What is Digg?Sponsored by IGN
A Healer Should Save Herself First view!
ign.com - Every World has its wisdom -- share what you know
183 Comments
- CrispixKingdom, on 08/01/2009, -20/+107If he played by the rules, leave him and his bonus the hell alone. If he did something illegal, put him on trial and suspend his pay until there is a verdict.
Regulations should protect the consumer from gouging or theft, but they shouldn't ever harm those who do well by playing by the rules, even if their actions weren't for anything more than personal gain. Assuming, of course, that the rules are fair and balanced. - Frostman3D, on 08/02/2009, -8/+82Do we really need an executive pay czar? WTF is this country coming to?
- NorthMass, on 08/02/2009, -11/+70"In a few weeks, the Treasury Department’s czar of executive pay will have to answer this $100 million question: Should Andrew J. Hall get his bonus?"
Wait hold up, why do we have a "czar of executive pay" in the first place?
And we wouldn't have to deal with this guys bonus if we didn't bail out the banks in the first place. - Georgy, on 08/02/2009, -14/+54This guy is a smart ***** who netted citibank $2 Billion dollars, nothing illegal, besides its not really possible for one man to drive up gasoline costs by so much, just media feeding on populist anger.
If the pay czar doesnt pay him, I'm sure there a bunch of companies, outside the U.S willing to pay him that much... - doodiepants, on 08/01/2009, -12/+44Screw these monkeys. No scrap it. Bonuses are for people that do above the standard.
- FuZi0nDET, on 08/02/2009, -6/+38The problem is guys like this. According to a recent Rolling Stone article on the subject last year a barrel of oil was bought and sold 27 times before it could even be used. There used to be regulations in place to keep ***** like this from happening. It's a God damn shame that these guys are getting rich off of this *****. The spike in gas drove up the cost of everything including food. People starved in 3rd world countries because of these guys. That's the most ***** up part of their profiteering. I hated paying $4, but I did go to bed hungry, or have to fight in a food riot for my food.
These guys knew what they were doing in the market. They were just crafty enough to get out before the bubble burst. Guys like this are responsible for the growth of the bubble. It's beyond criminal what they've done and they are still going to profit.
Want to know why you paid $4 a gallon last year, you've got to read this article. It's long as hell, but it's a great read.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2881632 ... - Braxo, on 08/02/2009, -4/+33He made Citigroup 2 billion dollars. It's not like he performed poorly at his job and doesn't deserve a bonus.
If you had made a company 2 billion dollars in a year, wouldn't you expect some of that cut? I think 5% is a fair number. Heck, I even think 25% is more fair for him.
I say give him the bonus, he saved us tax payers 2 billion dollars. - niradg, on 08/02/2009, -0/+24this is exactly the sort of reason that the banks should have been put into receivership (i.e. bankruptcy) instead of being bailed out.
- doublefelix, on 08/01/2009, -5/+28The NYT must like me because I have no problems accessing their site.
- bobburn1, on 08/02/2009, -1/+19Exactly, people are acting like he's one of the idiots that have caused these companies to fall into near-bankruptcy, he made the company $2,000,000,000.
- bactin, on 08/02/2009, -1/+18He still fulfilled his contractual obligation. Citigroup should have been more responsible with developing a contract. You can't penalize the guy because he did what he was suppose to. Granted it is a sickening amount of money but Citigroup should have not put it into their contract with him. He performed as he should have and per his contract will get the bonus that's it.
He probably kept part of the company from going under so if that is the case, maintaining jobs is pretty damn important. You may not think it is 'fair' but like anything else if you excel at something as he did, and earned it PER HIS CONTRACT WITH CITIGROUP then he should get what he was promised. He shouldn't have an outside source be telling him that he can't have what he earned because it 'isnt fair'. However, it would be nice if he said he did not want all the money because of the economy.
