freedom of press in europe

[kandrathe]

Where did you hear otherwise?

http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/in...on-23441-1.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2851002752.html

This slope is getting kind of slippery...

I wonder if they care about USC's football coach who gets paid $4.4 million? He is one of the highest paid public employee's in the USA.

[Vandiablo]

I wonder if they care about USC's football coach who gets paid $4.4 million? He is one of the highest paid public employee's in the USA.

If the country's economy, and thus its security, depended on the solvency of the USC athletic department, then yes, we should all care. In reality, tho, SC's biggest exports are wingnuts, Congressional incivility, and South American mistresses. (Maybe that last one is "sexports"...)

Now looking at the bulk of your first link (bold mine):

The Fed said it would subject 28 unnamed "large, complex banking organizations" to a "horizontal review" of compensation policies and practices. The review is designed to better understand compensation trends in the industry and identify firms whose practices fall outside the norm.
The Fed and other banking regulators conducted a similar review of the 19 largest financial institutions earlier this year to determine which banks needed to raise more capital.

Regional and community banks will also come under scrutiny, but the Fed said supervisors will review pay practices at these firms as part of the regular examination process. The central bank said small banks' pay will not be compared against competitors, but the review could impact the supervisory rating assigned to a bank.

More broadly, the Fed is proposing guidance for banks to help them develop proper pay practices. The guidance says banks should consider three goals: provide incentives that discourage excessive risk taking, match "effective controls and risk management" and support strong corporate governance.
The Fed said its guidance is aimed at senior executives and individuals or groups who could expose the bank to risk.

"Compensation practices at some banking organizations have led to misaligned incentives and excessive risk-taking, contributing to bank losses and financial instability," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a press release. "The Federal Reserve is working to ensure that compensation practices appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance and do not create undue risk for the firm."

Once the guidance is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment. Though the Fed steered clear of specific caps in the proposal, it does seek comment on whether "formulaic limits" should be imposed on banks.

I believe it is the federal government who is insuring bank customers, so IMO they can define what conditions must be met to be considered a "bank" versus, say, a "pyramid scheme."

And before you get all Glennbeckian about the phrase "proper pay practices", and I know you will, ("who decides what's 'proper'? who benefits from it? it's a socialist attack on our bankers!") look at the phrase "proper accounting practices". I would not invest a dime into an organization that doesn't use proper accounting practices. One might argue that it's the IRS imposing its will, but p.a.p. really benefits most the owners of the business -- yes, the capitalists.

I wish Aahzmadius were here ... he is a CPA and last I saw him he was a libertarian. His POV would be interesting and most likely informative. (Note that he and I have different politics yet I consider him to be a friend of mine -- albeit an on-line friend I haven't heard from for a couple years.)

-V

[kandrathe]

If the country's economy, and thus its security, depended on the solvency of the USC athletic department, then yes, we should all care. In reality, tho, SC's biggest exports are wingnuts, Congressional incivility, and South American mistresses. (Maybe that last one is "sexports"...)

It's tax money. What difference does it make if it's TARP or not?

Now looking at the bulk of your first link (bold mine):

I believe it is the federal government who is insuring bank customers, so IMO they can define what conditions must be met to be considered a "bank" versus, say, a "pyramid scheme."

And before you get all Glennbeckian about the phrase "proper pay practices", and I know you will, ("who decides what's 'proper'? who benefits from it? it's a socialist attack on our bankers!") look at the phrase "proper accounting practices". I would not invest a dime into an organization that doesn't use proper accounting practices. One might argue that it's the IRS imposing its will, but p.a.p. really benefits most the owners of the business -- yes, the capitalists.

I wish Aahzmadius were here ... he is a CPA and last I saw him he was a libertarian. His POV would be interesting and most likely informative. (Note that he and I have different politics yet I consider him to be a friend of mine -- albeit an on-line friend I haven't heard from for a couple years.)

-V

Uh, huh. And, then... Can we expect to see the pay Czar protecting the public air waves from evil capitalists? Do we really need the government to walk into board rooms and tell people how to best run their companies? Last time I checked, banks were still private corporations. And... one last thing... I'm not Glen Beck any more than you are Cesar Chavez, so let's quit the character assassinations.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I wish Aahzmadius were here ...

Yes. I do, too. Too few of the old guard have survived.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

And... one last thing... I'm not Glen Beck any more than you are Cesar Chavez, so let's quit the character assassinations.

(edit: rant removed)

(except excerpt) Beck is a phony. For instance, he plays up concern over whether H1N1 vaccines are safe, but gosh, he's not going to reveal whether he's getting one or not. Jerk. This idiot is creating fear for his own fame. Beck is like Fox News, but is more Fox News than Fox News.

