Bankers bonuses

[Emil Miller]

The CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland has, under media and governmental pressure given up his reported bonus of almost £1million although other senior staff at the bank are still in line for theirs. Given that bankers bonuses affect the economy and therefore practically everyone else, what are your views on this controversial topic? Please keep it strictly to the economics of the situation and not invite thread closure by straying into the political side of the equation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think it's crap. I'm sick of rich people getting richer. **** them.

[tonywalt]

Fred Goodwin, former CEO of RBS was nicknamed "Fred the Shred" for his ruthless management style. His Knighthood was revoked.

I have met quite a few guys who have Knighthoods, MBE's and blah blah. They love it, take it and themselves very seriously. Yes, money is a big part of their makeup, but EGO and Society are equally important if not more so than money.

This likely stung him good and hard.

[YesNo]

Being annoyed that the rich get bonuses is a sign that social mood is becoming bearish. In a bull market few people would care. However, the bear market really starts heating up when there no longer is any money to pay those bonuses.

[tonywalt]

The bear market bottomed in 2009 for most sectors and exchanges. The recent movement against Wall Street and CEO's and well, capitalism is a revolution made for TV and will have little real effect. I should add that I do empathise and sympathise with all of us in the 99%, but we are talking about free captialist societies.

Many of the countries in question have already had failed, but well intentioned stabs at socialism or light versions of it. Price and salary controls in practical terms is difficult, but can vary from country to country in terms of ratio.

Captialism is not pretty and is at times violently cyclical. We have and will go through recession, depressions, booms, and flat line periods. I know of no other system that works as well, but I wish I could say differently.

[Darcy88]

The bear market bottomed in 2009 for most sectors and exchanges. The recent movement against Wall Street and CEO's and well, capitalism is a revolution made for TV and will have little real effect. I should add that I do empathise and sympathise with all of us in the 99%, but we are talking about free captialist societies.

Many of the countries in question have already had failed, but well intentioned stabs at socialism or light versions of it. Price and salary controls in practical terms is difficult, but can vary from country to country in terms of ratio.

Captialism is not pretty and is at times violently cyclical. We have and will go through recession, depressions, booms, and flat line periods. I know of no other system that works as well, but I wish I could say differently.

Occupy is not "made for tv." The big networks did all they could to neutralize it. The movement was conceived and promoted by an organization which opposes the very existence of television itself. What we saw in the late summer and fall was just a taste of what will soon become the new status quo - widespread protests and social unrest.

As far as capitalism goes....you're right. It works maybe the best from all the models we have to consider. But there are different types of capitalism. There's the unfettered free-market variety and there's the more rationally regulated one. The latter has proven the superior.

About banker's bonuses...... JP Morgan recently announced that it was drastically curtailing its bonuses as well. I don't think this is a controversial issue. I've never heard anyone who themselves was not in Wall Street's employ argue that million dollar bonuses for bankers are anything but unduly extravagant and, when those bankers make their millions swindling people and bundling toxic mortgages, they ought to be imprisoned, not rewarded.

[Alexander III]

As far as capitalism goes....you're right. It works maybe the best from all the models we have to consider. But there are different types of capitalism. There's the unfettered free-market variety and there's the more rationally regulated one. The latter has proven the superior.


No it has not, Every indication is that free-markets do better than regulated markets, that is why policies such as isolantionism and tryign to reulate import/export with large taxes has always failed in history.

As for the Bonuses. If it was a bull market period, it would be fine. But considering the economic depression we are in, well, it is like giving generals bonuses after having lost a war.

[tonywalt]

Occupy is not "made for tv." The big networks did all they could to neutralize it. The movement was conceived and promoted by an organization which opposes the very existence of television itself. What we saw in the late summer and fall was just a taste of what will soon become the new status quo - widespread protests and social unrest.

Perhaps, but like capitalism we have had cycles of unrest and protest. The 30's spring to mind, hell many people dabbled with Communism at that time(in the US they paid a bitter unfair price in the 50's for that old flirtation). It faded with relative prosperity during the 40's and 50's.
The 60's, another movement for peace(we seemed to have learned nothing on that one, unfortunately) and a more egalitarian society. The 60's movement, which was much larger than the current movement, was highly organized, and even had militant factions within it, Red Brigade, Weathermen, along with a large physically identifiable sub culture with real leaders. It was dead well before the 70's ended.

