When will these emmeffers ever get it, chapter II

That's why no one is too big to fail - they waste and/or hoard every bailout dollar.

Let them feel real pain. Thumbscrew pain.

Even better, Wells Fargo buys out Wachovia, now Wachovia (Wells Fargo) will buy out UBS.

Everyone knows the bailout money was designed to allow the banks to expand their empire.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032009/business/banks_urge_2_merge_153299.htm

Wasn't there a joke in the other similarly titled thread about these execs taking their money to Vegas...

I believe Wells Fargo refused bailout money, and only accepted it under extreme pressure from Paulson. It seems to be one of the few banks that actually wasn't hurt much in the Panic of 2008.

The people that don't "get it" are the ones in DC. If you give someone money, you pretty much lose the power to decide how that money is spent.

In the particular case of Wells Fargo, I really can't get too upset with the company. It actually had a far more secure position than most large banks--until it bought Wachovia, that is--and was really in a position of weakness. I say "weakness" because prior to the Wachovia buy out, Wells Fargo was likely to sit there and watch everyone else get free hand outs, making it own more sound finances costly to its bottom line. Go figure.

And of course, this is the problem with the entire bail out mentality: reward bad decisions, not good ones.

robeiae said:

The people that don't "get it" are the ones in DC. If you give someone money, you pretty much lose the power to decide how that money is spent.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this, Rob, one of the few times I've ever disgreed with you. One of life's four greatest truths is "He who pays the bills calls the shots." The American taxpayer is paying the bills, and we call the shots, unfortunately working through a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats and elected officials. It was either George Washington or John Jay who said in a letter to the other, that we would never have a good government because of who would get elected. Very prophetic.

NDG

I'm almost to the point where I"m so outraged that I just don't care anymore about this.

Norman D Gutter said:

I disagree with this, Rob, one of the few times I've ever disgreed with you. One of life's four greatest truths is "He who pays the bills calls the shots." The American taxpayer is paying the bills, and we call the shots, unfortunately working through a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats and elected officials.

Click to expand...

Yeah, incompetent bureaucrats and officials that simply handed out money. That's the point.

It's like the "stimulus" check some time back. The feds sent everyone a check. But that's the end of it. They (or WE) lost all control over those checks, once they were in the mail. So, complaining that some people maybe only spent those checks on porn and booze is pretty much pointless whining. Shouldn't have sent the checks. THAT is the fix.

So in this case: "damn banks, spending OUR money on frivolities." Shouldn't have given them the money, then. They (the banks) don't work for you or me, so they really don't have to care what we think. But the tools in DC do work for you and me. And obviously, they STILL don't care what we think--except on election day.

The Vegas trip has been cancelled due to public disaproval:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28999671

This is the second time today that I've been very happy with the media. Will wonders never cease?

Monkey said:

The Vegas trip has been cancelled due to public disaproval:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28999671

This is the second time today that I've been very happy with the media. Will wonders never cease?

Click to expand...

Ah, gee! You mean all our anger has been wasted? I was just getting wound up to post my own attack on them, and now I find they've backed down. The bastards!

I didn't lose control of the stimulus check. It almost exactly covered the cost of going to a writers conference I was planning on going to anyway: tuition, room, board, and transportation.

blacbird said:

...no less significant, especially the blatant disregard of propriety and common sense exhibited by the recipients of the largesse...the idea of spending money on this kind of frivolity in the midst of the current situation is either stupid or arrogant beyond a normal person's ability to express.

Click to expand...

Actually, bird, as a tightwad I find that kind of spending frivolous and stupid regardless of the national economic circumstances. No batch of executives, even in the best run and most profitable company in the world, deserve that kind of lavishness. That's like me going out and paying $100 for a balogna sandwich.

However, I also don't believe the government should set limits on how much anyone should be paid. Except, of course, when you take government money to pay those people. Then, according to my "he who pays the bills calls the shots" belief, the payer should indeed limit what those executives should be paid.

NDG

Norman D Gutter said:

I didn't lose control of the stimulus check. It almost exactly covered the cost of going to a writers conference I was planning on going to anyway: tuition, room, board, and transportation.

Click to expand...

YOU spent it in the manner that YOU wanted to spend it. But the government, and therefore the people at large, had no control over how you spent it. That's what I'm pointing out.

