Warren: More Stress Tests Needed

Lots of headlines today about Treasury's decision to allow banks to repay billions in TARP funds.

A more significant story is getting lost in the shuffle, however: Elizabeth Warren says that more stress tests are needed because unemployment could well exceed the worst case scenario used in the recent stress tests.

"We have not actually broken through the worst-case scenario, but let's face it, the numbers are bad and they're heading in the wrong direction," Warren says.


It's worth pointing out, too, that the consumer is starting to take some really nasty hits right now, from skyrocketing rates on mortgages to rising gas prices. Things are going to get much, much worse before they get better. I hope that Team Obama is prepared.

< Tuesday Evening Open Thread | Detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Pleads Not Guilty in Federal Court >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Credit cards Brotus (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by koshembos on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:09:39 AM EST
    Ahead of January when new control will restrict the credit cards typical wilding, some credit cards have raised they regular rates. For instance, cards that were at 10%, twice the market going rate to up to 20%, four times the going rate.

    We have become a nation enslaved by banks, health insurance companies, gas companies and many smaller companies whose profits are taken from the sweat of our brows.

    The help we expected from turns out to be a false.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:10:16 AM EST
    We are a nation enslaved by government intervention and broken promises.

    Our federal government spends twice what it did in the 1970's adjusted for inflation.  Twice.  Double, two time, 100% more.

    Your statement makes me think you believe if it took more money from greedy corporations we'd be better off?

    Well it's done that and what do we have to show for it?   A broken economy.  


    I'd say you are both correct (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:19:58 AM EST
    The item that is completely missing are decisions that are made for the welfare and good of the people.  We have become the under priced commodity IN ALL ECONOMICAL EQUATIONS coming out of this White House.  I don't see that the situation can or will hold.  But there will be more severe human damage done first before anyone is going to acknowledge that our approach to the nation's wellbeing has to do a 180 degree turn around.

    Yeah...I say both too.... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:53:35 AM EST
    the merger of government and corporate power for 200 Alex.

    Orwell thought brute force would break our spirit...the jackboot to the human face.  That's all you need in a commie/socialist setting.  In a quasi-capitalist setting, you need the jackboot as well as the interest rates, the taxes, the fees, and the fines to break a person and keep 'em in line.

    Any defense of what we've got left has gotta come from the street...Washington is on the other side of this battle.  Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'...just don't wait on Uncle Sam to "create" a job for ya...creation ain't Sam's forte, destruction and thievery is.


    What we are really slaves to... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    ...is money, that inanimate object that WE invest with value, but that we have allowed to become the private property of the few.  We have evolved to consider money a living thing, and we treat it, always, as more important than people.  We pray to it, beg it to come our way, try to figure out how it moves.


    Until we decide, together, what money is, what we want it to do for us as a nation and individuals, etc., nothing will change.  Our love of money and addiction to it is no different than cult members who believe a spaceship will descend from the sky and rescue them.  Without the collective and consensus decision about the purpose of money, we are wasting our time and digging our own grave.

    We are mortal, life is short, you can't take a penny with you when you die.  That we are SO controlled by, esstentilly, scraps of paper and pot metal and computer blips with no real meaning, it just absurd in every way.

    We are coming out of (or should be) a period of pure criminality and fraud and collective delusion about money.  Time to wake up.  It's a thing.  Nothing more nothing less.  Make that thing work for all of us, more equitably and fairly and prosperously, and all will be fine.  But if we continue to make our country nothing more than a big casino (in which, as always, only the house wins), doom is coming fast and we will deserve it.

    Our stupidity right now is unrivaled in history.  We have all the tools and knowledge at our disposal to remake and revitalize our nation, and instead we are choosing to pray to the Gods and hope it works out.


    Team Obama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Gary P on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:36:33 AM EST
    They are not prepared to handle what is coming down the road. The team is still hung up on the previous administration and using them as the reason for this and that. They need to look at how many people on their team were responsible for this mess. If you look at the 99 congress and what they did with regards to our mortgage problems, then look and see how many of the same faces are on the team you should not have to ask why the dumb decisions keep coming. Change some of us counted on.

    Obama is out of options (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:07:24 AM EST
    He's "broke" to use his own words.

    They put all their cards in massive government spending and now we have a 1.85 trillion dollar deficit and nothing to show for it.

    Warren is right.  The justification Bush used to pass TARP and then Obama to pass the stimulus has actually happened, so now what.