-V

[Jester]

http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/in...on-23441-1.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2851002752.html

This slope is getting kind of slippery...

These are about what is tax deductible and what isn't. That's an incentive system that is constitutionally within the purview of the federal government. They aren't telling companies what they can and can't do. They're only telling them what they can and can't deduct from their taxes. It's not what you're suggesting - it's neither the power to limit executive salaries, nor to set them. It would only change their form.

-Jester

Afterthought: In fairness, they are also setting industry standard guidelines, although it sounds like this is pretty loose, a matter of establishing "best practices" rather than enforcing any particular rule. One should *definitely* note that this only applies to the banking sector, and is designed not as redistributive vengeance, but to prevent poorly designed executive rewards from encouraging risk, thus risking another potential explosion of the banking system.

[kandrathe]

... but to prevent poorly designed executive rewards from encouraging risk, thus risking another potential explosion of the banking system.

Although, the salary/bonus system is not what caused the "collapse" of the financial sector. This is a progressive witch hunt/smoke screen to distract people from the mess that the government made in the first place pressing banks into making subprime loans for people who barely had the means to pay them back. Mortgaged backed securities and derivatives were a very bad idea, and whomever thought it up should get a wall of shame, however it had nothing to do with pay. Executive pay is a hot button that progrssives like to press to infuriate the "every man" who is not also earning multi millions. And, I've cited examples in my past where software I've written has raked in mulit-millions, but my share was a salary and long hours and very little sleep while I was doing most of the work, and then very little credit after the software was published. But, you know, I'd rather have the world a place where I am free to negotiate with my employer for a fatter slice of the pie based on my merit, than a world where the government comes in and takes the whole pie and distributes it as *it* pleases.

You *can* convince me that the executives who led us down the merry road of disaster (including the current and former treasury folks, and including Alan Greenspan) deserve some payback, however that is already done in that they got sacked from their jobs. Now, the government is meddling in what it shouldn't. For example, the executive pay of the newly hired CIO at AIG (not the guy who made the mess... he was sacked), was 1$ plus bonuses for fixing the mess. Now the government is robbing him of the agreed upon bonus.

How is it that the government can make a private contract null and void? This is a violation of the heart of jurisprudence, contracts and torts. Our system of freedoms is based upon our ability to make contractual agreements between private entities, and then be bound by tort to them if they are fair and not fraud. But, if the government can step in and obliterate them, then who knows whether we are bound any more by laws or by Whitehouse Czars.

[kandrathe]

I think I'm getting Crazy Fatigue

I also talk about situations that aren't in the blogosphere, but you are probably correct that I tend pick up on the internet buzz and then talk about it here. I tend to get most of my news BTW from BBC, then I check out a few other international sites to moderate the perspective.

I don't really like Glen Beck, because he's so snide and smug. Even though I'm also libertarian, he's like the drunkard uncle you don't really want to admit is your relation.

As for swaying my position on issues... It's taken me 50 years to get to this position. I pretty much look at a situation and if it increases my freedom then I'm for it, and if it decreases my freedom I'm against it. If it increases my tax burden without the possibility of benefiting me or my family then I'm against it. Yes, it seems selfish, but that is why we get a vote -- to protect our interest in preserving our liberty and property. I also have never heard that the purpose of government was to take wealth from those who earned it, to give it to those that did not.

[DeeBye]

I also have never heard that the purpose of government was to take wealth from those who earned it, to give it to those that did not.

I love you kandrathe. Don't ever change:)

[Jester]

There seem to be several misconceptions in that post. First is that this mess was somehow a matter of the government pressing for loans to poorer people. This ignores several of the key facts in order to spin this out as somehow Clinton's fault. Subprime mortgages were an industry standard practice, not just for Freddie and Fannie, but for every bank. There was a gigantic housing bubble, affecting not just the poor, but the middle and even wealthy classes, and mortgages were given out as if prices would rise forever. Lehman Bros. didn't implode because of housing for the poor, they imploded because they were engaged, of their own volition and for their own profit, in extremely risky business. And AIG was "insuring" all the others - by assuming a large crash was statistically impossible. :wacko:

Second, as I'm pretty sure was made clear in the links, the banking guidelines are about the form of executive compensation, not a cap on its quantity. This is not about getting back at fat cat CEOs. This is about tweaking executive incentives so that they make decisions based on stable, long-term value, rather than short-term stock price. By heavily taxing salaries, but making stock options and golden parachutes relatively cheaper, the government had encouraged risk taking - now it is obviously reconsidering the sanity of that idea.

