That doesn't have much to do with buying and selling houses, but that editorial is socialist propaganda - as though communism doesn't have even more ethical lapses. Without capitalism, you wouldn't even be able to own your own home, let alone sell it or buy a better one.

Ok, an article about how Wall Street people get paid a lot of money. Not news and doesn't have anything to do with buying and selling homes.

Why is it every time someone dares question robber barons, they call it socialist propaganda? Those men are crooks! It's not socialism to want to see integrity in people who are supposed to be running such huge corporations, it's decency, no more, no less.

"Why is it every time someone dares question robber barons, they call it socialist propaganda?"

Because socialism is even worse. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

That must mean, mfbenson, that you consider robber barons a necessary part of capitalism.

To defend capitalism is one thing, but to defend those who abuse it is quite another. So which are you defending -- capitalism or robber barons? Or both?

"So which are you defending -- capitalism or robber barons? Or both?"

Capitalism, complete with its scoundrels, because scoundrels can do even more societal damage in socialist and communist economies.

I'm glad you made that clear. Most other people, I suspect, can tell the difference between playing fair and mercilessly fleecing the public, but apparently you're not one of them.

Or maybe you think it's just not possible to have capitalism without scoundrels? That sounds to me like something a Marxist would say.

Have to vote with capitalism on this one, too!! Certainly not a perfect system (because there ISN'T one) but I sense an insidous current of whining and lack of any historical perspective in our modern culture. Socialism is not the answer! "A society unwilling to learn from history is doomed to repeat it." Sage advise.

"Or maybe you think it's just not possible to have capitalism without scoundrels?"

It may well be possible - if you have any examples of such I'd like to learn about it.

"That sounds to me like something a Marxist would say."

Marx said capitalism will take over the entire world before it crumbles. Have you really studied what he had to say?

Highly-paid public company CEOs are not "robber barons". They are not stealing anything. Most of them earn every penny of their salaries and bonuses. The CEO is "The Man/Woman" - who can make or break a company, steering behemoth companies through competitive and sometimes volatile times, making sure the ship doesn't sink. They are the superstars of capitalism., and deserve to be well-rewarded.

No one questions the millions paid to superstar athletes, movie stars and network news anchors. The corporate world has been unfairly and simplistically vilified since the 80s - with movies like Wall Street and other such pap fueling the schadenfreudism that exists still today.

"Most of them earn every penny of their salaries and bonuses."

Not really sure what socialism OR capitalism has to do with someone collecting $58 million he didn't really earn while low level employees are being fired. These would-be "superstars" should be in the food line with the rest of the downsized.

Gina brings up a good point about movie stars and athletes, etc. - the same rule applies, but are movie stars making huge bucks while other people are sent to the unemployment line? I don't know the answer to that question. The movie business isn't quite the same as other industries.

People here seem to be referring to communism/socialism as anything that isn't pure capitalism. The potential for greed in capitalism certainly calls for some oversight. I wouldn't call that oversight communism. It's pretty far from it, actually.

mfbenson: "That doesn't have much to do with buying and selling houses, but that editorial is socialist propaganda..."

You may wish to read the article once again...as it seems that you have missed the point...and that is the sub prime debacleÂÂ. and the further problems that are still rearing their ugly heads are all the fruit of the same tree...the Wall St group of Harvard MBA's that continued to sell the garbage, KNOWING it was garbage simply to turn a buck.

This in turn was largely responsible for creating the current housing market problems...the huge losses of Citigroup, Merrill, BOfA, and the demise of Countrywide, etc. etcÂ..affecting the ability to sell a home...or for many to continue to own a home...aka, "buying and selling homes".

BTW...I know many people who work on Wall StÂ..in all of the named professions...and more. Trust me, it is NOT propaganda. This is indeed the way it worksÂ.just do the research.

If you are still unaware of all of this, good luck with that.

gina w: Highly-paid public company CEOs are not "robber barons". They are not stealing anything. Most of them earn every penny of their salaries and bonuses....They are the superstars of capitalism. and deserve to be well-rewarded.

