To: slackerjack
Unless I am mistaken, Cavuto's point was that merely limiting the pay of TARP recipients would, in and of itself, put such firms at an economic advantage such that said cost advantage alone (not the regulation of comp at other firms) would force other NON TARP firms to reduce pay to hold costs down and stay competitive.
That's specious reasoning and just doesn't hold water.
20 posted on
10/23/2009 8:29:23 AM PDT by
SonOfDarkSkies
(For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
To: SonOfDarkSkies
I think his point was that non-TARP execs would be punished because their salaries could be depressed because the market for those jobs is being influenced by government fiat. He sees this as a way of the govt depressing incomes of those who were not part of the TARP situation in the first place. It is a way for govt to decrease the compensation of high earners, those people so despised by liberals and class-envy enthusiasts. He is correct.
24 posted on
10/23/2009 8:34:29 AM PDT by
clintonh8r
(My country. Not my government.)
To: SonOfDarkSkies
Exactly right. Thought I said spurious, specious is an even better description.
41 posted on
10/23/2009 10:17:56 AM PDT by
Gondring
(Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson