It's so rare that the Wall Street Journal actually makes me laugh that I have no choice but to share this:

Yes, it's The Donald.  Done by the WSJ.  Best pencil sketch ever?  I think so.

It accompanies a story that's getting some play this morning.  Apparently, Trump is suing a guy who wrote a book that says Trump's personal fortune is valued at "only" $150-$250 million.  Trump himself has claimed he's worth somewhere in the billions.  He's suing the publisher for damages, saying that he lost out on business deals and suffered reputational harm from the claim.

So today, depositions that Trump gave in the case have been released, where under oath Trump had to testify about how, exactly, he believes he's worth billions when things like math show he's probably not.  It turns out it's because he sees "worth" and "ownership" to be mostly mental labels that he can use however he'd like.  So his 30 percent stake in building project is actually closer to 50 percent in his mind, because he's being paid to manage the site, for instance.  This also works really nicely with figuring out profits:

In the deposition, Mr. Trump is asked about the Bedminster, N.J. golf course, which financial statements showed had a net loss of $4.6 million in 2005. Has he ever done a financial analysis of his investment there?

"Yes, I've done mental projections," he said, figuring he'd eventually make $120 million. He never put them down on paper. "You don't really have to," he said.

Mr. Ceresney, asks: "Have you discounted in your mind for the risk that you won't sell [memberships] at the prices you are anticipating?"

"I think I will, but it's possible I won't. But I think I will," Mr. Trump said.

Ah, the power of positive thinking. If it's good enough for Donald Trump, it's good enough for the whole financial system, right?  Well, so far, yes.  CEOs of major companies and banks are still getting paid enormous amounts to do their jobs -- and despite changing rules, shareholders have so far protested fewer pay packages this year than last.

I meant to talk about this last week, but the Obama administration is actually working on finding a way to overhaul executive compensation at financial institutions.  As Andrew Leonard at Salon points out, just the mention of an effort has many people up in arms, picturing Tim Geithner and team blacking out the zeros on certain executives' pay, but the actual implementation is likely to be much more complex and nuanced.  The WSJ:

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.

At the same time, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government's ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company's viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy

Tightening the existing rules -- and there are existing rules -- is a great first step.  But there's a culture of executive pay that must also be treated, and it's exactly what Donald Trump represents.  Most of the people getting umpteen-million in bonus pay every year deeply believe that they deserve it.  They're told they deserve it in many ways: by the fact that their colleagues make that, by the amount of profit they're able to generate for their investors, even just by the legends of business greats like Trump himself that float throughout our culture.

I'm not sure how to treat that ill, except perhaps through more frank discussions of money in our society.  If more people were asked to account for how, exactly, they decide what they're worth each year -- if CEO's and CFO's and SOB's were deposed like Trump was before their investors and shareholders, asked to account for what it is, exactly, that makes them worth $19 million or $30 million or even $1 million to the company, we might more quickly see cuts in pay -- either through shareholder votes, or even, perhaps, through some kind of shame-induced realization.

But what, exactly, would shame Donald Trump?  If there's nothing, then will all changes have to come by force of law?