We seem to have a similar overall philosophy, and agree on much of the facts and problems yet differ significantly on allowable responses.

I believe regulations are a drag on business and individual freedom and often have unintended consequences, but I also believe that they are usually initiated in response to real abuses. The Chemical industry now realizes this and on their own are trying to continuously improve standards to avoid new regulations. I firmly believe the majority of large corporation CEOs are abusing the system either actively or passively by going along with the lax standards that decouple executive pay from performance and contribution without adequate say from the people who are supposed to own the company.

I strongly believe that huge increases in executive pay while most wages stagnate is not a situation that the ideals of capitalism support or that a democracy must tolerate. This market downturn cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars that I personally invested in mutual funds rather than inherited. Over 90% of my net worth has been self earned not inherited. I have never had a say in executive pay despite supposedly owning portions of hundreds of companies. I have felt this issue in both my pay and my investments, and I consider myself lucky compared to most in this economy. The GD resulted from a crash of phoney companies while this one was based on questionable profits and phoney security. The common threads are greed, dishonesty, and a disregard for shareholders. Increased regulation was the solution last time and it worked well for 6 to 7 decades until lassefair attitudes regained ascendency and became so ingrained that even a mini collapse did little to change that attitude.

Regards,
Mark