Case and point this is citgroups fault. - sphigel, on 08/02/2009, -5/+20Does anyone else feel that it's completely ***** up that it's now SOP for our govt to be determining executives salaries? I don't have much hope for our future.
- Striker101, on 08/01/2009, -18/+32Gee, when they cap executive pay, who will they be able to tax then?
- lintmonkey, on 08/02/2009, -1/+13Turn off the DiggBar.
- leamanc, on 08/02/2009, -1/+13dattaway is right. No, it's not fair, right or just. But the dude found a way to obscenely raise profits. He DID do above the standard, and by the f-ed up standard of corporate America, he deserves his $100 million bonus.
- ralphodog, on 08/02/2009, -2/+14Its (sic) stupid, ignorant posts like this that make me want to ***** smash people like you in the face.
- 4AntiStupid, on 08/02/2009, -4/+16Checking Constitution...nope. nothing granting a bunch of elitist lawyers the power to decide what people should make.
- 380ppm, on 08/02/2009, -1/+12how about no bailouts whatesover? this would greatly reduce moral hazard.
- tgc1, on 08/02/2009, -1/+12IMO - Your company gets a bailout, no execs get bonuses. Period. In other words, if you can't run your company properly enough to not require a bailout then you and your staff do not deserve bonuses. Contracts be damned.
Bonuses are for closers. - joe159, on 08/02/2009, -10/+21i kind of hate the guy for helping to raise gas prices like he did, but i see no reason why he shouldn't get paid.
he did nothing wrong.
i would say the gov't should regulate stuff like the oil speculation market, but the gov't cant get anything they due right, so they'll probably just end up destroying the economy some more. - user500, on 08/01/2009, -26/+36buried for NYT sign in
- PeppermintPig, on 08/02/2009, -2/+12Government giving them money in the first place is the problem.
- SanchoMandoval, on 08/02/2009, -11/+21Buried for netspeak in the headline. English, *****, do you speak it?
- dattaway, on 08/02/2009, -6/+15He raised the standard to get money from hard working families.
- Taiyoryu, on 08/02/2009, -0/+8Bank goes under, executives get no bonus (or do they? are they first in line to receiving money after the sale of the assets ahead of other creditors?)
Bank gets bailed out, executives gets a bonus? That's my problem with the whole idea of bonuses to executives of failed businesses. How can an executive ask for a bonus from the government funds that saved the business when that executive would not have received the bonus in the first place? Sorry if your contract is setup that your income is primarily bonuses rather than salary, but that's the risk you took. It's no wonder people are up in arms about this continuous privatization of profits and socialization of losses. Perhaps akin to separation of church and state, we need separation of business and state. Seems to be too plutocratic/corporatocratic right now. - TheSabre, on 08/02/2009, -0/+8Actually, AmericanParty, you're mistaken. While I do believe the recession is slowing down, it isn't officially over. A recession is defined as two or more consecutive fiscal quarters where the GDP experiences losses. If you've read the recent news articles this past week, you'd see that FY09 3Q showed about 1% loss in the GDP (with a 5.6% loss in 2Q). Analysts expected 3Q to be around -5%, but it ended at -1%. Surely, the recession will likely end this fall when 4Q reports are released (should show minimal positive growth) or FY10 1Q in January.
But since the last two quarters were still negative growth in the GDP, the recession is still underway. - FuZi0nDET, on 08/02/2009, -3/+11Nope, because the government should have let the banks fail. It's just a way to try and save face. They want to look like they are being responsible with our money. Yet what is done with our money is mostly pissed away to douches like the one in this article
- Rotzooi, on 08/02/2009, -12/+20RTFA
He likely did nothing illegal, but yes, one man with tens of billions can drive up prices as much - but worse, his speculative trading adds NOTHING to the economy, it actually ***** up the economy ($4 gas may be good for Exxon, but not the country as a whole) and is only meant to profit him and/or his company.