    The sad reality is we'd been better off doing nothing.  Then at least we'd be prepared for the downturn that's oging to happen whether we like it or not.   This financial crisis has been 30 plus years in the making and now single president is going to stop it.   All he can do is make it worse and that's exactly what Obama has done.

    One of the most worrisome (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:14:02 AM EST
    events taking place for me lately is that when some car dealerships are becoming bankrupt they aren't getting the loans of their trade-in cars paid off before everything is frozen.  Then someone who has traded in a gas guzzler for something economical is responsible for making two car payments.  What a mess.  I can't say that team Obama has done anything that reassures me that they are ready for what is heading for us.

    If you're worried about that then (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:29:04 AM EST
    be very worried about this.

    Inflation is coming.   The only question is how bad will team Obama and the FED let it get.

    My worry is the actions to prevent massive inflation will neeed to be taken next year in an election year and team Obama won't want to stop this pitiful "growth" and then we'll roll right off a cliff in 2011.


    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:35:23 AM EST
    Ugh....I have company coming this weekend followed by a joint vacation at the beach and you throw that up?  I could spend the whole day reading up on what is happening but I can't.  I have to do a dog education day at a local library.  This wasn't suppose to happen.  This was what many said we ended up avoiding. I don't think this can happen and anyone ever be able to say that "the depression was avoided" because as my understanding goes this is what is the final trigger for the firing off into a what is classified as a depression.

    Had time to snoop a bit (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    but must head off into the day.  Hopefully this won't get out of control and will end being used as a way to measure and define our much needed economic policy changes.  Continuing to screw the middle class and little people though will make this one very slow and very painful recovery.

    Just in time for... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:02:18 AM EST

    The only silver linings I see are the proles are better equipped to handle true economic catastrophe (not the news ticker verson of catastrophe, the real deal)...and when currency is worthless, the young man will have something in the world again.


    Ha ha ha (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    My husband asked me the other day if it would improve our ability to retain some wealth if we purchased some different currencies :)  I couldn't help it, I started laughing and told him that if America is completely broken and has been leader of the pack, where do you go where they actually were able to remain playing the board game?

    The only currency... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:19:54 AM EST
    I'm holding is canned goods....ya can't eat  dollars, yen, euros, pesos, what have you.

    The tear I've been on you'd think the dollar was already toilet paper...I can't trade 'em for goods and services fast enough lately, trying real hard not to be the arsehole left holding t.p. with an empty cupboard.


    GREAT song (none / 0) (#39)
    by tworivers on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:59:20 PM EST
    Much better than Mose Allsion's original version (and that's saying something, because i really like Mose Allison)

    What an amazing thing it must have been to see them live circa 1970.


    A Laff riot (none / 0) (#36)
    by reslez on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    You realize you're pointing to a WSJ op-ed written by Arthur Laffer of the infamous Laffer curve, the right wing's favorite justification for decades of peacetime deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich (paired with tax hikes for the middle class). Mr Laffer has zero credibility when it comes to economic theory or imputations of inflation. He is a political creature, a supply sider, a whiff away from a right wing hack.

    The fact is, the monetary base is imploding at such a spree that inflation is nowhere on the horizon. The Fed wishes it could create inflation -- would if it could -- and can't. Moreover, scary doom-tide prophecies of incipient inflation are always proclaimed by right wing economists whenever a Democratic president is in office -- as Krugman rightly points out -- yet are suspiciously silent during the reign of one of their own (Bush's economic policies built up the enormous deficit we currently face and his Federal Reserve chair imposed the massive expansion of the Fed's balance sheet now feared to be inflationary). Rather than alarm people unnecessarily about hyperinflation you would do better to prepare them for a deflationary decade of lost growth.


    So the data isn't correct? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    Anytime someone spend a full paragrah destroying someone personally without addressing the facts they present they've lost all credibility.

    The money supply has exploded.  How is Obama and the Fed goign to reign it in if they won't cut spending and handouts?

    The floor is yours.


    And on a better note (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:30:03 AM EST
    As much as I've disliked witnessing Warren take a beating at times, like most people living simple profound truths her energy remains intact.  She doesn't need to hide out because her approaches are beginning to fail :)  She will continue to be able to make an impact so long as nobody fires her and I think some people are too afraid to fire her before the next wave of the economic tsunami hits and they have to answer questions like why did you fire Warren?  If we become fortunate and have her in an upfront position going through this horrible mess and she keeps talking the talk, we could end up with a much better future for our kids.  Going through this though is going to suck.

