Bush's "State of the Economy" speech, delivered from the financial center of the world, was aimed at bringing his economic message out of the shadows of the Iraq war. On his second day in a row focused on the economy, the government reported faster-than-expected growth of 3.5% in the final quarter of last year.

The president acknowledged people's continuing nervousness about their financial picture, despite a string of similar reports that provide some reason for optimism. He said some workers are being left behind in the booming economy and the disparity between the rich and the poor is growing.

"The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years," the president said. "The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980," Bush said, adding that more education and training can lift peoples' salaries.

He said he realized that stories about the enormous salaries and other perks for CEOs, for instance, create anger and uncertainty that affect the country's investors.

The president does not endorse any government role in reducing those packages. Instead, Bush highlighted new federal rules that the administration thinks are a better path toward wise compensation decisions by companies.

"Government should not decide the compensation for America's corporate executives," he said. "But the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders."

In effect starting last month, the rules give investors access to clearer and more detailed information from public companies on their top executives' pay packages and perks. Their impact will become apparent as corporations begin issuing 2006 annual reports.

"America's corporate boardrooms must step up to their responsibilities," Bush said. "You need to pay attention to the executive compensation packages that you approve. You need to show the world that America's businesses are a model of transparency and good corporate governance."


link (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-01-31-bush-economy_x.htm)

How about the death penalty for CEOs that are caught in fraudulent schemes that cost investors billions of dollars? I think that would do more to fix what's wrong with corporations in America than anything Bush says.

How about shifting attention to stupid greedy short sighted stockholders?
If they never understand that there's more to the value of a company than is reflected in the short term bottom line the whole country will go to blazes

Why would the stockholders care about anything other than profit? It's their only benefit. It's not their job to see a company be a well rounded organization. It's a simple monetary up & down movement that pertains to them.

Too bad you got the bug then-you dont put oil in your car? You take a longer term interest in a company and you know how to trade it better-you know when to pull back and when to commit-if stockholders are going to be behind the scenes making these decisions which BTW effect the whole economy to take responsibility-why do you want to let them off the hook?

No, I really mean what gives them the incentive to think about anything more than money?
Caring about people that work for you and the environment, and all that other stuff means one thing - a smaller profit, no?
Wouldn't it be up to the CEO to sell the plan of a better, not bigger company to the stockholders in a way to make them change their minds? Isn't that the CEO's job, being the liason?

You peeps think this poser is a conservative why?

OK sorry-they should be doing that but the guys that are disposed to that kind of thinking arent landing those jobs because of the greedy stockholders...
one nice thing about the move back to attractive dividends was to encourage more of an "ownership" type relationship-after the brokerage fees sometimes your gains can look pretty scant trading in and out and it's just less hassle-of course this isnt going popular with those who have a pece of THAT game...

OK sorry-they should be doing that but the guys that are disposed to that kind of thinking arent landing those jobs because of the greedy stockholders...
one nice thing about the move back to attractive dividends was to encourage more of an "ownership" type relationship-after the brokerage fees sometimes your gains can look pretty scant trading in and out and it's just less hassle-of course this isnt going popular with those who have a pece of THAT game...

I think employees having the opportunity to become stockholders would help keep balance. I really have no idea if it ever has, or would work. Economics just isn't my bag, baby! :P

As usual, Bush believes strongly in accountability and responsibility . . . for other people. His own administration has been the least transparent in US history, abusing the document-classification system as it has never been abused before to hide public information gained and public expense whenever it might be inconvenient for him or his cronies personally. If the White House released information equivalent to that he says companies should, he would not have been reelected in 2004. He would probably have set records for worst showing by an incumbent, and he knows it.
what gives them the incentive to think about anything more than money?
How about not treating one's investments as separate from the entire rest of one's life? We all know that certain activities are immoral or harmful or unsustainable, and that we should not support them. Companies are bound by a pure profit motive, but investors need not be. They can invest on whatever basis they want, and there are already many socially-conscious investment funds for those who have values other than pure greed. Investors should always ask: if not me, who? Who else will stand up and vote with their investment dollars for doing the right thing? Basic game theory teaches us that everyone pursuing self interest (as considered in isolation) can lead to suboptimal results for everyone. In earthier terms, everyone thinks it's OK for them to pee in the pool because they assume nobody else is doing it, but if they all make the same calculation then things get stinky. One vote doesn't matter, one share doesn't matter, but that doesn't absolve anyone of the responsibility to make the right choices.

How about not treating one's investments as separate from the entire rest of one's life?

Why-youre going against the very fabric of US corporate society!!!!! What's wrong with you? You aint one of them Chniese Muslims are you?:squint:

lol at the sig too