Apparently we're not in recession some people on here have said

[I1L2T3]

Yes banks are companies but they had government regulations which were relaxed, so any problem associated with the relaxing of the regulation was the governments fault.

 

Right so shareholders award executive pay, so not the fault of the company which I said several pages ago.

 

I wouldn’t read a book to look for proof that weapons companies start wars. They sell weapons to the people that start wars, so the war isn’t their fault.

 

Yes, the regulation wasn't enough. We know that. Labour have recognised that. But you still can't completely blame the regulators. Ask yourself the simple question why some banks were worse than others. There was no compulsion on any bank to take things to extremes. And not all of them did.

 

No, in most cases shareholders get some kind of say but companies can often ignore it. Most big corporations have renumeration committees and they set the pay. Like I said educate yourself on this.

 

If you want to believe the arms industry operates that way it's your choice. It's naive in the extreme. I really recommend you read the book to get another viewpoint.

[Anna B]

The banks did what the politicians wanted them to do, even now politicians are calling for banks to lend more money, banks exist to make a profit, but it’s the responsibility of politicians to make sure they do it ethically.

 

 

Many weapons are never used and become obsolete, I just can't imagine were you get the idea that weapons manufactures start wars in order to sell and use their weapons.

 

 

 

Why would a company pay its staff more than is necessary, they aren’t charities, there would be no reason to pay a cleaner or a chief executive more than they have to.

 

The banks are ignoring the politicians. The banks are refusing to lend money which is part of the problem. The banks are controlling the politicians not the other way round, and the government is creaming off the top in taxes so are happy to let them continue. Half the cabinet sit on the boards of banks. They 'are all in it together.'

 

The Minister for defence during the Bush administration, which was one of the bloodiest in terms of wars, was Donald Rumsfeld, who also happened to be one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the USA. Conflict of interests, at the very least, wouldn't you say?

 

The pay of CEOs is set by commitees of other CEOs, so it's in their own interest to keep pay deals high as they will all benefit from it. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Have you not heard them bleeting 'we have to pay the going rate to attract the best.' Well they set the going rate and therefore the sky's the limit.

[MrSmith]

If you want to believe the arms industry operates that way it's your choice. It's naive in the extreme. I really recommend you read the book to get another viewpoint.

 

Calling me naive doesn't alter the fact that people and governments start wars and weapons manufactures just supply the weapons, you've read the book so tell me which war was started by which weapons manufacturer.

[MrSmith]

The banks are ignoring the politicians. The banks are refusing to lend money which is part of the problem. The banks are controlling the politicians not the other way round, and the government is creaming off the top in taxes so are happy to let them continue. Half the cabinet sit on the boards of banks. They 'are all in it together.'

 

The Minister for defence during the Bush administration, which was one of the bloodiest in terms of wars, was Donald Rumsfeld, who also happened to be one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the USA. Conflict of interests, at the very least, wouldn't you say?

 

The pay of CEOs is set by commitees of other CEOs, so it's in their own interest to keep pay deals high as they will all benefit from it. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Have you not heard them bleeting 'we have to pay the going rate to attract the best.' Well they set the going rate and therefore the sky's the limit.

 

So we have banks that lent too much money and people complain; now people complain that they don’t lend enough money, banks lend money to the people that will make them the most money, if governments want banks to do as they are told then they need to put legislation in place to make them.

 

But did Donald Rumsfeld start the war, was he to blame for it or would it have still happened if he wasn't a weapons manufacturer.

[MrSmith]

No, in most cases shareholders get some kind of say but companies can often ignore it. Most big corporations have renumeration committees and they set the pay. Like I said educate yourself on this.

 

 

Who appoints the board of directors or renumeration committees that set the pay?

[Anna B]

Who appoints the board of directors or renumeration committees that set the pay?

 

They nominate each other.

[MrSmith]

They nominate each other.

 

But according to this the shareholders votes on their pay, is it a new rule or something we shareholders have always had the power to do?

 

Insurance firm Aviva has announced that group chief executive Andrew Moss will be leaving with immediate effect.

 

The move comes after the firm suffered the embarrassment of losing a shareholder vote on executive pay at its annual general meeting last week.

[I1L2T3]

Calling me naive doesn't alter the fact that people and governments start wars and weapons manufactures just supply the weapons, you've read the book so tell me which war was started by which weapons manufacturer.

 

This kind of thing goes back decades. One of the most interesting characters described in the book is arms trader Basil Zaharoff who eventually joined the board of Vickers, which eventually grew into BAE. This was a guy who influenced governments into starting wars then sold weapons to both sides to make a profit. Fast forward to the modern era and we've seen Bush governments jam-packed with lobbyists from the arms manufacturers.

 

I've realised that what you think I am saying is that the arms manufacturers, not countries, make the declarations of war. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that they have a massive influence. Read the book. Do your own research. Seriously.

[I1L2T3]

But according to this the shareholders votes on their pay, is it a new rule or something we shareholders have always had the power to do?

 

Insurance firm Aviva has announced that group chief executive Andrew Moss will be leaving with immediate effect.

 

The move comes after the firm suffered the embarrassment of losing a shareholder vote on executive pay at its annual general meeting last week.

 

They vote on it. It doesn't necessarily follow that the company will act on the vote. Sometimes they do. Mostly they don't.

[Anna B]

They vote on it. It doesn't necessarily follow that the company will act on the vote. Sometimes they do. Mostly they don't.

 

There's recently been a case of exactly this. Shareholders used to have to achieve 40% participation to even get taken notice of. When shareholders began to become more active, they upped it 60%. Recently shareholders achieved the 60% in a vote (I think it was against Sir George Sorrel, they were voting against his latest pay package,) George Sorrel has decided this is not binding, and has chosen to ignore it and take the full pay package which amounts to several million pounds.