Similarly, while it may seem to make sense at first, bringing in a statist government is probably a bad idea if you're big business. B-Daddy has waxed supportive of the Obama Administration's efforts to restrict executive pay and, being a fellow who believes that people should have to deal with the consequences of their actions, I have to agree.
These guys loaded up on risk like there was no tomorrow and expected the Fed and the Congress to bail them out, which institutions promptly obliged. Where are the consequences that will change future behavior? Further, I hope this accelerates the pay back of the TARP/porkulus money, and stops further bleeding from the Treasury on this front. This is predatory government, when big special interests capture the government institutions that supposedly regulate them.Emphasis mine.
The problem with electing a Juan Peron clone is that they're, well, fascist. Mr. Big Business does indeed get to keep his private property, but only at the sufference of the fascist leader's government. In this case, Big Business supported this guy, slorped down money the government borrowed from others and now they're finding themselves shackled by that same government.
Others have fussed that this is a breach of the rule of law, but that hardly matters unless those executives want to bring suit against the government for breach of contract. Given that many of their jobs exist only because the government has handed them wads of cash, I hardly think that's likely. Besides, the rule of law wasn't what they wanted in the first place, they wanted the cash and to place the economy in stasis so that all those icky, smaller, growing competitors could be squashed through government action. Now that their pay is being cut and capped, it's a little too late to fuss about it.
That's what you get when you decided to keep a rattlesnake as a pet.
So actually you are saying that the corporations that accepted the bailout money are actually the ones who took a rattle snake as a pet.
ReplyDeleteI know you want to make a connection to these policies and Peron'ism, but there is an important difference. These corporations did it to themselves. They mismanaged their companies and they asked for and accepted the bailout. Plenty of corporations have returned the money, and these punative actions won't apply to them. In an ideal world these executives would have to answer to their shareholders, but for some reason it isn't working that way.
The real problem isn't the punishment being handed out after the fact, but the fact that they got a bailout in the first place.
KT, thanks for the link and the further exposition.
ReplyDeleteKelly,
I agree with you that the bailout never should have happened, but sometimes you have to accept the given situation and ask, what next? The what next, in my view, is a little personal pain for those whose actions resulted in this stupid outcome.
Kelly, you have it exactly right! They mismanaged their companies until the only person who could bail them out was a Peron. Well, they got what they wished for and more!
ReplyDeleteSort of sounds like there really isn't a problem. They're getting what they deserve. End of story. I suspect we won't see much, if any, more bailouts - not that we have the money for it. So as B-Daddy says, what next?
ReplyDeleteWhat's next is that the rest of the country is left with Juan Peron II. That didn't end well the last time.
ReplyDeleteThis is just come-up-ins
ReplyDelete