Comments on: The virtues of limiting executive pay

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:31:00 +0000

Actually, since the biggest source of systemic risk is the government.. what do we do to align their political incentives better against their economic effects

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:01:00 +0000

Some banks were “involuntary recipients” to minimize the usual stigma of going to the discount window (NY Fed), and the subsequent negative market signal that would send. If everyone got funds, it’s harder to detect the really sick ones.

By: Political Observer

Political Observer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:59:00 +0000

I just cannot see how government interference will produce any good. In my view it is not the level of compensation but rather the detachment of their pay and the risk they create. If these were sole proprieters or entrepreneurs they could well earn equal or greater amounts. However they would also bear the risk – if things go south it comes out of their pocket first. Real moral hazard has a way of moderating risk taking. These executives and other highly compensated risk takers are divorced from this moral hazard. In good times they reap substantial rewards. Exercise bad judgement that bankrupts the company – you lose your job but not any of your accumulated wealth. With nothing but upside here it is no wonder that unreasonable risk are taken.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:59:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:06:00 +0000

…professor yandle’s comments sound similar to things professor roberts has mentioned on econtalk over the years.