    That Warren (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    Always harshing our Obuzz!

    Almost Comic (none / 0) (#1)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:34:00 AM EST
    is the Obama Administration's proposal for an additional recovery act that would save or gain 600,000 jobs over three months.

    We've averaged over 500,000 job losses per month over the last four months.

    It would be comic except for the scale of suffering and the administartion's timid, half-a$$ed approach to the problem.  

    If the "create or save" phrase... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:14:24 AM EST
    ...becomes a punchline, it might be a problem for the Obama team.  If I recall correctly, during last year's campaign Obama was promising to "create or save" a million jobs.  By December the number climbed to 2.5 million, and then to 3.5 million.  

    Last year, I expected this phrase to get slapped around the way that Max Bauchus attacked the phrase a couple of months ago.

    Fortunately for Obama, the TV comics still seem to be in honeymoon mode.  If Bill Clinton had used this phrase when he was president, I think Leno would have used it for yuks in his nightly monologues for at least a month.  


    What's funny about it? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    If I were a teacher or a construction worker that had been scheduled to get laid off before the stimulus pumped some money into my area, I'd be pretty glad my job had been saved.

    I wish Obama had not compromised on the stimulus bill to make it acceptable to Arlen Spector and the 'ladies from Maine'. More jobs would have been 'created or saved' with more actual stimulus money and fewer tax cuts.


    Biden used it as a joke (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:11:42 AM EST
    in a speech this weekend when asked how they new how many jobs had been "saved or created".

    His response..."I don't know.  I'm not an economist".

    Good times.


    What part was the joke? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    The part where he didn't think enough of the problem to ask the economists how they came to their conclusions? Doesn't take an economist to understand the path one took to reach a number.

    He's so perfect for the intent he serves.


    Biden is the joke (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    Makes me wonder how people could critcize Palin with a straight face.

    The problem is (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    this type of approach won't/can't work.

    Making it bigger is worse then the stimulus he did pass.

    Our economic collapse was due to massive debt creation by the public and private class.  The fed/gov't made this possible by lowering interest rates and garunteeing loans and in effect removing all the risk from the system.

    Private and public banks (Fannie and Freddie)then gamed the system (at the urging of our gov't) and created a huge debt bubble that burst.

    Obama then poored on the debt in a failed attempt to get things going again.    

    Then he has the nerve to say "we're broke".  

    No, now we're destitute.  We where broke when you took office.

    How much debt do you think would have helped?  Where do you think this money comes from?   It's either borrowed or printed.   The gov't cannot create wealth.  It can only transfer it from those with it to those without.

    We're already 1.85 Trillion in the hole.  We've already got more money in circulation by a factor of 5 then at any time in history.

    How exactly is more spending going to help.

    To blame Obama for not being bold enough is to not admit the real problem.

    We're broke.


    Um deficet spending (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    in cases such as Obama faced has a well-supported counter-cyclical effect, I think its a lot easier to argue that the stimulus wasn't big enough than that it was too big.

    I simply can't agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    Where do you get your facts?

    The stimulus isn't working.  So if your argument isn't big enough how big would work?

    How about a 4 trillion dollar deficit?

    FDR was bailed out by WWII.  If we have WWIII then maybe you'll be right.

    My beliefs are based on sound economics.  It's not good to spend more then you make.  

    The government cannot create wealth.  It can only transfer wealth from one group to another.   One could argue that government can do that more efficiently then the private sector but it can't make the economy grow by spending money because it doesn not create money.

    If you want to fall back on Keynes then we cannot argue.  Keynes is politicly convienent for those who love to spend government money but no serious macro-economist (and Krugman isn't one) believes that by spending gov't money you actually create wealth.


    What magical process (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    does the private sector use to create wealth, yet the government is forbidden to engage in?

    What? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:42:49 PM EST
    The private sector creates wealth through manufacturing, service, goods, whatever.

    Wealth is created through making things that people want.

    To answer your question yes the government can create wealth and that's called communism.  It doesn't work.

    The government can step in and take risk that private buisness can't afford (nuclear power, space programs) etc.... but it is spending private money to do so.

    Any action by the gov't comes with unintended consquences.  Sometimes they're worth it, sometimes they're not.

    I'm not naive enough to believe that we aren't going to have some gov't.  It's always a question of how much works.