As for AIG, and their bonuses, that's an issue of the use of public funds. If they want to pay their CEO (I presume you mean CEO?) ridiculous sums of money, that's generally their business. But if they're begging the government to save them from total implosion (and the implied threat to the rest of the economy), and they get that money, it's no longer just their business whether they want to fork it over to executives. They are being helped out by the taxpayer, and that means spending money responsibly, and not pocketing it. You can't be collecting your multi-billion welfare cheque on day one, then pretending you're John Galt on day two. That's just hypocrisy.

Is there actually a guy who only got one single dollar for his work as CEO at AIG, having been stripped of his bonus? I hadn't heard that one. Got a link?

Now, executive bonuses are small potatoes, and I don't really care much about the sums being shifted over. But there is a whole culture of lavish, inappropriate rewards that strikes me as fundamentally unhealthy. I would like to see that change, and not just in the US. The financial sector is supposed to be as dry as dust, not as decadent as a Roman orgy.

-Jester

Afterthought: You really like that "czar" meme, don't you? Isn't it nice that Obama has fewer of them than Bush did? Funny that I don't seem to remember it coming up in every second post when Bush was President...

After-afterthought: One could do worse than blaming Alan Greenspan. But I think he's just the majorette in a very large marching band, all headed for the cliff...

[Occhidiangela]

After-afterthought: One could do worse than blaming Alan Greenspan. But I think he's just the majorette in a very large marching band, all headed for the cliff...

Blaming him isn't much good, he has his money. How about a nice lynching? Any sort of accountability for his policy pronouncements.

What? No accountability? My, where do I sign up for such a job?

Occhi

[Crusader]

Stop hijacking our Euro-politics bashing threads! You can post in one of the zillion Kandranthe US-politics bashing threads! We Euros like to bash our politicians without you USsies spoiling it all!

:P

[eppie]

Stop hijacking our Euro-politics bashing threads! You can post in one of the zillion Kandranthe US-politics bashing threads! We Euros like to bash our politicians without you USsies spoiling it all!

:P

Pfff...thanks, I didn't want to say it myself but you are absolutely right.

Maybe I shouldn't have made a GW Bush comparison to trigger of Kandrathe, or maybe the old prejudice about americans being only interested in their own country is really true.:)I am disappointed in the canadians though.:)

[Jester]

Maybe I shouldn't have made a GW Bush comparison to trigger of Kandrathe, or maybe the old prejudice about americans being only interested in their own country is really true.:)I am disappointed in the canadians though.

What can I say? European politics confuse me, and even the UK is a little foggy for me. Correcting Kandrathe has long since become a reflex, albeit one I probably should suppress once in awhile. Didn't mean to steal the thread, although I guess that happens a fair bit. Collateral damage, how appropriate. :lol:

-Jester

[Zingydex]

Pfff...thanks, I didn't want to say it myself but you are absolutely right.

Maybe I shouldn't have made a GW Bush comparison to trigger of Kandrathe, or maybe the old prejudice about americans being only interested in their own country is really true.:)I am disappointed in the canadians though.:)

kandrathe would've barged in regardless of whether you triggered him or not. According to him, everything that's wrong in the world is a result of people who don't dogmatically follow a hardcore Republican ideology.

[eppie]

kandrathe would've barged in regardless of whether you triggered him or not. According to him, everything that's wrong in the world is a result of people who don't dogmatically follow a hardcore Republican ideology.

Now you guys are just being mean.

Anyway, Italian politics is really dramatic. (I know I am hijacking my own thread now, after stating myself clearly that I didn't want to talk about italian politics but about EU parliament politics).

The president of the regione Lazio Piero Marrazzo of the Partito Democratico went to a transseksual prositute, escorted by 4 police officers. One of whom brought a camera, filmed the whole thing and via via the tape arrived in the hands of Berlusconi (or actually his daughter). He of course will not show this tape on TV, because the damage has been done and he can use it as change for when others will threaten him with showing footage with him on TV.

In the mean time Italy was critized for the way it tries to deal with the economic crisis (a report by a big european bank if I'm correct). There are 3 countries in Europe that are still not recovering; Ireland, Spain and Italy. The first two have seen a big boom in the 90's after lots of EU subsidies, and subsequently overplayed their hands with all kinds of real estate development problem (market crunch, loaned money etc.). In Italy however, according to this report, the government was just incapable of dealing with the crisis.

