You're watching...
Former Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg argues that the financial-sector protests are rooted in history.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Before pay czar says the -- this later and -- got by Wall Street protests are perfectly understandable.
Kenneth Feinberg is the -- President Obama tapped to decide how much the bosses have bailed out banks should be paid.
He joins us now exclusively -- what I heard you say this I thought.
Maybe you just work thinking straight after the Red Sox collapsed did that really have some -- is that the reason why can't.
You know it's just striking below the belt.
Now that's not I'm -- -- what it was like to get you go to our Friday about but why would you say that that these folks and end.
You know I mean obviously there's some sincere folks there but there are also a lot of crazies there.
Sure there but historically I mean that you look back at.
A couple of essential reason I history whenever -- economic uncertainty financial uncertainty.
High unemployment.
You get this type of reaction is nothing.
Unique about this saw I think in historical perspective you can see it throughout history.
But wait and you do you think that it's unemployment that is as driving -- credit I -- look back at 1999.
They had these riots in Seattle -- remembered that World Trade Organization.
1990 knives -- -- one of the lowest unemployment figures on record.
And we still have these grades are -- these are basically the same people that the same organizers when -- reporters go in and and reports on people who were they are there were the same people in Seattle in 99.
And then -- look I think if unemployment was at 3% in the economy was certainly -- mean I doubt very much -- have the same type of react but can they weren't here and I mean nine in Seattle on the same people all these guys are -- they just wanna store up trouble.
In any event I don't think it's gonna eventually I mean that it.
Historically it -- -- Philly but.
Well in what way do you think that they might actually over oversight over lap with this kind of stuff that you've been providing in terms of advice about how wall.
Street should be fixed.
The big problem with all of this is what is the alternative I mean I learned in that ministry in pay.
Determining pay for just seven companies just -- 175.
People.
That the minute you think about expanding that type of authority -- having the government got involved in.
Setting -- you get into really deep water idea and I don't think anybody ever suggested.
That the government should respond beyond that which was granted me by statute as to 175.
Individual's right.
And M and I I really appreciate that -- to because a lot of the people at these rallies a lot of other people.
Have been pressing for more of a direct government control in terms of how people salaries should be -- you were dead set against that.
I'm dead set against it I think -- bomber administration the secretary of the treasury made it very clear He was dead set against it.
-- were seen to be dead set against it it was congress of course.
-- -- That passed the statue even permitting.
The government to get involved just 175.
People would clearly was a populist reaction.
Two the top bail out the program.
Now has all that ended is all that push.
Because that TARP money has been pay back ended in terms of try to force the government says to tell people how much they make.
No Bank of America.
Citigroup.
And Chrysler financial they paid back every dime they -- all obligated to pay back and I'm no longer subject to.
Treasury determinations of pay but GN.
-- -- The is still mom and AIG of course the is still subject to government determination -- how long do you think that'll go on.
Depends the law says it goes on as long as until.
Those four companies already one of them repay.
What they over tax Payer and when that happens as would the other three.
Citigroup Bank of America -- and in and done Chrysler financial then.
Can I remember reporting on the night that TARP was announced remember when Paulson brought -- those three papers which is essentially to the TARP plan in miniature.
And we had on David -- the famous democratic lawyer -- defended vice president gore when He was running for president -- He said this is the end of capitalism in America it may be short term.
But right now we no longer have a free market in the United States that's what David -- -- Do you think which we have we have come back from that precipice.
I think so congress clearly.
Decided having bailed out.
Those companies that there ought to be a populist price to pay and so congress passed the law it was congress that set up this this what is largely a sideshow I mean it's only a 175.
People at the outset.
Now it's not even that.
And I don't think -- is any indication that either the administration.
Or the congress play into XP and.
Or even replicate OK but I have no regrets for for keeping a sharp why this because we have seen other programs like that.
That was only meant to target a few dozen people grow in the United States and to give the Alternative Minimum Tax for example so.
It was worthwhile don't you think that those of us in the media kept the sharp try to make sure this thing didn't grow into a Frankenstein monster.
I think that's fine I I I must say in the sixteen months that I served.
At treasury said in the today pursuant to the statute.
IE I never got the slightest indication.
That -- the administration.
Treasury nor the congress.
-- any real interest in -- -- the program.
It was more symbolic than real and symbolism can be important perception can be reality yeah it sure but it is a very very limited program and there are precedents and I'm thinking back to the next in price and wage controls so there are precedents we got to run.
You could have by the way jarred the New York Yankees for having fallen apart at the end you know you didn't do it -- I didn't hear.
You're much kinder guide and I am -- on the gas I didn't wanna get into that Ken Feinberg good to see again thank you very much they.