    Europe is proving that too much gov't is a problem .   Some would argue we don't have enough.

    This economic calamity was created by gov't so to me it's a sign that too much is a bad thing.


    Makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    Can the government manufacture things or can't it?  Can the government provide goods and services or can't it?

    To say that any time the government provides a service, "that's communism and doesn't work" is laughably overbroad.  Of course it can work for the government to provide a service.  Sometimes it's better to have the government do it, sometimes it's better to have the private sector do it.

    But I don't understand how you can claim that the exact same acts "create wealth" when the private sector does them yet constitute "communism" when the government does it.  Why is it just shifting money around when government provides a service, but creation of wealth when the private sector provides a service?  The private sector is just shifting money around too.


    Because the government (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:20:49 AM EST
    doesn't charge for it's services it takes the money it needs through taxation.

    The services it provides serve the collective good not a balance sheet.   Too many hands filter and manipulate the money before a final product or service is produced.   The goal is not profit the goal is to handle some service that can't be done profitably.

    I'm not arguing for no government.  I'm arguing for less government.

    Every time government collects a dollar they've taken it from someone who earned it.    

    It boils down to if you believe that the government can then spend that dollar more efficiently then you the private citizen or buisness.

    Also keep in mind the gov't traditionaly doesn't save money.   Savings are necessary to create wealth.  

    If you never saved any money but didn't have any debt then you would not be creating wealth.  Instead you would be passing money through the system and that is exactly what the gov't does.  It passes money around and we need it to do so we just don't need as much of it as we have now becasue eventually it starts to bog down the system and gets in the way of the real wealth creators, you and me.


    Allowed (none / 0) (#20)
    by roy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    It's tangential, but has anyone figured out what it means to "allow" TARP recipients to pay back the money they got?

    From the beginning TARP was (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    difficult to figure out.

    From the perspective (none / 0) (#35)
    by reslez on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    of the CEOs it means they won't be subject to the terrifying prospect of executive pay caps imposed by Congress. Seriously, that's the main reason this is going through.

    Geithner was asked by Sen. Tester about... (none / 0) (#22)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    Warren's suggestion for a redo of the stress tests because of the employment figures.  His response was that employment figures were only one of the criteria used and that the feds had placed more reliance on the impact of two years of losses at the percentage of losses experienced equal to the two worst years of the Great Depression.

    I'd be interested to see Warren's (and other commentators) analysis of that parameter.

    For those who think Obama should have (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    done more.   Read this.

    1 Trillion in 8 months.

    Truely amazing.

    OMG (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    Seriously, is this supposed to be scary- the American GDP is nearly 14 trillion- once you realize this- the spending package looks undersized not massive.

    Compared to what? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    The deficit is bigger then it's ever been (other then WWII).

    Last time I checked we aren't at war with anyone.

    There's no justification for this spending and Obama isn't finished.  

    How much is Social Serucity going to cost in 10 years?  Medicaid?  

    And how much is this new health plan going to cost and who's going to pay for it?

    Why is there more money in circulation then in any time in our history?  Why?   Because someone has to figure out a way to pay a debt that we don't have the wealth to pay.

    That means inflation is coming and this whole debt bubble that Obama didn't create but has only added too will come crashing down around us.

    Glad someone isn't worried.


    By the way I find (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    it ironic.  YOu sound like a republican 2 years ago when they weren't worried about the debt.

    Funny how people's (myself included) attitude changes when their guy is in charge.


    Until we realize (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    that criminals have seized our country we will stand no chance whatsoever of recovering our economy, our standard of living, or our futures.
    What we, the people, have to come to grips with is so awful, so unbelievable, that the safety mechanism in our psyches won't let us see it, lest we have a total, national, nervous breakdown.

    Throughout history, whenever a national calamity (war, coup d'état, insurrection, etc.) has taken place, whom do the ruling Oligarchs save first ?; themselves, and their families, of course. "Women and children first!" "The captain goes down with his ship!" Those quotes may make for nice fairytales, but of course, they're just fairytales.

    Does anyone really believe that the architects (conspirators) better known as the banks and your Government, didn't see this calamity coming? These people, who hold all the power, are privy to all the information, and who designed and enriched themselves from this system, just woke up one day and said, Oops?