As far as capitalism goes....you're right. It works maybe the best from all the models we have to consider. But there are different types of capitalism. There's the unfettered free-market variety and there's the more rationally regulated one. The latter has proven the superior.

Agreed. I am very much with you, but capitalism itself is tied directly to human nature. I work in the financial sector and it's business as usual in the US and Europe in terms of culture and compensation. Some cosmetic regulations, but the leaders are bought and sold by the financial institutions and they bow at the boot of the Money.
About banker's bonuses...... JP Morgan recently announced that it was drastically curtailing its bonuses as well. I don't think this is a controversial issue. I've never heard anyone who themselves was not in Wall Street's employ argue that million dollar bonuses for bankers are anything but unduly extravagant and, when those bankers make their millions swindling people and bundling toxic mortgages, they ought to be imprisoned, not rewarded.

Yes, some will do this for a time. I can tell you from a close perspective that the primary reason for any of this is publicity, they will spin this hard. It will fade away after this cycle ends.

Darcy, I am with you in spirit, but the realist in me writes the above.

[Alexander III]

Yes, some will do this for a time, and then it will fade away after this cycle ends.

Darcy, I am with you in spirit, but the realist in me writes the above.

I think the realist in everyone finds the whole occupy movemnt, well intentioned but utterly inefectuall.

[OrphanPip]

No it has not, Every indication is that free-markets do better than regulated markets, that is why policies such as isolantionism and tryign to reulate import/export with large taxes has always failed in history.

As for the Bonuses. If it was a bull market period, it would be fine. But considering the economic depression we are in, well, it is like giving generals bonuses after having lost a war.

Free trade and free market capitalism are not the same thing. Mixed economies have proven to be very effective and enduring, given that the entire Western world consists of them and they are likely to survive for much longer. Germany has a mixed market economy since the end of WWII and has flourished. The USA has a mixed economy since the 19th century, and has flourished. Canada had a heavily regulated banking sector which sheltered it through bank failures.

[Darcy88]

No it has not, Every indication is that free-markets do better than regulated markets, that is why policies such as isolantionism and tryign to reulate import/export with large taxes has always failed in history.

As for the Bonuses. If it was a bull market period, it would be fine. But considering the economic depression we are in, well, it is like giving generals bonuses after having lost a war.

The banking crisis in the U.S. in 2009 was largely the result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act of 1932 which was a response to the out-of-control speculation that contributed to the great depression. Now investment and commercial banks are permitted to freely merge, allowing the banksters to play craps with people's life savings and retirement funds. Without regulation you have disaster and chaos. Its a lot more nuanced than the past contrast of the rigid state controls of the Soviet regime versus the more open economies of the West.

And anyone who thinks free trade is a good thing should look at Mexico and the U.S. Mexican agriculture has been grievously decimated in the wake of NAFTA, America's manufacturing sector equally hard hit as a result of the kind of practices promoted by the WTO.

[Alexander III]

Canada had a heavily regulated banking sector which sheltered it through bank failures.

Yes but you cannot compare Canada to Germany or the U.S - what works for Canada, what protects is, also means that it cannot achieve the same econimic succes as other countries. Your depressions may not hurt you as much but your booms did not profit you as much.




And anyone who thinks free trade is a good thing should look at Mexico and the U.S. Mexican agriculture has been grievously decimated in the wake of NAFTA, America's manufacturing sector equally hard hit as a result of the kind of practices promoted by the WTO.

I agree with you as to banking regulations, but those regulations are not free market regulations, they must be there because the money in banks is not theirs, regulations protect the consumers money invested in banks which is necessary.

When it comes to free trade regulations, well just look at history, every nation which has adopted a free tarde policy compared to every nation that has not, the latter always enconomicaly fail compared to the former. I am not sure how to argue with you on this point as it seems an uarguable point from your point of view.

[tonywalt]

The economic system one prefers is subject to a person's own philosophy.

