CNBC host: Wall Street companies can’t ‘be run well’ by those making under $250,000.

As several bloggers and television pundits have noted, CNBC has consistently advocated on behalf of the interests of the rich during the recent financial crisis. Indeed, in an interview with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) today, CNBC host Mark Haines made the curious claim that Americans who earn under $250,000 per year — or 98 percent of the population — can’t run Wall Street companies:

HAINES: Let’s get back to what I regard as a fundamental issue here. I know it’s politically unpopular, politically incorrect. I know it goes against all of the populist indignation that’s out there right now. But you can’t really, it seems to me, expect that these Wall Street companies are going to be run well by a bunch of people who don’t make more than $250,000.

Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/cnbc-rich-wall-street/

Of course, Wall Street has been run so smoothly under millionaire CEOs. Haines also seems to be criticizing the management ability of America’s small business owners, the vast majority of whom do not earn over $250,000 in gross income per year.

UPDATE The Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo notes that today Haines also compared Wall Street to Nazi Germany in arguing that AIG should keep its bonuses:
It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them. Watch it
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/cnbc-analogy/

These turds honestly think that money is virtue and knowledge and wisdom and goodness...

INTERESTING!

So we should immediately raise teacher pay to over $250,000 per year, because kids are our future,and way more important than some old companies, right?

Surely I don't need a sarcasm tag here, do I?

My father did the same thing, for a MAJOR bank whose name you would all know. He didn't make a fortune, but he made enough. And he did his job, and he did it well and was part of turning a good bank into a great bank. He invested what one bank had, and tried to grow it into a larger amount of money.

He wasn't greedy. He was just smart. If you could see how we lived, you would never think for a moment that our parents had money.


I'm so disgusted it's hard to type.

.. created this debacle. The idea that you can buy extraordinary performance for megabucks is total unmitigated horseshit.

How much you're paid has nothing to do with YOUR WORTH. Just
because some bigshot executive makes a ton of cash doesn't mean
he's inherently more capable than someone who's paid less. If
this is common thinking on "the Street," then I hope the whole
lot of them end up in a Bushville tent city ...

In fact, I'd say right now there is NO meritocracy; if you're good at what you do very likely you're making a lot less than the magical $250k.

Jesus. They just don't stop, do they.

When I was working with a head hunter and made under $30,0000, I was told by a head hunter that most positions that paid above $50,000 or $60,000 would not consider me at all for that reason even if I met all their qualifications.
I have wondered if some high profile positions do require high income people for the reason that these people must live a certain lifestyle. They must wear high priced suits, have expensive shoes in good repair, maintain their appearance with professional help, drive a nice car, etc.
Then there is the whole "culture" arguement.