"The worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression "

[wades_keys]

{censored}, let's face it guys - we're all on our own in this mess.

 

If you don't have any bootstraps to pull up with, then beg borrow or steal em.

 

We'll be alright as long as we have our health.

 

Peace, out. :smile:

[ThudMaker]

ha ha ha ha ha If you're expecting me to suggest something ridiculous like the democrats aren't as guilty of this crap, don't hold your breath. It looks, however, like you've bought into McCain's "reform" platform. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Typical goal line moving from you. You brought partisanship into the discussion by blaming Republicans and not mentioning Democrats.

[jasper383]

 

 

Actually, given the highly leveraged nature of these investments, it took relatively little to make them collapse.

 

This is not your father's financial crisis; one where a market collapse means a general weakness in the overall economy. This is not the Great Depression, Part Deux.

[Kindness]

Typical goal line moving from you. You brought partisanship into the discussion by blaming Republicans and not mentioning Democrats.

You're such a sissy you wait until FiC is banned before taking him on. Wuss.

[ThudMaker]

But the fundamentals of our economy be strong. McCain as much on Monday.

Part of a leader's job is to instill confidence in the masses. Do you think that a real leader should tell people that not only is the economy in the crapper, but we're headed beyond disaster into another depression? Save your sons and daughters folks and hold on to your wallets, because this is a meltdown. No offense, but that's not leadership. That would be fear mongering, something the Democrats accuse the Republicans of on a regular basis. So basically it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. McCain's speech this morning in Green Bay was excellent.

[ThudMaker]

You're such a sissy you wait until FiC is banned before taking him on. Wuss.

Whoops.

When/how did this happen?

[Kindness]

Whoops. When/how did this happen?

(I actually thought I was in the HCBF Argument Thread where my initial post might have been funny )

When = sometime last night. How = I don't know the specifics, but everyone knew it was coming.

[JacieFB]

Whoops. When/how did this happen?

I think it has something to do with all the posts that Catphish scrubbed out of the Tube amp versus Solid state amp thread. How they got to that point, I have no idea.

[ThudMaker]

(I actually thought I was in the HCBF Argument Thread where my initial post might have been funny )

I thought it was funny!

 

 

[wades_keys]

Not to get too political, but I find it amusing that any political candidate would speak out against the golden parachute CEO's.

 

Sure it's a hot button issue, but these are private corporations and if they choose to reward foolish fiscal behavior with massive bonuses, there's really not much anyone in the government can do about that.

 

That said, i would like to see some form of increased regulation of corporations, but frankly I'm not sure even the experts know how to proceed on this issue.

[ThudMaker]

Not to get too political, but I find it amusing that any political candidate would speak out against the golden parachute CEO's. Sure it's a hot button issue, but these are private corporations and if they choose to reward foolish fiscal behavior with massive bonuses, there's really not much anyone in the government can do about that. That said, i would like to see some form of increased regulation of corporations, but frankly I'm not sure even the experts know how to proceed on this issue.

I think that by talking about it and putting it at the forefront of discussions that perhaps Golden Parachutes would be found unacceptable. Sure some might still take them up on the offer. One thing missing from our society today is shame. It really is shameful. McCain hit on that in his speech this morning, when he referenced Eisenhower writing 2 letters before the D-Day invasion. One was a congratulatory letter and the other was a letter taking full responsibility for the operation and (IIRC) his resignation in case the operation wasn't successful. That's accountability. Obama is talking about it, too. We don't need to get into who would actually do what, but people need to be aware that it's OK to earn some big money, but these big payouts at the end of unsuccessful performance isn't acceptable.

[bnyswonger]

McCain wants to get tough now that things are blowing up...despite the fact that he's historically been de-regulation and let the free markets dictate to themselves.

You put guys who don't really believe in government in charge of the government and this is the kind doublethink you get.

You can't blame Obama for pointing out the obvious.

[wades_keys]

I think that by talking about it and putting it at the forefront of discussions that perhaps Golden Parachutes would be found unacceptable. Sure some might still take them up on the offer. One thing missing from our society today is shame. It really is shameful. McCain hit on that in his speech this morning, when he referenced Eisenhower writing 2 letters before the D-Day invasion. One was a congratulatory letter and the other was a letter taking full responsibility for the operation and (IIRC) his resignation in case the operation wasn't successful. That's accountability. Obama is talking about it, too. We don't need to get into who would actually do what, but people need to be aware that it's OK to earn some big money, but these big payouts at the end of unsuccessful performance isn't acceptable.

Man, great point - maybe it will work that way in the end.

[wades_keys]

How is it "faux wealth"? The money is just as real when you gain as it is when "the market declines or someone "pulls the plug" on a stock".

