Wolfpack

I know that no matter how I answer this question, you are going to take my answer and twist it around. So I will gladly answer it, but you're just going to have to be more specific. I need to know what you mean by "support" and what you mean by "those people on Wall Street."

Harry Boy

Rich Socialist Left Wing Liberals hate the system that allowed them to become rich, there are dishonest deals and ruthless crooks involved in all things "big" when they are finished with Wall St I wish they would go after the Pigs In Washington.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

BSR

Hath not a jew eyes?

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Which ever one's you were referring to here:

Your comment, your choice.

apple strudel

20:1 top to bottom income ratio sounds about right to me. If you want a truly free country you need to start talking about economic freedom first. Eat the rich.

Wolfpack

I said I would gladly answer your question if you could please be a bit more specific, and you haven't clarified it in the slightest. My offer still stands but if you want me to answer it, I need to understand precisely what you are asking.

Wolfpack

Of course, when you say "economic freedom" what you really mean is "government control of the economy."

Yeah, nothing says "freedom" like more and more government control

chicowalker

and if you own a company, you can go ahead and make that corporate policy (will you include total compensation or just cash income?)

Personally, I think your 20:1 ratio is arbitrary and, in many, many companies, not nearly a large enough ratio to reflect various employees' true value to the business. (For example, somebody who processes paperwork isn't going to be worth 5% of the value of a CEO of a global corporation or 5% of the value of a salesperson who consistently lands highly profitable accounts -- which is part of the reason why those kinds of people can command significant comp packages)

shmessy

Being in the investment field myself, I condemn blanket statements against entire groups of people like made by the President.

However, what Goldman Sachs did in the Abacus situation and what many more firms did (Goldman is just the tip of the iceberg) is unethical, a clear conflict of interest and counter productive to our society.

There is nothing defensible about craftging a pool of investments with one cflient in the room choosing the ingredients, intending to short it, then going out to your other clients and telling them to go long on it.

Anyone want to defend that?

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

apple strudel

Because free markets work so well! And because the government doesn't already exercise a certain amount of control over the economy! And because that control doesn't institutionally favor the very rich! Oops.

Does more money buy you more personal freedom? (Don't bother trying, you'll just hurt what's left of your brain.) You're just arguing for corporate freedom so they can crap all over self-defeating geniuses like yourself. It's good to know you enjoy being taken advantage of.