On a board like this, the majority (from what I see) believe egalitarian society(or close to it) is the best. If I go to my trading forum, I will get a very different set of beliefs and the vast majority on the trading forum are part of the same 99%.

They will take a laissez faire cowboy system even with the rougher ride, and I include those who suffered in the recent rough ride. They do not want certain European models, even if it meant they would have a better safety net. The vast majority are educated, intelligent, and not spun by any media in any direction.

Creative destruction is part of the unfortunate cycle of human advancement. The greater do well and a significant minority suffer and on and on it goes, even with regulation.

Railroad industry was decimated by the internal combustion engine. Jobs lost and jobs gained.

The camera film industry was destroyed by digital. Many unspoken jobs lost and gained.

Primitive labour driven farming replaced my high tech farming. Many jobs lost, many jobs gained. That was a tough transition.

In 1970 421,000 people worked as telephone switchboard operators. Jobs lost, jobs gained.

Manufactoring is shifting to regions with low cost labour. Cheaper goods free up investment and purchasing power for other items. Low wage jobs lost, higher wage jobs gained.

The overall model favours with great rapidity a better educated person now more so than ever. This trend will continue and the results are not always attractive to view.

[Emil Miller]

The amazing thing is that the bonus culture was created by the bankers themselves. Nice work if you can get it, but they were able to get away with it because: a.) most people don't take an interest in financial affairs, and: b.) they shovelled unlimited credit onto people that stopped them from worrying about the consequences of bankers plundering their countries wealth.
I was once awarded an honorarium for work undertaken above and beyond what I was paid as a normal salary; I had no say in the matter it was decided independently from anything that I might have thought, but if I could have set it myself, I would be living in the South of France right now.
Back in 2007, I was reading the financial pages of my evening newspaper and my eye alighted on the words 'sub-prime' in relation to mortgages that were trading as parcels of debt on the financial markets of the USA. From that moment, and coming on top of the 'junk bond' market of a few years earlier, it seemed pretty certain to me that the **** was going to hit the fan big time but it was just a question of when rather than if.

[billl]

The economic system one prefers is subject to a person's own philosophy.

I don't want to exaggerrate the importance of this nuance I'm making here, but the traders at the trading forum might be united by the fact that they are traders as much as anything. That might go hand in hand with a philosophy that takes into account others who aren't traders, and what's the best way for everyone, etc. (even if that means every person for themself)--but I think there might in a lot of cases be a more direct line between the trading and their opinions about regulation of trading (i.e. freer and less-regulated trade), and it might not have been arrived at by some period of objective philosophical musing.

Trading might be the way some people find self-worth (rather than "I have a trust fund", it could be "I'm a trader"...). Some traders might even have something resembling a gambling problem, and be quite enthusiastic despite consistently poor returns. Others might make a point to combine their trading decisions with particular political/social objectives. Some might simply believe it's the best way to get a good return on their money, and find that it is so (without any consideration of the ramifications pro or con for the rest of society, or perhaps with serious consideration of it, or maybe occasional consideration, etc.). Some people well-poised to take advantage of trading (lots of money to invest; time and talent for financial analysis) might prefer to use a mutual fund and devote their time to other things besides trading and trading forums--and they might agree or disagree with the prevailing views among more active traders. And so on.

Again, it is maybe a very fine nuance here, but the point I'm wondering about is to what degree a trading forum is concerned about impacts outside of trading, and thus to what degree would the opinions there be relevant to overall economic philosophy.

As far as this particular forum (LitNet) goes, I'm not surprised that it's a lot different than a trading forum regarding these matters, but, without visiting trading forums, I can only wonder which place would end up being more or less one-sided in the opinions of its members, at least in regards to topics of immediate interest to online short-term traders.

[tonywalt]

There is nuance. I refer to an investment forum (not short term trading) and most of what I do and associate with in terms of that forum is value investors. In terms of economic systems the value investors (long term view, buy cheap) and the short term traders would differ very little in opinion.

Also, these are people who have a full time job and invest in stocks on the side.

But yes, there opinions are relevant and yes, lopsided towards laissez faire capitalism.

