The title is misleading. This is an article from 2008 on CEO pay and the issues in the banking system that's made its rounds several times.<p>It has a lot to do with the core issues of the unrest right now but it is by no means Mark Cuban's response to the movement itself.
I think the focus should be on #2 "Push to Make All Financial Institutions Partnerships". If you read Michael Lewis and trace the history of these risky bets, it really comes down to skin in the game. When Goldman Sachs and other investment companies had partners that took hits with bad outcomes, they were in a lot more control and didn't try risky leveraged investments that were great short-term but potentially catastrophic. When these companies went public and a lot of their compensation was based on share price (with some golden parachutes), they started making a lot more in bubble environments and seemed to back short-term risky ventures that added to the bottom line.<p>So while CEO pay is a useful discussion, the real question in my mind is whether we should ever have a CEO of a publicly-held company that is "too big to fail" and can involve itself in risky highly-leveraged deals. It decouples the risk from the primary decision maker and that's reflected in the entire management chain down to the little guy that's risking the entire net worth of the company.
I believe OP meant to link this blog article:<p><a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to-the-ows-movement-and-then-some/" rel="nofollow">http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to-the-...</a>