to behave properly? Cenk does make a point to that... I don't think that the bankers should be held blameless (even rhetorically), however. The boards, shareholders, and gov't are also to blame in this. Personally, I think

- Harsh penalties need to be enacted (even retro-actively) for those who put companies in this kind of situation
- TARP funds to the banks should be revoked. Those funds should be put into the stimulus (thus requiring less 'new' money to be required for it). The banks are still not lending. Let's get the money to businesses/people that will actually use the funds.
- I'm sorry, but it's obvious that without gov't regulation of ceo salaries, those salaries are going to grow unabated. If those CEO's don't want to work for a 'measley half mill'. Fine, give the job to someone else who will. There are plenty of people out there who are hard workers and will do right for the companies, while these leeches are all about themselves and are not really about the company's success.


* crap I had a much longer post.. but 'undo' removed 2 paragraphs, not just the couple of words I wanted to remove... =/

[NashVegas]

88. I *Strongly* Disagree About #1

Just because mainstream press never allowed it to become an issue among the citizenry before this doesn't mean it's not out of whack and shouldn't be loudly, publicly shouted to the roofs about how fucked up it is, while we have this opportunity to sieze it and change things.

One needn't be a religious nut to see and complain about immorality. It's on Wall St. just as much as Hollywood (hint: it's not because movies show graphic sex scenes that makes a Tinseltown immoral - it's that studios often make directors go back and add them for reasons that have nothing to do with aesthetics).

[OhioChick]

17. K&R

:kick:

[matthewf]

21. k&r

[leftstreet]

23. K&R

[yellerpup]

24. Well done, Cenk.

I appreciate the way he breaks down a problem. K&R!

[Kajsa]

26. I agree.

We already know they are greedy and that they want an easy out-
ain't gonna happen, folks.

The Wall Street fat cats have to start playing by the same rules
the rest of us do.

It's a new day, and damn it!-It's about time.

K & R.

:kick:

[Canuckistanian]

27. Gee, that wasn't hard to understand, was it?

It all boils down to two old sayings:

"If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile"

and

"Beggars can't be choosers"

If indeed "beggars" they are. They certainly were 4 months ago.

[Turborama]

31. "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile" puts it perfectly

Also, as the Brits say, they're http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tak2.htm">"taking the piss".

It's time for the arrogant assholes to learn some humility!



:kick: & R

[Canuckistanian]

43. Interesting definition, thanks.

I'm interested in British sayings and colloquiallisms. Never heard that one before.

[GinaMaria]

29. but but but, I really am disappointed in the greed of bankers

:P

[jgraz]

30. I partially agree...

I'm not disappointed in the greed of bankers, I'm outraged by it. These guys KNEW they were standing on a soap bubble, and they still kept dancing.

I worked with these idiots for years and their only concern was how much money they could fuck out of the little folks before the whole system collapsed. They knew our monetary policy wasn't sustainable back in the early 90s, yet they wouldn't stop their bloodsucking for one second.

[ejbr]

32. So, the people who created a fucking mess would not work at these companies

if not given free reign? Isn't that a GOOD thing? Why do we want screw ups running these companies????

[autorank]

36. Swing for the fences! k*r n/t

[libodem]

40. I find it painful to see any of those Wall Street

losers get any bonus let alone $500,000. It would take me 10 years to earn that much. What planet are they living on?

[20score]

41. Feel the same way. It has to do with degrees of culpability. The betrayal of congress is a much

more important problem. The bankers should at least lose their bonuses and jobs, and be socially ostracized, but congress caused this. It's like cops that set up a burglary ring, turning a blind eye and taking bribes. If my house gets robbed, I'm more pissed off at the cops.

K&R

[Joe Fields]

42. OF COURSE GEITHNER IS ONE OF THE INSIDERS!!! All you need

for proof is to examine how he handled his tax problem. His mindset is the classic mindset of a person who looks to see just what they can get away with, not taking into consideration what is the right thing to do.

[pam4water]

44. The one thing we do have to do is break the banks into smaller banks the are small enough to fail!

[lsewpershad]

59. Break up big banks

When all the eggs are placed in one basket we know what happens.

[Lasher]

60. Geithner and Paulson are being judged unfairly in one respect.

It is entirely true to say that financial services companies will not take the bailout money if it hurts the personal, financial interest of their executives. The CEOs are inclined to put their own enrichment ahead of all else, and they are quite often free to do so. I will create an example to demonstrate. A CEO is faced with a decision between two alternatives:

A. Take bailout money with restrictions on senior executive compensation. No layoffs. Company viability and stock value are restored to pre-crisis level within one year. CEO is compensated at $600K annually for the foreseeable future.

B. Reject bailout money. CEO compensation averages $78 million for the next three years, after which time the company goes bankrupt and the stock becomes worthless.

Now ask yourself which option the CEO is most likely to prefer and you will probably understand the point Geithner and Paulson were trying to make.

This goes to the heart of the problem, lack of government control and resultant corruption of corporate governance at publicly traded US corporations. Most often the CEO controls the BOD, and is not controlled by it as (s)he should be. Shareholder authority is so watered down it has become a bad joke, so the BOD and CEO only pay them token homage. And maybe you can remember when interests of overall employees were important when corporate decisions were made. If so, you have probably eaten 15 cent hamburgers after having taken your turn with a hula-hoop.

[valerief]

64. K&R

:kick:

[ContinentalOp]

66. I agree. We shouldn't blame the greedy bankers who exploited the rules.

We should blame the greedy bankers who made the rules. Oh wait.

[fascisthunter]

78. right on!

[acmavm]

81. I agree 100%. Great fortunes are built on great crimes. What the fuck did

everyone think was going on? And yepper, we let it go and we're letting it go. NO ONE is being punished for this. For tearing down the economic social strutures of several world economies. The worst these fuckers get is fired except for Fuld who got punched in the nose. No jail, no forfieture, just bailouts and bonuses.

This guy is dead on.

[ezdidit]

82. Geithner and Gensler - so Happy Together...

What utter bullshit!

These guys presided over the biggest back office no-risk scam the world has ever known, and neither of them has come out and banned Naked Credit Default Swaps yet? This is the enormous perversity that creates enormous profit when family mortgages fail. The loss on the underlying mortgage backed security is something these guys are trying to foment!

It is just like allowing a CEO to short his own company's stock while he is permitted to drive it into the ditch!!

Cenk, you get it right most of the time. But, why aren't you taking a position on President Obaaaama's collapse into neoconservatist Greenspan economics? This is simply "more of the same policies that got us into this mess," as President Obaaaama says so often.

I am absolutely disgusted with the transparency of their outright deceit and the stupidity and naivete of the American people. Obama has just announced to the world that the game isn't going to change much, so keep your bets riding.

Geithner will find no good will, no honest men. The banks are going to own the government instead of the government owning the banks! Capitalism in 2009. Just what the world needs to foment more instability.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

83. Awesome article! nt

[JDPriestly]

84. Tried to recommend, but too late to do so. So, I just want to say

that this is a great comment.

[hologram]

85. 1. It's all about making and enforcing the rules.

I don't agree with him that "Humans are almost infinitely greedy by our nature." That may be the case for some humans but even much of that is likely learned/socially programmed. But yes, there will always be gluttons no matter how they come into being.

So it all comes back to elections and voting for representatives who will create effective rules and enforce them appropriately. When some old fool bobs his head and claims that "Government is the problem" people should recognize it immediately for the bullshit that it is.

[beac]

87. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours.

And that's a shame b/c this is a good one!