In the bailout, the Feds have handed oodles of money to these banks (and corps like AmEx that became a bank, just to get a piece of the pie). And once the money was in the hands of the execs...

They might not get it, but at least Obama does.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay

blacbird said:

It's A point, that I'll grant. But, as we can't roll back the clock, we move on to the next point, don't we?

Click to expand...

Ah, yes. We move on to the mind-bogglingly stupid actions of the new Prez and Congress: let's do it all again. Brilliant. And when the next "stimulus" package leads to more of the same, you'll hoot and holler about companies and their execs "misusing" that money, all they while behaving like a hapless dupe by letting the Feds slide away and actually looking to them--again--to "solve" problems.

There are more points, no less significant, especially the blatant disregard of propriety and common sense exhibited by the recipients of the largesse. Your ability to disregard these with a minor theoretical sniff is simply breathtaking, Robs.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Like I can control the self-interested actions of other people. What the fuck do you care if other people disregard "propriety and common sense"? What are you gonna do about it? They're not elected officials and they don't answer to you. The most you can do is throw a fit and--if you so desire--cease doing business with them.

How about actually addressing the CAUSE of the problem, for a change? You give Bush holy hell for things he does that you think are bone-headed. You did the same for Stevens.

Now, here we have Bush and Congress as a whole acting foolishly: handing out money to poorly managed companies to "save" them and us. Blah. I blame Bush for the stupidity of this. And I blame Congress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what a bad idea this was. So the morons in DC are gonna do what? THE SAME THING ALL OVER AGAIN. Only bigger, this time.

And you reserve your outrage for the companies, alone. Great.

Look, even if Wells Fargo hadn't snorted the coke of the bailout, the idea of spending money on this kind of frivolity in the midst of the current situation is either stupid or arrogant beyond a normal person's ability to express. It would at least be strongly questionable, even in a prosperous environment. Shareholders in Wells Fargo should be outraged, for starters.

Click to expand...

Well you know, Wells Fargo stock took a dive after Moodys downgraded it. This, even though Wells Fargo essentially took on the bad debt of Wachovia. And Wells Fargo was able to take on that debt because it was in far better shape than it's competitors. Then the government started handing out dollars, erasing--for all intents and purposes--the advantage Wells Fargo had achieved for its superior practices. I don't much like the Vegas trip, either. But AS A STOCKHOLDER, I'm outraged. AT THE GOVERNMENT.

The key question being, What could the cost of this nonsense be better applied to?

Click to expand...

That's the key question to me, no doubt. But if it's key to you, you sure have a roundabout way of getting to it. Who is to blame for "this nonsense"? Bush. Congress. And soon, Obama. Tell it to them.

icerose said:

They might not get it, but at least Obama does.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay

Click to expand...

President Obama said:

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

Click to expand...

Hey a max earning cap is better than no stipulations, though I don't think they should have bailed out anyone to begin with.

icerose said:

Hey a max earning cap is better than no stipulations, though I don't think they should have bailed out anyone to begin with.

Click to expand...

There are loopholes aplenty, from what the article says.

Regardless, it's feel-good PR fluff in my view. It's not gonna do jack, with regard to the economy at large. And really, it's a matter for the stockholders of a company, not the government. If Obama wants to do something positive, he should address this from the standpoint of corporate structures and the laws that govern such, not from government fiat.

robeiae said:

There are loopholes aplenty, from what the article says.

Regardless, it's feel-good PR fluff in my view. It's not gonna do jack, with regard to the economy at large. And really, it's a matter for the stockholders of a company, not the government. If Obama wants to do something positive, he should address this from the standpoint of corporate structures and the laws that govern such, not from government fiat.

Click to expand...

Agreed, definitely. Still it's nice to see something happening.

INCOME TAX HOLIDAY

Woops, I must be having some fever dream. I googled it and indeed confirmed it's a pipe dream.

robeiae said:

There are loopholes aplenty, from what the article says.

Click to expand...

Loopholes are attached to ropes that government entities pull on to lead others in the direction they want to go.

No doubt this very afternoon new executive employment contracts are getting a "This company shall not receive government bailout money" clause.

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

Click to expand...

So, if Obama doesn't fix the economy, does he still get paid?