They were forced to take it because they did not want the money!

Quote Originally Posted by Carpe Coma View Post
I have mixed thoughts on this. The first few banks were forced to take the bailout in order to reduce the stigma attached to it, so it isn't right to do that to them. However, you can't really be applying different rules to one set of those bailed as another. In this case, it's a necessary evil and a dangerous precedent.

My second issue with this is that this requirement was not agreed upon ahead of time. However, these institutions should have been doing this anyway. It's called fiduciary responsibility. So here, they are both wrong.

What I see as a possible bright side to this is that it might help break the cycle of ever increasing salaries for top executives. I don't really see rational reason for why a top executive should make that much more than a state governor or a 3-4 star general. It isn't that these people really bring that much additional value to the company. It seems to me that it is a status/power symbol, rather like the ridiculously expensive skyscrapers that get built downtown. Every society has at least one of these status symbols and when they get out of hand they threaten social stability. In the past it's been land, it's been women, and now it's your paycheck. Now if only we can have a period where it's your education...