<p>Roman: the mean and median worker salaries are likely similar; the mean and median S&P 500 CEO salaries are likely very different. </p>
<p>If you remove the three highest paid CEOs, the average drops by over $300,000.</p>
<p>I wonder what the average S&P500 salary is compared to the average salary of a CEO of that company? I wonder why no one did this apples to apples comparison when penning the missive…</p>
<p>They (Iceland) already didn’t (pay the loans). And the economy is BOOMING. And what the banks had lent out was something like 100 times the Iceland GDP. It was (and is) a BIG deal.</p>
<p>"In March of 2011, Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz were arrested in London, as part of the Special Prosecutor’s Office investigation into the collapse of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing.</p>
<p>In December of last year, a Reykjavik court sentenced two of the top executives at Icelandic bank Glitnir to jail time.</p>
<p>And just yesterday, nine more banksters from the Iceland bank Kaupthing were indicted and charged for their roles in orchestrating five large-scale market manipulation conspiracies.</p>
<p>These are only a few of the arrests that have been made, as Iceland cleans up its banking industry, and holds its own corrupt banksters accountable for their actions in the 2008 financial collapse."</p>
<p>[The</a> AIG Bailout Scandal | The Nation](<a href=“http://www.thenation.com/article/153929/aig-bailout-scandal#]The”>http://www.thenation.com/article/153929/aig-bailout-scandal#)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the TARP that saved the TBTF banks, Argbargy. And we haven’t even discussed the mortgage buybacks.</p>
<p>I dont know how we say Iceland worked and TARP didnt. They had a massive austerity program, have major devaluation of the currency and capital controls that prevent people from moving. </p>
<p>If your dollars are worth less than the day before and you cant even take them with you, thats not exactly a hoped for result.</p>
<p>[Iceland’s</a> Economy now growing faster than the U.S. and EU<em>|</em>American Live Wire](<a href=“http://americanlivewire.com/world-economic-news-icelands-economy-now-growing-fas/]Iceland’s”>http://americanlivewire.com/world-economic-news-icelands-economy-now-growing-fas/)</p>
<p>Arbargy, it wasn’t the TARP. That’s the point. The Tarp was 700 million dollars. If you add up all the rest of what was given to the banks, I don’t even know why people talk about TARP. TARP was nothing. The banks were saved by the FED.</p>
<p>Paulson sold TARP as a similar bailout as the Savings and Loans, which bought up the bad assets. But they didn’t use TARP that way. They just gave the banks the money to do with what they would. In the meantime they CONTINUED to foreclose. It’s a travesty. AND it wasn’t enough. they still required Trillions more which they have used for nobody’s benefit but their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is it booming?
2012:
+3
-6.4
+4.8
+0.5</p>
<p>And that is after a run of 9 negative quarters and an anemic 2011. They have a lot of ground to make up and need to put together a string of +4’s before I’d feel good about it, let alone BOOMING. </p>
<p>[Iceland</a> GDP Growth Rate](<a href=“http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iceland/gdp-growth]Iceland”>Iceland GDP Growth Rate)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having a problem with “given”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, ouch, that news source.</p>
<p>You can have all the problem you want, but the fact remains that the AIG bailout was money that was GIVEN to the banks, funnelled through AIG, to make them whole. 151 billion dollars. Given. Not to be paid back.</p>
<p>The rest, the other 9T was lent at rates you can’t imagine. The interest they collected on that was given. Free. Give a five year old 9T at that rate, and they can make a profit.</p>
<p>Argbargy, I’m not sure why you want to be an apologist for corporate welfare and Crony capitalism at this level, but feel free.</p>
<p>That’s what happens in an oligarchy, which we are rapidly becoming.</p>
<p>I can imagine it since I lend it to banks for worse rates via CD. </p>
<p>And if I have a line of credit but dont drawn on it, have I been “given” anything? At worst you are complaining not that they have been given $9T, which they clearly havent, but they have an opportunity to make a profit by relending it and then repaying it. </p>
<p>How long did they keep the money and how much did they make in relending with that money?</p>
