--The salary limits for executives are cow paddies. Limiting only the compensation of the top 5 creates the perfect incentive for 5 layers of brainless deadweight with the real powerhouses underneath. Even pro sports teams manage to do a teamwide salary cap / salary pool, perhaps here framed as percent of return to shareholders. Shouldn't we expect the greatest minds in economics to come up with something more like that.
--Unencumbered by any familiarity with the legislation (hopefully there is some) enabling the wackiest of the speculative behaviors, I still cuncailly suspect that 4 or 5 key provisions could be gutted leaving most of the market intact and removing factors accounting for like 80% of the speculative churn.
--5 years is too long for any accountability to Congress.
--$350 B is too much upfront.
--All the Repubs who gripe about "throwing money at every social program" while imposing ridiculous definitions of accountability bettte stand up and go whole hot for serious accountability here.
Still not sure any of these changes would make me in favor of this mess but I have no experience in staring down market vultures either.
DC --
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net>wrote:
> So what does that mean? Bring on the militia? SR
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
> >
> > On Sep 29, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Bob Morris wrote:
> >
> > > We could be seeing the beginnings of a genuine populist uprising in
> > > the
> > > country...
> >
> > Let's see. Ralph Nader denounces Bernanke and Paulson as "socialists,"
> > which he means as a criticism I think. And Ron Paul is really happy
> > too. I guess that's populism of a sort.
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>