I’m conflicted on this. I do think executive compensation has gotten out of hand, and not contingent upon the actual success of the company. I attribute alot of this to shareholder apathy. With the rise of the 401K and mutual fund, we have created a class of investors who don’t really ‘know’ what companies they are invested in, and really would find it difficult to move money out of one stock, if they thought the CEO was making too much money.
Of course none of that matters - we are talking about one man dictating the salaries of others. I do think that, as an ‘investor’, the government should have input...but only to the extent that they are invested in these comapanies.
One positive byproduct of this - these banks now have an incentive to pay back their TARP money sooner, rather than later....or not at all.
See post 54 as to the governments role. I used the term central [economic] control, but dictator would work too. I should point out it's not "one man", rather a government official.