Paid to destroy?
Listening to C-Span, a fake 'interrogation' of the pres of Lehman Bros. Waxman asks a rational-sounding question: "You took Lehman into the ground, but you got paid $480 million in bonuses. Is that fair?"
Polistra likes to assume that apparent contradictions reveal a deeper consistency. Apparent contradiction: Corporate chiefs destroy their companies and receive huge pay. Sounds like a paradox for sure.
Let's say you work with Jim Walston. Jim has an office with the title "Executive Vice-President" on the door. But you've never seen Jim doing anything but sweeping the floors and replacing light bulbs. You've also seen the boss smiling at Jim and saying "Good job!" You assume Jim is getting paid, because he seems happy and well-fed. What's your conclusion? Jim is paid for custodial work, even though his title says something different.
Same here. You see a man with the title "Chief Executive Officer" on his door. Normally a man with this title would try to lead the company toward success. But you observe, in many different companies,
that the men with this title lead the companies toward bankruptcy, while getting paid monstrously large bonuses. What's your conclusion? The CEOs were paid for what they did.