Many companies do have attractive bonuses. They need to in order to hold onto productive middle managers. How much of the profit sharing should go to the forklift drivers or floor sweepers? If they are union then none. Everyone takes a job knowing the program.
I think it's hilarious that people think the crash was just the result of greedy Wall Streeters fending for themselves. Yes, they played a big role, but what about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those are government created agencies. They bought dodgy mortgages by the billions with laughable reserves. They got away with it because "everyone knew" that the government would back up their losses, even though the prospectus said they were not guaranteed by the government. Of course when they went belly up congress went right ahead and bailed them out with our tax dollars. The truth is that for decades the federal government, with the goal of creating an "ownership society" has been encouraging banks to make EZ, low down payment loans. Yes, the development of mortgage securitization made the banks eager participants in this policy. Did the Democrats ever say to the banks, "In the interests of fiscal prudence and long term stability, you must require at least a 20% down payment on every mortgage and must not make loans that sharply increase the payments several years down the road"? No, they did not. Far from it. If anything, had banks proposed such a policy, Democrats would have labeled it "racist", because it would have disparate impact.
Agree that it is a mistake to speak of "Democrats" and "Republicans" as if they are different. Instead, one should use the word "Politician", which encompasses both groups, both in the denotation and the connotation. Bush touted the "Ownership Society" as much as the Democrats. But the question remains - if banks were forced to hold onto the mortgages like in the old days, would the financial crises have been as big? If "No", then the question is - who lobbied to have the rules changed - and why?
I would agree with this - assuming the CEO wasn't breaking the law to do it, that means he/she is definitely adding value to the company. In the case of Lazaridis, the way RIMM stock has performed recently, it might actually go up if he got hit by a lightning bolt.
Yes, and being in the most conservative, low tax province of Canada (Alberta) certainly helps. I'm sure he makes no connection between that and business.