Where is the US economy headed?

Is that it? I guess you can't refute Wolin's viewpoints.

Yeah, I think he needs to go start his own business, or get a more practical job somewhere, like building houses, doing electrical work, or some plumbing or something. It would change his views back to reality, possibly.

I don't deny we have problems, but it is due largely to moral declines and social structure, not business structure.

I think he can't see the forest for the trees. He is so immersed in his intellectual swamp, that his thoughts and theories have lost touch.

Does anyone else find this offensive? An Iowa senator on AIG bonus recipients:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/16/iowa-senator-says-aig-executives-resign-commit-suicide/

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

I think politics has reached a new low, and this man is the one that needs to resign. I do not suggest he commit suicide, but I do suggest he is a nut, and needs to step down. This kind of crap needs to stop. I don't care if he is a Republican or a Democrat, it makes no difference.

There's no "law" concerning executive compensation, but if AIG is any example of how they reward themselves with taxpayer money, it only shows they are incompetent in what they do, because they have failed their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and the company's employees by their poor managing of their company. They have the chutzpah to give themselves a bonus with taxpayer money for their failures.

There's no 'legal' requirement, but they don't even understand moral requirements.

As an atheist Darwinian ci. you look rather odd talking about "moral requirements". You'll be quoting the Ten Commandments at us next.

spendi, One of god's commands is "thou shalt not kill," but god himself was responsible for the biggest killing on this planet with his great flood. Contradictions doesn't work too well, because hypocrisy in do as I say, not as I do just hasn't worked well in human nature.

Sure there are - tax laws. And that is exactly why businesses turned to stock options as compensation, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn

Tax laws do not regulate how much a person can earn, or how much "executive compensation" can be.
They do regulate how much tax is paid on that compensation, nothing more.

Same thing, according to Conservatives. At least, that's what we hear every time raising the taxes on this group is proposed.

Cycloptichorn

They like to have it both ways. LOL

I think you need to brush up a little on tax law. Initial gains from the exercise of options are taxed as ordinary income - there is no inherent tax benefit. Only the gains (if any) realized after the exercise of the option are taxed at the capital gains rate when the stock is sold, even then the stock must be held for at least a year for this to apply. Options are used primarily to focus the beneficiary's attention on increasing the value of the company.

There are no "regulations limiting executive compensation" or, for that matter the compensation of any private sector employee - the government has no such power. It can - as we are seeing now - establish some limitations as a contractual condition of receiving government funds - indeed our current government claims the right to do so after the fact.

The power to tax incomes is - as you should have said - a way of extracting earned income, and even of conficsating accumulated wealth from people so taxed.

There is no inherent social or economic good in taxation. It is merely a way of paying for the cost of government. I have no problem with significantly higher tax rates for those with more property or income. However, I do worry about a growing situation in which an increasing fraction of the population pays virtually no such tax and, at the same time, demands ever-increasing "entitlements" from the government whose operations they don't support. This isn't a stable or sustainable condition, and the historical precedents for such situations are not good.

Mrs Thatcher worried about that a lot too bearing in mind that the increasing fraction of the population paying virtually no such tax and, at the same time, demanding ever-increasing "entitlements" from the government consisted of folk having one vote each.

From the Star Tribune today:

Klobuchar wants to tax AIG bonuses

By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

Last update: March 17, 2009 - 1:59 PM

As outrage continues to boil over the bonuses paid to executives at American International Group Inc. (AIG), Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has joined a group of Democrats trying to recover those bonuses by taxing nearly their full amount.

She is one of 10 Senate Democrats who said today they're preparing a bill that would levy a 91 percent excise tax on the bonuses.

"I believe the Administration and Congress should do everything in our power to block these payments and demand accountability," she said on the Senate floor this morning. "AIG's bonus payments are not only a slap in the face to American taxpayers, they're also an insult to the many financial institutions that are responsible and well-behaved."

In a letter sent to Edward Liddy, AIG's chairman and chief executive, the senators urged him to renegotiate the $165 million paid out in bonuses to executives at the company's troubled financial products division. If he doesn't, the letter said, lawmakers wouldn't hesitate to recoup the bonuses through their proposed tax bill.

The excise tax, they wrote, "will have the effect of recovering nearly all of the bonuses that have been paid out since AIG turned to taxpayers for help."

A similar attempt to legislatively recoup the bonus money also has begun taking shape in the House of Representatives.

Fancy that! Is he an original and creative thinker?

LW, I don't think the government has much chance of doing that; there's not way to tax individuals in the tax codes. They can increase the tax rates for those making over $1 million (rather than the $250,000 Obama talks about), but taxes cannot be directed to the employees of one company. Also, the government knew that the bonus was already included in the contracts when the feds gave AIG the money. They needed to tie the strings "before" handing out the money - not after the fact.

The fact that the feds gave AIG taxpayer money, they should be able to do something to minimize the damage already done - such as making restrictions of future monies, and reducing it by the amount of the bonus. The feds (taxpayers) already own 80% of AIG; not a good position to be in and not have control of what the management does with the money.

We all know what should be done ci. But there are laws and regulations and consitutional exigencies and stuff like counsel.

Here is an interesting article, bank is scolded by FDIC for being too conservative and too sound, with not enough loans. That sounds almost as bizarre as if my auto insurance company sent me a letter to tell me to drive more recklessly!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509584,00.html

FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans for Being Too Cautious

Nice catch, okie. That's the second serious post today that struck me as outrageously funny. But what can dear old government do? Cut off their TARP 2 funding? HaHaHa!

You mean okie "caught" something? LOL

okie did indeed catch something significant but I would be at a loss as to how I would explain it to you ci.

All I can think of is Veblen's idea that consumerism is the night shift. A form of social control with pollution as a bonus. Just think of how harmless you will all be at your "gatherings" avoiding talking about your co2 emissions.