Wednesday, January 31, 2007
comments on the economy are ridiculous...
In calling for corporate boards to tie executive compensation to 'performance', on what basis does Bush think corporate boards are currently basing their compensation decisions? On the basis of whether the CEO is a scratch golfer? On whether the CEO lines up hookers for the board? On the number of houses the CEO helps build for the homeless? Bush once ran the Texas Rangers baseball team: didn't he okay player contracts on the basis of how much he thought a player could contribute to the success of the team? So why would he think that corporate boards - who are in the same position of trying to evaluate and recruit talent as a baseball GM - would be doing anything but trying to find the right guy (or gal) to run the business and to give them no more money than necessary for them to do a good job?
He picks up the liberal mantra of 'income inequality'. Other than liberals being against it, what reason would Bush - or anybody who isn't motivated by class hatred - have for complaining that some people make more money than others, and, in some cases, a lot more money than others? Does he think that everybody contributes the same to our economy? Doesn't he know that some people have more of an influence on profitability than others? Does he think that everybody should get the same pay package, regardless of what they produce? Does he think that a secretary in an office, whose performance, no matter how good, has very little impact on the corporate stock price, ought to get the same pay package as someone whose efforts creates new markets and new product lines? Shouldn't the team that developed the I-Pod make more money than the team who stuffs I-Pods into boxes? Why shouldn't the actors and artists who sell millions of dollars of tickets and CDs reap in big chunks of the take? When Bush was running the Rangers, he didn't pay his journeymen players the same as he did his superstars, nor did he pay minor leaguers the same money he paid to those playing in the majors. He knew that those who efforts were deemed more valuable by the market would get bigger checks than those who were seen as contributing less. 'Income inequality' is simply the market's way of saying that some people have and will do better than others.
Perhaps Bush is playing these themes because he truly doesn't understand our economy and how the market rewards people who bring more to the table than those who merely show up to eat. Maybe he does understand markets but is so unsettled from the beating he took last fall that he's fallen into trying to play the Democrats' game. Who knows for sure... but either way, what he is doing is something I'd expect from a Hillary, a Kerry, perhaps even an Obama... but not something I'd expect to see from a self-described conservative.