It is very sad to see that beautiful country slip away slowly and destroying their valuables like the beautiful coastline and nice city centers, because of the incapability to govern. And since they are founding members of the EU, the EU should have stepped in long ago.

[Kevin]

It is very sad to see that beautiful country slip away slowly and destroying their valuables like the beautiful coastline and nice city centers, because of the incapability to govern. And since they are founding members of the EU, the EU should have stepped in long ago.

Isn't this part of some of the general issues with the EU. I keep reading about the Czechs not wanting to ratify the Lisbon treaty mostly because they are worried about loss of sovereignty? Would the EU really back stronger actions against a government? Is the general sense of citizens that they want a stronger more centralized EU government or do they want their national governments to stay the primary powers. It's a bit like watching state rights vs federal rights in the US but coming from a different angle.

To tie back to the initial issue you raised in the thread. They couldn't get a censure, mostly because of a large block voting on what you say are religious lines but also political lines (don't alienate your party, do this for me I'll that for you). I get very little about the pulse of the people in Europe, but it's the same question. How varied is citizen support for the EU and specifically the EU expanding power? I see stuff about friction over Great Britian not use the Euro as the primary currency and grumblings that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and the new positions are created that if Tony Blair did step forward for the EU presidency position that there would be protests because he would be coming from a non Euro country. Does the average citizen care about that?

See I know that plenty of Americans really have bought into some of this Obama as the devil that will suck this country into a hell hole crap. I get to work with some of them. I know there are some that think he might be able to walk on water too. So sadly I do think the media is actually displaying the pulse of the citizens, or in some cases generating that pulse. I laugh a lot about Fox News making the Nazi comparisons when they have "reporters" coaching rallies and stuff. Talk about abuse of media manipulation. But that isn't really the point, there really are a large number of folks who really do believe that. Some of them quite intelligent folks too, and there are a large number on the other side.

I have no real idea what the citizen perspective of the whole EU government really is. Or how varied it is in country to country. I see that the Brits tend to oppose the EU getting more power a lot. Not adopting the Euro is just one indicator of that too. The Czech seem to oppose it a lot too.

I'm an ignorant American, I admit it. I don't even follow my own countries politics that closely and end up learning lots of stuff when I skim threads here and do more research, I'm rarely up to date on it though. So give me some edu ma cation. :)

[eppie]

I'm an ignorant American, I admit it. I don't even follow my own countries politics that closely and end up learning lots of stuff when I skim threads here and do more research, I'm rarely up to date on it though. So give me some edu ma cation. :)

Cool finally a post on topic!!! :D

I am not sure I am the one to edumacate you.....I am far from the expert. I can give you some opinions though.

There is joining the EU, and there is the european constitution, which are two different things. The first one is usually easier for 'the people' especially for all the eastern european countries. Being less rich, they will gain a lot financially just by joining. Signing for the consititution means that some things will be governed by the EU, instead of the national governments....and this might give problems because there are many hot button issues that the different countries think much differently of such as; soft-drugs, abortion, animal rights, farmers subsidies etc. Of course some of these issues are used by the populist parties in the various countries.

Certain examples are however (in my opinion) just plain wrong: There is Ireland which has been getting enormous amounts of subsidies from the EU (Ireland was the poorest country to join), after this they have been playing the finance game becoming the country with the highest GNP in the EU, after which they started to do difficult around agreeing with the EU constitution. Then came the crisis, which hit Ireland very bad (of course with all that financial malpractice) and now the people vote FOR the constitution.

The Czech republic, one of the later members has some fears that germans that have been chased of there property after WO2 now try and get their stuff back via legal means (EU court), and apart from that their leader is a bit weird.
And so there are many examples.

The cons will usually weigh more than the pro's for the people (much more visible). The fact that we probably need to form a strong EU to be able to compete globally is much less important in the eyes of the voters.
That said, on the other hand I think the leaders that (in my eyes rightfully) try to make this EU work are ignoring serious concerns by the people. My example of the freedom of press in Italy. The strange behaviour of Ireland, and of course the fact that (direct) financially some countries (eg holland) pay a lot to countries that can be very aggressive against the things we stand for. The Polish that don't accept homosexuals, the French that complain about our soft drugs eventhough we don't have so much drug related problems as they have, the Spanish that like Bull fighting and want to ban a womans right to have an abortion, the corruptiom in many countries etc. etc.
Luckily not all of these things will be falling under 'EU-law', but people get scared as you can imagine.


I still think the whole EU is a good thing and I see it as a chance to slowly educate the more conservative states in order to modernize the way of thinking, but of course things can also go the other way around.

[Crusader]

How people view the EU is hard to say. I can speak generally of the Netherlands though.


