Maximum wage is the new minum wage

President Obama announced today that he had set a maximum wage for executives at companies who receive future bailouts. The maximum wage is a very generous $500,000! Obama commented; "This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers." I can hear the chants of "right on" and "power to the people" rising all over this great land. What Obama and his supporters somehow are unable to grasp is that $500,000 a year is a lot more than these executives deserve. (There's probably at least a few libs who agree with that). What these executives deserve is to be fired. Obama is correct that it's an outrage that executives are being rewarded for failure. But the executives would have been fired if the Federal Government hadn't stuck it's nose in to the free market. Either these executives would have been fired and replaced by competent execs or the company would have folded and the competent companies would have grown. Either way failure is not rewarded in a free market.

But "we couldn't let the banks fail" is the cry of the lib. Why not? Unlike the depression, all Americans money is insured up to $250,000. So if Wachovia went under what happened to my money? The same thing that did happen when Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo. The money goes in to a different bank, and a bunch of sorry execs drop down a few rings at their next bank job and are reeducated on their job, making them better at their profession.
Now we have the same sorry lot, running things as they see fit, which obviously isn't good, and Obama trying to correct their mistakes. Is that really the job of future Presidents? To train executives on how to run their business? I know there's still a few people out there who think George Bush was a moron. What happens when the next moron gets elected?

The President and the government in general should not have the power to effect our economy outside of declaring war and raising/lowering interest rates or taxes. That's it! If GM fails are we all going to walk or only buy foreign cars? Or would a group of savvy business people see an opportunity to create a new car company? That new company would have a fresh start without trillions in debt weighing it down, and they could create a better car for a lot less. They would need people who know the car business and there would be a bunch who had recently become unemployed who could help guide this new venture. They would be the best of the best who learned from their mistakes.

I think what scares the pants off libs is that if they didn't jump in and rescue companies, thousands of people would lose their jobs, and it starts an avalanche where all companies start downsizing and once you lose your job, you're out, because no one is hiring. That is scary! In that scenario it can't be stopped without an outside force (IE; Government) stepping in to spend money and reignite the economy. But that's not how markets work.
When economies hit a down slide there are some people who become inspired to create, or people who have been waiting for cheap labor, or cheap commercial rent, or some change in the market to launch their venture. They are the fuel to reignite the economy. There's close to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS waiting to be invested. That's a lot more than the 825 Billion Obama and crew want to invest. But the people in charge of those 9 trillion bucks will sit on it, till conditions are right for them to make more money. Having a government tinkering around with banks, auto, airlines and just about every other industry is not what these people are looking for. How do I know? You don't see them investing do you?