"It Is What It Is. Until It Isn't."
-Spongebob Squarepants
Friday, September 18, 2009
And now, from the department of "Really?"
Vikram Pandit, Citigroup CEO, admits that $100 million is too much for a bank employee to earn, given the fact that Citigroup currently has $45 billion dollars of our money.
I strongly oppose any government intervention in salaries, on any end of the scale.
However, if the company is on the dole, like this one and many others are, I strongly support rules to prevent the company from wasting money like this.
If they don;t like it, they should give back the taxpayer money.
Also, last time I checked, the head of Fannie Mae was making tens of millions. And this is a government agency. One run so badly that it caused this financial meltdown. That should be stopped, too. Perhaps this is one department that needs to be shut down. It might be too dangerous to have around.
It's like Fannie Mae stole your lunch or something.
In 2008, the Fannie Mae CEO made $11 million dollars, which is close to the average (10.4 million) for a large company like that. It is down 16% from 2007, which I am sure you will agree is not enough.
This is according to the AFL/CIO, which I am sure you will also agree has every reason to inflate the numbers, if anything.
Once again, though, Fannie Mae is not a government agency. We've been through this before. Yes, they have a special relationship with the government. Yes, they certainly had a role in the financial crisis, enabling the private lenders to make more and more bad loans. Yes, they should be reined in and perhaps abolished.
But I can't buy stock in the Department of Defense-it is a government agency. I can buy stock in Fannie Mae-it is a private company. Admittedly probably a grossly corrupt one, and I can't see why I would want to, but I can.
Insight like that is why he makes the big bucks :)
ReplyDeleteI think we've established that it is impossible, or at least unwise, for Congress to try and get involved here.
ReplyDeleteBut a simple sense of common decency would seem to demand that you not hand out a pay package like that while still beholden to the US taxpayer.
A simple sense of common decency...what a nice idea.
ReplyDeleteMy ethics keep me a small fish I think. A big fish can ignore stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteI strongly oppose any government intervention in salaries, on any end of the scale.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the company is on the dole, like this one and many others are, I strongly support rules to prevent the company from wasting money like this.
If they don;t like it, they should give back the taxpayer money.
Also, last time I checked, the head of Fannie Mae was making tens of millions. And this is a government agency. One run so badly that it caused this financial meltdown. That should be stopped, too. Perhaps this is one department that needs to be shut down. It might be too dangerous to have around.
It's like Fannie Mae stole your lunch or something.
ReplyDeleteIn 2008, the Fannie Mae CEO made $11 million dollars, which is close to the average (10.4 million) for a large company like that. It is down 16% from 2007, which I am sure you will agree is not enough.
{http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm)
This is according to the AFL/CIO, which I am sure you will also agree has every reason to inflate the numbers, if anything.
Once again, though, Fannie Mae is not a government agency. We've been through this before. Yes, they have a special relationship with the government. Yes, they certainly had a role in the financial crisis, enabling the private lenders to make more and more bad loans. Yes, they should be reined in and perhaps abolished.
But I can't buy stock in the Department of Defense-it is a government agency. I can buy stock in Fannie Mae-it is a private company. Admittedly probably a grossly corrupt one, and I can't see why I would want to, but I can.
Hence, it is a private company.