History:
The Netherlands has always been a major trade country despite it's tiny size. It's our right of existence, more or less. By trading with many nations and keeping our education levels high (Knowledge economy), we've thrived. Because we've always been traders and still are (Schiphol and Rotterdam are prime European arteries for trade) we always adjusted ourselves to the customers. The average Dutchman knows one foreign language (English) and in trade it's common to know German, Spanish and/or French as well. In the past we've been very open to foreigners settling in. The Netherlands played a large role in creating the EU's predesessors and have always been one of it's core members. This earned the Netherlands and it's people a good reputation as 'tolerant' people who are a bit stingy where it comes to cash. (Going Dutch is quite normal here).

The Dilemma:
There has been a massive influx of foreigners the past decades. The "they're taking our jobs" sentiment has set in. Polish workers work for zilch compared to a Dutch employee. This is common for manual labor jobs, mostly. Construction, farming, etc. While the previous generation (primarily Turkish) immigrants were welcomed as hard working souls willing to do the dirty jobs, this turned completely around to racial hate among many. Fueled by problems of poor immigration (many refuse to adopt our customs or even language) and relatively high crime rates among immigrants, and tons and tons of bad press the public view of immigrants is very poor.

Then comes along Europe again, which was waaay in the background all that time. Europe nowadays is all about open borders. More immigrants. More temp job seekers ("stealers") but on the other side, more trade (and we do love our trade). The populace, however, soundly rejected the original European Constitution in a referendum. We were the only ones to do that along with France. This was part in the people's resentment against the current government snobbishly trying to force it on us in a "we know what's good for you" kind of way. Our government reeled at the rejection, being shamed and hurt dramatically in foreign policies. It's a blessing for them France also blocked the treaty, or the international outrage at the Netherlands would have been stiffling. A new round came along, teh treaty was drastically reduced in scope and this time the government didn't put out a referendum, which still sits wrongly with a good part of the populace. The government's dilemma was horrible. Do we put out a referendum and risk it being shot down again, in which case the EU would go into a major crisis, or just sign it without asking the people for consent, risking the people's ire. They chose the latter and the people's ire towards the government and the EU was risen indeed.

The Current situation:
People still resent the government. Current polls see the coalition in the government demolished, but they stubbornly refuse to have new elections, because that would see their power greatly diminished. In the meanwhile, the anti-muslim PVV is greatly gaining power and *shudder* is now the BIGGEST party in polls. It's sickening, really. But the PVV is a populist party and shouts and belches the people's language, often in rude, offensive ways that the coalition has no way of countering politely. This is not to say that about a fifth of the Dutch hates Islam, quite the contrary, but this fifth is so disgruntled with the current government that they vote for the 'anti-government'. That this group is anti-muslim they accept as a sacrifice. After all, they're not Muslim and muslim feoreigners are rated high in crime rates. So why not all blame it on the <strike>jews</strike> muslims?How quickly people forgot that this system doesn't work. The last years, this PVV is so dominating the media that the general populace hears nothing but about the "muslim problem" and how the EU is just going to make things worse by allowing Turkey to become a member nation.

So in the end, the Dutch don't really hate the EU. But out of ignorance and the current political climate, as well as a media-fed image that the EU is a powerless body that brings nothing but woe apart from Neelie Kroes and the European Human Rights court is shifting public view of the EU towards the negative.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thank you Crusader and eppie for the information and the analysis.

I'll not deny that many Americans are ignorant, preferring to watch WWF and Survivor rather than reading the news. That said, consider this: to be an informed citizen, I need to keep up with city, county, state and federal government. That includes groups such as the water commission, the local transit authorities, and the school board. These are the things that effect me directly and which I have some control in turn. Next is the major issues in other states. Those do not effect me directly, but can influence how this state will behave in the future and how the federal government may react. My control over these items is weaker, but I can attempt to encourage or discourage similar measures in my state and to influence my federal representatives by letting them know my opinions.

Next in importance to me are our direct neighbors, Mexico and Canada, and our major trading partners, primarily China and Japan. Again, the effect on me is smaller as is my control on them. Then comes the rest of the world. I have virtually no control on them and they have almost no effect on me. Rather than being information which I need to responsibly perform my duties as a citizen, it is mostly a matter of satisfying my curiosity.

So, just as I would not expect the average informed citizen of Europe to be familiar with the issues of the State of Washington, of King County, of the city of Kent, you should not fault an American for his ignorance of the internal politics of any country. Your interest in our national politics is justified in that what we do as the remaining superpower influences the whole world. The reverse is not true.

--Pete