Michael Lewis takes a look at what’s really important right now.
As an aside, I think it’s an enormous mistake to focus on executive compensation in the context of the bailout proposal. Sure, there’s a gut-level appeal in taking something away from these frauds (and they *are* frauds), but the size of their compensation – on its own – is a miniscule part of the problem. Democrats really ought not be distracted by that when there are more fundamental issues to focus on.
silence dogood
On the topic of your aside, I would agree that it’s important to remember that executive compensation and the preservation of golden parachutes aren’t the only things wrong with the administration’s bailout proposal–not by a long shot. Even stripped of executive comp, there are still all sorts of things that are horrible and fundamental problems being ignored.
That doesn’t mean we should use taxpayer money to fund seven- or eight-figure severance packages for individual executives, however. It doesn’t have to be punitive, it’s simply try to assert some last semblance of responsibility and restraint on the public purse.
unacoder
these amounts are smaller than minuscule relative to the size of the bailout. i wouldn’t want to be in violation of a contract signed in good faith. but if there’s fraud, that might invalidate the contract, no?
so now i ask: what is the fraud? keep in mind i am not saying there isn’t any; i’m just curious.
silence dogood
“these amount are smaller than minuscule relative to the size of the bailout–”
Because we’re spending a ridiculous amount of money already. Why are the deficit hawks always circling on healthcare and social security but not on issues like whether my tax dollars should go to pay for severance packages to reward CEOs for being fired after failing at their jobs and ruining the American economy? Why is it only in cases like this that the prevailing attitude shifts to “well, we’re already spending $699B, what’s another billion dollars between friends?”
MB
Unacoder, I was speaking broadly, and probably should have made it clearer. I say “fraud” in terms of holding themselves out as specially-skilled financial wizards who are primarily concerned with managing financial risks. (However, I’d bet that a good bit of skilled digging could find some actual actionable fraud in the sales of some of these securities to municipalities, or in the relationships with the ratings agencies. For starters.)
unacoder
that’s what i figured, too. i was hoping you had some better intel than i.