Do you write press releases for the financial market for a living? If notÂÂ.you should consider doing so....as you spin better than most. Be that as it may...few are fooled.

gina w: "No one questions the millions paid to superstar athletes, movie stars and network news anchors"

Well, people do complain about the athleteÂs salaries all the time...in that their compensation has made tickets so pricey most average families can't afford to go to games.

That said, in the grander scheme of things, when the day comes that the athletes, movie stars and/or network news anchors have the ability to control and manipulate the economy, and subsequently lose billions upon billions, and walk off with millions when they do so, even you will hear the questionsÂÂ or the screaming as the case may beÂÂas well.

Highly-paid public company CEOs are not "robber barons". They are not stealing anything. Most of them earn every penny of their salaries and bonuses. The CEO is "The Man/Woman" - who can make or break a company, steering behemoth companies through competitive and sometimes volatile times, making sure the ship doesn't sink. They are the superstars of capitalism., and deserve to be well-rewarded.

But then when they steer the ship right into the reef, why do they get severance packages in the hundreds of millions?? The point is, these guys have NOT made sure the ship doesn't sink. It's sinking, and taking the rest of us along for the ride.

Even JP Morgan thought that 40 times the wage of the average worker was plenty. (And he was one of the original 'robber barons.') Nowadays, we're at something like 300 times. It's no wonder there's no money left for investing in the future of the business.

And let's not forget that the majority of these 'deserving' CEOs, even after knocking billions off the market cap of their companies, rake in still more money when they exercise stock options they were granted at a fraction of market price, thus enriching themselves even as they en-poor all the other stockholders. This is, actually, stealing. You've been reading about all the SEC investigations of option dating, haven't you?

Well said, housenewbie.

There will always be someone making more then you and less then you, this is a fact...I would bet people who make minimum wages look at people pulling down 100k, and think THEY are robber barons,lol...those who make 100k, look at those making 300k, and say,NO way are they worth that..and the beat goes on...

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

No, qdognj, greed is a vice. You are speaking of ambition. Ambition makes you strive to do better and earn an honest living. It is not the money. Our combined family income is six figures and I am very content with that amount. I am happy for people that can make more.

Greed makes you kill your spouse for the insurance.

qdognj: "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Same philosophy as Ivan Boesky and Michael Milkin..and ultimately their "surge" was the exact opposite.

No one questions the millions paid to superstar athletes, movie stars and network news anchors.

WHAT???!?!?!?!?

LOTS OF PEOPLE bemoan the millions paid to those people. LOTS of them.

I don't want socialism, but I wish there was more honor among people at the top of our companies.

Those CEOs do their work THROUGH lots of other people. And while a big paycheck is a necessity, some of them make WAY too much money even when they fail.

I don't want a governmental solution to that; but I would like to see a corporate-governance solution. And some reverse pressure from stockholders.

the quote was from the movie Wall Street,lol... Not my quote, though i do believe in capitalism, and while not happy about the $$$$ CEO's pull in, it is much better then communism

lol.

qdog, I doubt we get communism any time soon. The USSR never even got close before they gave up. Yes, capitalism is much more sustainable.

I don't see it as we either have to have corporate greed or communism. There are ways to check greed that don't even leave the capitalist realm.

"as it seems that you have missed the point..."

I guess it got muddled in the "the problem with capitalism is the capitalists" headline. There are considerably less slanted articles that address the subprime issue, and wall street's role in it, than this one.

What is needed is a Board of Directors with Ba!!s...Why in the world should Ceo's etc get millions of dollar packages when they "resign",lol...The Board should just tell them to poack their briefcase and get out....Until corporate governance and Boards get much tougher, the $$$ gravy train will continue...

When it costs multiplied millions just to try in one state to be chosen to be the standard bearer for your party, let alone the costs of running once chosen, who do you think pays for all of that?

And do you think that it's done out of the goodness of their hearts, that they won't expect consideration later?

Recently they had a *big* tax cut for the corporations.

A major tax cut for the big shots.

