Business Week has a brief "pro/con" article on Obama's proposed salary restrictions for CEOs. Yaron Brook does his usual clear and concise job with the "con" side of the argument. Readers can post comments and I submitted the following in response to the leading quote:
"No cap pay for CEOs? The companies are going from bad to worse yet the bastards are making more money plus benefits--you call that talent? No."
Obviously those that needed a bailout so badly that they went to the Feds begging for money weren't going to last much longer without it. Yes, incompetent CEOs may have made a lot of money they didn't deserve for a few years, but obviously that time was quickly coming to an end until the government decided to prop them up.
For those of you who argue that corporations that receive government money should accept government regulation to monitor the use of that money, I would have no response other than to ask why on earth they were given that money in the first place.
Giving money to incompetent institutions directly prevents the good ones from succeeding. Wells Fargo, a competent, well-run bank, was patiently waiting for its over-leveraged competitors to fail so they could claim more market share and benefit from their intelligent practices. Now that their incompetent successors have been propped up, they may never have a chance to be rewarded for their prudence or to provide quality service to millions of Americans.
Please let us run our businesses as we see fit, and succeed or fail on our own merit, for the benefit of us all.