People on benefits are often called leeches - but this guy is the ultimate leech on society, leeching billions of dollars from us. Don't say "but he pays so much in taxes back", that's cop-out *****. - gaqua, on 08/02/2009, -0/+8Yeah, because then all the poor people wouldn't be able to afford going to work, and all the good jobs would be open for those of us with money.
- gaqua, on 08/02/2009, -1/+9Doesn't make the article less factual. Give the article a chance before you read it - the facts in it are true, and while it's presented in a somewhat biased format, the information stands on its own as mind-blowing and there isn't any real need for exaggeration or false outrage.
- tonmil, on 08/02/2009, -7/+15Instead of a good stock picker he is good and picking the direction of energy prices. People that bet on stock prices going up or down must be leaches too? Let's call Warren Buffet a leach for picking the right stocks.
Remind me to call you a leach if you bet at the race track since if you win big it won't benefit society at all. - inactive, on 08/02/2009, -1/+8You mean like a board of executives, or the major stockholders?
- MWeather, on 08/02/2009, -0/+7If I make my unprofitable company money I don't get a bonus, because there are no profits from which to give bonuses. Let's not lie to ourselves here, this is bailout money he's getting, not a cut of the profits.
- vatosplace, on 08/02/2009, -0/+7"Way to stick it to the common person! Bonus' all around boys!"
- MachThree, on 08/02/2009, -1/+8Why? To limit emissions? One volcano eruption emits more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's cumulative output.
- tonmil, on 08/02/2009, -6/+13The $2b for Citigroup did not create a single job? I would have created at least one job for the person to count the cash. What a stupid comment.
- Ymeg, on 08/02/2009, -2/+9So it's okay for the government to invade your business if it does not harm you?
- bactin, on 08/02/2009, -1/+8Respectable job? He is obviously good at what he does, this is Citigroups fault they are to be blamed for making this contract.
- bactin, on 08/02/2009, -4/+11First off it is not a cop out that he pays so much in taxes it is the truth. Second the man did his job and is hardly the only one in the country who does this type of trading.
- reaper527, on 08/02/2009, -2/+9i agree with both of you. as much as i'm against giving bonuses to the employees of companies that received bailout money, this guy did a good job. he earned his bonus, and hopefully he will get it.
- reaper527, on 08/02/2009, -1/+7high oil prices mean increased research costs. good job looking at the big picture
- PeppermintPig, on 08/02/2009, -10/+16"Because capitalism is broken."
As you type away from your computer brought to you by capitalism. Are you saying the voluntary exchange of goods and services has never worked?
Explain what exactly is wrong instead of rhetorical statements that ignore the causal effects of bailouts via government. That was precisely the point NorthMass was making. - inactive, on 08/02/2009, -0/+6Where would I be without digg economic analysts
- bjornski, on 08/02/2009, -3/+9I love listening to people who make $20-$30k a year fighting for the right to pay higher taxes so the people making $20-30Mil a year don't have to.
- inactive, on 08/02/2009, -5/+11People who were jealous of other's wealth gained power in government by appealing to the emotions of the masses.
It's that tyranny of the majority thing Thomas Jefferson warned us about. - N01SE, on 08/02/2009, -1/+7Legal does not imply Ethical. Just because systems can be leveraged for personal gain legally does not mean it is ethical to do so. There have been many things throughout human history that while deemed legal were not ethically sound at all (and the laws were subsequently changed as a result)
It's an ethical argument - N01SE, on 08/02/2009, -2/+8Legal does not imply Ethical
- HimThatSpeaks, on 08/02/2009, -8/+13***** this fool. And all the people that say the money doesn't flow to the top. And the people that say trickle down economics work, and those that say corporations and executives are the great protectors of our economic security.
- shasty55, on 08/02/2009, -3/+8whatever happened to laissez-faire?
- Ymeg, on 08/02/2009, -2/+7When you get the government in business, you get the business in government.
They should not even have the avenue to ask for the money. -
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