A bit of a tax cut for the large numbers ... so they'd not feel entirely left out. But a substantial tax cut for the masses? That'd cost too much.

I was taught to treat others with respect, as I'd like to be treated. Actually, I was taught to love my neighbour as myself.

Which doesn't mean screwing them, financially speaking.

Shame on countries as rich as ours who are content to be as little concerned as we are about the millions of kids that live in poverty.

We put a bridle on a horse so that we can have some say in where and how it runs.

Seems to me that our chief execs need some bridles, as well.

But the corporations and the government run hand in hand ...

... with darn little real regard for the populace.

And there were the elite in Russia, who lived high on the hog, while the peons barely existed.

Seems to me that not just political and social democracy are of value, but economic democracy, as well - in all of Russia, China, and here.

The Russians talked about the "Democratic Republic of XXX" ... but that was bullcrap: the big shots lived very well, there, too.

We're rich enough that we could spread it around more ...

... but we're moving the other way.

ole joyful

qdognj: ..the quote was from the movie Wall Street,lol...

..and Gordon Gekko was a based upon a combo of Milkin, Boesky...and some Icahn thrown in for good measure...

Time for a remake: Wall Street..The Rise Of The Victimized..who will be victimized no more!!

"But a substantial tax cut for the masses? That'd cost too much."

You mean like how after ranking by income, the bottom 50% of taxpayers pays only 3.5% of the personal income tax collected by the government, even though they make 13% of all the income made by all taxpayers?

The main reason for pushing tax cuts for the "masses" is that they will spend nearly every penny of it, putting it back into the economy. Sorta "trickle up" economics ...

housenewbie wrote: "And let's not forget that the majority of these 'deserving' CEOs, even after knocking billions off the market cap of their companies, rake in still more money when they exercise stock options they were granted at a fraction of market price, thus enriching themselves even as they en-poor all the other stockholders. This is, actually, stealing. You've been reading about all the SEC investigations of option dating, haven't you?"

I've been following the SEC investigations as well. This lovely article appeared in the NYT's last month. I wonder how ANY investor is supposed to get a fair shake when the fox is watching the henhouse?

"Site That Tracks Brokers Questioned on Erased Cases - New York Times
Called BrokerCheck, the free online service lets investors check up on brokers ... Finra expunged 907 customer complaints from brokersâ records in 2005, ...

A link that might be useful:

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/business/14regulate.html?dlbk -

The real issue, even from a "capitalists point of view", is the payment structure. A CEO or hedge fund manager can earn unbelievable amounts of money (think financial independence for at least 4 generations !) by:

1) Taking excessive risks.
2) Postpone future investments that might be beneficial on medium or long term in exchange for short term gains.

I think this is a hoot! CEOs have ONE job. And that's to make as much money for the company as possible! Period! EXXON is in business to make money. I'm self employed and my goal is to make as much money as possible. Hourly workers have one goal. To make as much money as possible! How many posters here have said to their boss: "Oh no, I don't want that raise. It'll mean I'm making too much money".

We in Vermont have a company called Ben & Jerry's. they make ice cream. Now, B&J are a couple old hippies that took the Penn State ice cream course. They just wanted to make ice cream and have fun doing it. And they were "Socially Responsible". They implemented a system where the highest paid executive would not make any more than seven times the lowest paid employee's income.

Sounds great, huh? It just meant they didn't make much money. So when Jerry bailed and Ben was left to run things, he needed help. They launched a search for a CEO. But when they discussed money and the company policy, they got NO takers! They needed someone with an MBA and nobody would work for only $120,000 a year. So they abondoned the policy. And were bought by Unilever, a conglomerate.

The executive pay is a form of Corporate Oligarachy, where a few select people set the pay for each other, and the owners of the business (the stockholders) have o say.
Oligarachy stunts capitialism very effectively

Those that defend it have been scammed into believing that the salaries are set by the give and take of the market.

Funny story about Ben and Jerry's except you got it wrong.
B/J sold for over 300 million, both owners took more that 40 million, and many of their employees took a cool million to the tax man.