    No, my guess is that something like this took place: Paulsen arranged for a conference call with Bush, Obama, their senior economic teams, the heads of the major banks & financial institutions, and certain Congressional leaders. The gist of the conversation went something like this: "Well guys, we knew this day was coming sooner or later; that day has come, and it's today. We can do one of two things. We can spell it all out to the American people, ask for some time to work it out, and hope there isn't a spontaneous national explosion of rage. Of course, the damage will be so great that the ultimate outcome is completely unknowable and dangerously unpredictable. Or we can, while we still hold power, grab every last dime we can get our hands on, so that when the public wises up and finds out what we've done, we'll be firmly secure and protected in whatever private utopia we've set up for ourselves around the globe.

    Crazy? No, I Think it's exactly what happened, and it's exactly what's going on right now, right under our noses. Why else would Obama, who promised "change," hire Geithner and Summers, arguably the two people most responsible for this disastrous scheme, to head up his economic team? Who, better than these two, know where the "bodies are buried?"

    And, that's why "The Masters" needed the "right" President, and why everyone who gorged and enriched themselves at the public's trough locked elbows in search of the "right guy." So when Obama said, "I'm the guy you've all been waiting for," the rest was "nuthin but net."

    It's the "Crime of the Century," and they got away with it.

    Equally Plausible is... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    the concept of shared delusion  ("folie a deux") where all of the people in control actually believed that real estate prices could only go up and that the markets and market participants would regulate themselves because it was in their best interest to do so (Greenspan and Rand).  And those who did not buy into the delusion hoped that the collapse wouldn't be severe because foreign and emerging markets wouldn't collapse as well and hoped that the collapse wouldn't happen until they were long gone into retirement in the Cayman Islands.  Paulson upset the applecart when he refused to rescue Lehman (showing his own delusion of eliminating moral hazard by letting Lehman go under).  

    Obama chose Geithner and Summers because he (and almost everyone else, including Krugman) thought that it was important to have continuity, which is not a bad guess but at the end of all of this, continuity may prove to be the last thing needed.


    I can't disagree (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    with most of what you've said. And, obviously, there are as many opinions as there are interested observers.

    I'll give them credit for not believing that real estate prices could only go up, but fault them for their pathological hubris in believing they were smart enough to get out before the inevitable collapse.

    In the end, "power corrupts; absolute power...." took over complete control. What form of testosterone-on-steroids force permits an employee (not an owner, entrepreneur, or founder) the belief that they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year for doing a job? Certainly, they couldn't do it the old fashioned way, by outperforming their completion. So they bought the Government, which changed the rules allowing them to eliminate the competition. They found they could also appoint their own onto the court system, including the Supreme Court.

    Finally, the need to provide a product, or service, was eliminated, and they discovered that screwing their customers was a much easier, and more lucrative, way to increase revenues. Some of us  watched in awe as this aberrational mutation was permitted to asses fees, as they assumed the role of judge, jury, and executioner vs. their customers. And after the revenue from fees approached 60% of their total revenue, a new scam had to be hatched.......derivatives.

    The rest, as they say, is history.


    All this was created (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:46:55 PM EST
    by gov't removing risk from the system with cheap money and garunteed loans.

    The practices of the Fed the last two decades was like parents leaving teenagers for the weekend with a house stocked with booze and pot.   Fun for a while but a bad idea.

    I'm not one for conspiracy theories but practically your point is sound.   gov't and Wall street created these rules and each gamed the system.

    As long as the ball was rolling the profits and tax revenues poored in and everyone was happy.

    Unfortunately the laws of supply and demand don't play favorites and it all came crasing down.   Now the same actors are trying to come out for an encore and too many think that more of the same problems are the solution.


    With Regard to Executive Compensation... (none / 0) (#43)
    by santarita on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    have you ever seen a 10 year old kid asking for a new bike, IPOD, etc.?   One of their most persuasive arguments is "But Joannie just got a new bike and so did Bobbie."  Same thing happens in some board rooms - the CEO points out through the use of pliable compensation consultants that $X million is the standard compensation for similarly sized companies and then points out that "our company is better than the competitors, isn't it?"  or "Don't you want to get better results than these others?".   To the extent that any of these moguls are self-reflective, it is likely that they justify the compensation based on the fact that it is not out of whack with the rest of the competition.  "If the President of Big Bank gets that much, I should get more, because our company is bigger and better."

    It's called capitalism (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    If you want to attract the best talent and the best CEO compensate them.

    If you want a dud then don't.

    Do they always make the right choice?  Of course not.


    Incredible.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    just incredible.