Why not receivership?

Like most everybody else, I am not happy about filling the pockets of the people that created the problem by their reckless policies.

When a company gets in serious problems, one option is to place the company in receivership.  It seems to be that, or something equivalent, would be appropriate for the companies and executives that are lining up for a “bailout”.  When a company fails, the bosses lose their job.  Why not these guys?  Executives lose their job all the time.  They don’t deserve any severance pay if the company hasn’t got the money, which it apparently doesn’t.  Also, at their income levels, it’s not about money that they need.  As H. L. Hunt, the oil tycoon said, “Money is just a way of keeping score.”   I would say their score is zero.

The main thing is to provide money to make loans and fill other business needs.  That’s it.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s