<p>Exactly, LasMa, and the CEO issue is just the same thing and a part of the exact same system.</p>
<p>“You don’t have to have a problem with the gross inequity between the CEOs and their minions (or the 1% and everyone else), but many of us do”</p>
<p>Please. Why would one even make that comparison? What do the top 1%ers make, 380K and above? You’re going to compare that to people making hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes with salaries voted on by their friends, whether they are adding great value to their companies or not?</p>
<p>Most common profession of 1%ers are, besides executive managers, medical professionals, lawyers, tech workers, salesmen, blue collar, real estate sales, and business owners (quoted from the Huffington Post). Oh, the crime, the inequity, of those who make more than 380K, the unfairness of it all! What about the 1.01%ers? Are they guilty of a gross inequity too, if they make 375K? Or are they the poor victims, of those who make more?</p>
<p>What silliness.</p>
<p>^how about the inequality when you compare the wages of everyone on this forum to the rest of the world. Very quickly we all just became the 1%.</p>
<p>Also, someone isn’t rich because they took it from someone else. The two are independent of each other completely. If I go work 80 hours a week does my neighbor get poorer?</p>
<p>[Federal</a> Reserve made $9 trillion in emergency loans - Dec. 1, 2010](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm]Federal”>http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm)</p>
<p>Argbargy, I already linked this article about the loans back on page three. But here it is again.</p>
<p>It wasn’t a line of credit. These were the actual loans.</p>
<p>I linked the AIG bailout numbers in the Nation article above.</p>
<p>If you can come up with something else, let me know, though I know these are the accepted numbers, since it took forever and a law to get them released.</p>
<p>Every single distressed homeowner could have had their interest rates reduced to ZERO, and been allowed to stay in their homes. And it still would have cost less. Much less.</p>
<p>They would have loved the line of credit.</p>
<p>Exactly, but instead, they continue to foreclose. Every single homeowner could have been made whole, and the money would have gone back into the economy, instead of being hoarded by the banks. When they write about this time in US history, they will write about it as the worst corruption ever. At least with the savings and loan bailout, people were put on trial, the consumer wasn’t the only one held responsible.</p>
<p>The FED has absolute power. And you know what they say about that.</p>
<p>Back in the panic at the end of '08, I never did understand why there were no strings attached to all that money the banks were given. At the very least, they should have been required to used some of it to help distressed homeowners. But apparently the assumption was made that large corporations would do the right thing. Wonder when we’re going to learn the lesson on THAT?</p>
<p>The fed is a credit card with no limit, and the people that charge on it don’t have to pay the bill.</p>
<p>Well, Lasma, actually, Paulson sold it as being similar to the Savings and Loan bailout, which was why it is called troubled asset relief. But, he wrote it broadly because he always intended to just give it to his buddies. Remember he came from Goldman. Goldman was allowed to suddenly become a bank…</p>
<p>A lot went on to save GS.</p>
<p>“Back in the panic at the end of '08, I never did understand why there were no strings attached to all that money the banks were given. At the very least, they should have been required to used some of it to help distressed homeowners. But apparently the assumption was made that large corporations would do the right thing. Wonder when we’re going to learn the lesson on THAT?”</p>
<p>Yes, that was crazy. No strings attached. But I don’t think they made assumptions that the banks were going to do the “right” thing. Anyways, the right thing for the banks was to stay in business, not to help distressed homeowners. And it did work, with much of the money being repaid, with interest. As annoyed with TARP as I was at the time, I was happy the banks weren’t closing their doors and hanging onto people’s money like they did in Cyprus.</p>
<p>Yet they were in such a rush to get it done, they just shoved the money at them. What would you expect, with Paulson as the Secretary of the Treasury? But I remember who pushed it. I remember that very clearly.</p>