 

It sounds like he's referring to "day traders" buying and selling stock on a minute-to-minute basis.

 

If that is the case, I tend to agree with his sentiments.

[ThudMaker]

 

John McCain- May 25, 2006 (over 2 years ago)   "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae

[Kindness]

One thing missing from our society today is shame. It really is shameful. McCain hit on that in his speech this morning, when he referenced Eisenhower writing 2 letters before the D-Day invasion. One was a congratulatory letter and the other was a letter taking full responsibility for the operation and (IIRC) his resignation in case the operation wasn't successful. That's accountability.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If the invasion was the right choice, well planned, well researched, well reasoned and a calculated risk, then it is the right decision regardless of outcome. Hindsight shouldn't be used to glorify or condemn the decision based on outcome. That is nothing but turning the leader into a scapegoat. It is complete bull{censored}.

[catphish]

Those CEO's should perform hara-kiri

[ThudMaker]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If the invasion was the right choice, well planned, well researched, well reasoned and a calculated risk, then it is the right decision regardless of outcome. Hindsight shouldn't be used to glorify or condemn the decision based on outcome. That is nothing but turning the leader into a scapegoat. It is complete bull{censored}.

How is Eisenhower taking responsibility for his OWN actions and battle plans becoming a scapegoat? Unless of course if Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander he wasn't responsible for any of the failures and should have taken a golden parachute deal.

[Emprov]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. If the invasion was the right choice, well planned, well researched, well reasoned and a calculated risk, then it is the right decision regardless of outcome. Hindsight shouldn't be used to glorify or condemn the decision based on outcome. That is nothing but turning the leader into a scapegoat. It is complete bull{censored}.

 

Leaders set the course, how does holding the leader responsible for mismanagement and poor decisions make him the scapegoat?

[ThudMaker]

Those CEO's should perform hara-kiri

So you think that when a company fails, the CEO should still collect 25 million bucks? Sure, if it's written into a contract. It should be written in the contract that if in fact the upper management was unsuccessful, the company was bought out do to certain conditions, the company declared bankruptcy, fails to meet certain criteria, etc., they will not receive the Golden Parachute. How is it they can lay off thousands of workers and still ride the gravy train? That's not justice.

[catphish]

I think Kindness's point was that the outcomes aren't a good measure for a leader.

 

My last company was making money hand over fist. They were #1 in the industry, in the 4 years I was there their profits nearly trippled. The company was run by total morons and two of the execs were actually stealing from the company.

[catphish]

So you think that when a company fails, the CEO should still collect 25 million bucks? Sure, if it's written into a contract. It should be written in the contract that if in fact the upper management was unsuccessful, the company was bought out do to certain conditions, the company declared bankruptcy, fails to meet certain criteria, etc., they will not receive the Golden Parachute.

 

 

Yes, "if upper management was unsuccessful" I absolutely agree. Unfortunately I don't think "successful management" is based solely on the prosperity of the company.

[pickinatit]

Really? From page 2. vvvvvvvvvvv

 

 

You beat me to it.

 

McCain may have a reputation as a deregulator over all, but not on this issue.

It is intellectual dishonest of Obama to drop that tag on McCain when it comes to this issue. McCain Co-Sponsered a bill several years ago (support for which your quote comes from) and the Democrats killed it.

We also had the White House try to introduce legislation that would have cracked down on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last year (I think) that Barney Frank (one of the biggest recipients of FM contributions) wouldn't take up in his commitee.

[JacieFB]

So you think that when a company fails, the CEO should still collect 25 million bucks? Sure, if it's written into a contract. It should be written in the contract that if in fact the upper management was unsuccessful, the company was bought out do to certain conditions, the company declared bankruptcy, fails to meet certain criteria, etc., they will not receive the Golden Parachute. How is it they can lay off thousands of workers and still ride the gravy train? That's not justice.

 

 

That's kind of the pickle that the well-connected CEO can put a company in:

 

You hire a CEO, pay them gobs of money, your company and its shareholders assume the risk, sometimes the CEO even "sneaks" it into the contract that the more the company's shareholders get diluted, the more it benefits said CEO.

 

The flip side: You don't hire a well-connected CEO. You don't get to play in the bigger sand boxes that the CEO can play in. Often, you're paying for contacts. And you pay hell to get them.

 

 

This is one example from the startup world that I watched almost happen, BTW.

[ThudMaker]

Yes, "if upper management was unsuccessful" I absolutely agree. Unfortunately I don't think "successful management" is based solely on the prosperity of the company.

Yep. Within each contract there should be stated goals and achievements. I highly doubt running a company into bankruptcy would be considered a goal or achievement desired.