Carl Remick wrote: > >> > Amid all the pointless paper shuffling of leveraged buyouts and hostile > takeovers during the 1980s, US CEOs somehow pulled off an amazing sleight of > hand that transformed them in the public eye from timeserving hacks into > heroic visionaries for whom no amount of compensation could ever be too > much. Just to say there's excess capital in world doesn't explain how they > accomplished this colossal swindle.
A) Does the public as a whole see CEOs in that light? I haven't paid much attention to the matter, but my vague impression is that a large share of the public (i) disapproves heartily of high pay for CEOs but (ii) doesn't think anything can be done about it, and anyhow other issues are more important???? B) It's not a swindle -- it's merely one way of dividing up the surplus among those who extract it. A squabble between bond holders and shareholders doesn't concern us, and neither does a squabble between rentier capitalists and activist capitalists. Carrol > Carl
