I know it's probably a stretch to ask this, but: is there a Republican in the house?! Can you please explain to me how it is even remotely morally OK to pay people this much money to do what basically amounts to jack shit?
I'm a former Republican, and I used to say two things:
(1) it's none of our business whether a private citizen is earning $10 or $10,000,000;
(2) supply and demand produces, over the long run, an optimal distribution of resources, because a society's needs (i.e. for goods and services) and abilities (i.e. the ability to provide those goods and services) need to be matched in a way that reflects the actual priorities of that society.
It's hard -- probably impossible -- to justify Wall Street compensation packages on supply-and-demand grounds. In the 70s, CEOs earned about 30 times the earnings of their workers. By 2007, they earned 344 times the average pay of their workers.
CEOs do not provide 10 times the value they produced in the 70s. They are not 10 times more scarce. Corporations are not 10 times more profitable. They are not 10 times more prosperous by any measure -- if they were, they would offer 10 times more compensation, on average, to everyone at their company.
So if I were still a Republican, I'd probably say something like this: banks like Bear Stearns were irrational, and they should pay the consequences. The fewer bad banks we have, the better it is for all of us in the long run.
I don't know how many Republicans would agree with that last bit. Truth be told, most of them aren't even pro-free-trade. They're just anti-socialist. Anything that sounds like socialism sends them running for the hills. "Supply and demand" are useful to them only as a cudgel with which to attack the socialist view.
And this sort of justification is trumpeted only by the educated, Wall-Street-Journal-reading elite of the Republican party. Their popular support base in rural areas couldn't care less about economic issues.
Look at who gets the money from Wall Street. Why? Big biz loves regulation that it can control. (When buying and selling is regulated, regulators are the first thing that will be bought and sold.)
FWIW, Sen Clinton does very well but Sen Obama is clearly at the top of the class. In three years, he got more from Fannie and Freddie than Clinton did in 8 and almost as much as Kerry did in 20. The highest 20 year total is Dodd, but Obama would have passed him by the end of his full term as Senator.
Meanwhile, Barney Frank is still out there arguing that we should be giving mortages to folks who can't pay them.
Because the shareholders, the owners of the company, are free to piss away their money as they so choose.
I think there is an argument to be made for better, more transparent corporate governance rules, that would make it easier for the shareholders to say "uh, no" to stuff like this, but it's ultimately their money.
The shareholders are not making these decisions (directly), the Board of Directors is. And who is on the BOD? Why other CEOs who expect their actions to be reciprocated. This is [logrolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling).
The talk about short term profit taking being driven by the market is BS as well. If a company were to take actions that would depress its earning in the short term for the sake of (demonstrable) long term growth and profits, the smart segment of the market would recognize that and respond favorably.
One partial solution: outlaw stock options in publicly traded companies. Use cash bonuses and have the usual Employee Stock Purchase Plan that provides a 15% discount on investing in the company.