[OrphanPip]

Yes but you cannot compare Canada to Germany or the U.S - what works for Canada, what protects is, also means that it cannot achieve the same econimic succes as other countries. Your depressions may not hurt you as much but your booms did not profit you as much.

Ya, we're really hurting with the worlds 10th largest economy despite a population of 30 million. (Fyi that means per capita we're actually more productive than Germany and about equivalent to the USA, although the real measure of economic prosperity would be PPP, and there we would be about equivalent with the USA and better off than Germany as well)

[Darcy88]

Manufactoring is shifting to regions with low cost labour. Cheaper goods free up investment and purchasing power for other items. Low wage jobs lost, higher wage jobs gained.


Actually its the exact opposite. With the flight of manufacturing jobs people are often left with low-level service industry jobs or outright unemployment. Those manufacturing jobs paid well. You could own a home, purchase two cars, put your kids through college without accumulating a gross amount of debt.

Now instead of using actual income to finance consumption people put it on their credit cards, an unsustainable trend.




When it comes to free trade regulations, well just look at history, every nation which has adopted a free tarde policy compared to every nation that has not, the latter always enconomicaly fail compared to the former. I am not sure how to argue with you on this point as it seems an uarguable point from your point of view.

I don't see that. I mentioned the decimation of Mexico's agricultural industry and also the steep decline of America's manufacturing base. My own region has been hit hard with mill closures left and right due to Canada's inability to limit the exportation of raw logs under NAFTA. People cite China's rise as an example of the success of free trade policy. China's trade is not free. Its fixed. Free trade really just amounts to the undemocratic stripping of economic sovereignty from the people and handing it over to corporations. Adam Smith counselled the Americans back in the 18th century not to develop manufacturing but instead be a resource provider for the industrially developed nations of Europe, Britain in particular. The Americans did not listen, instead implementing protectionist trade policies which put them on the path to becoming the world's leading economic and industrial superpower.

[tonywalt]

Let us not do the Canada vs. whoever thing again.

Canada is an industrious and innovative country, and recently due to the following, it has done better than most:

1. Massive, and I mean, massive natural resources in proportion to population. It has large Oil reserves, gold, nickel, diamonds, and lead. All prices in these commodities have doubled and tripled. Canada benefits enormously. This drives the country recently, but when commodity markets go down - and they will, Canada will feel the effect. But all due respect for harnessing resources.

2. Bank regulations - They are tight, but while regulations preserves the sector, it does not have proportionately the seem reach and power that the US financial institutions have and want.

But again, let's just say I have a very vested interest in Canada. And even when Oil and commodities go down Canada still prospers because of it's educated and industrious ways. Hats off to Canada.

I should say that when I visit certain oil rich countries in desert areas they are often quite proud of their "achievements" and say so with alot of volume, at which point I get nod politely, grow very silent and sip on my scotch....

[Emil Miller]

The banking crisis in the U.S. in 2009 was largely the result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act of 1932 which was a response to the out-of-control speculation that contributed to the great depression. Now investment and commercial banks are permitted to freely merge, allowing the banksters to play craps with people's life savings and retirement funds. Without regulation you have disaster and chaos.


I have referred twice on these forums to the folly in abandoning the Glass-Steagall act. It's hardly surprising that the people running organisations such as Goldman Sachs give themselves huge bonuses for having influenced the powers that be into giving them a free hand to make more millions by rigging the market in their favour. I am unequivocally right-wing but detest irresponsibility from whichever quarter it comes and those responsible for bringing the free market into disrepute should be punished rather than rewarded.
The so-called UK Financial Services Authority, which now that the damage has been done is about to be wound up, stood by and did nothing while hedge funds and banks turned what was formerly a reasonably contained system in to a casino in which they gambled with peoples livelihoods whilst lining their pockets with untold wealth. I think there is a good case for putting those involved in damaging a country's financial security on trial for treason.

[tonywalt]

The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was the tipping point, and it only took 9 years.

Warren Buffett once said, and I cannot find the quote, that trading is a bit like having an island where 5 people do all the work and the other 3 bet on the productivity of the 5.

He is right, and I am seperating trading of derivitive instruments that have no utility as opposed to actual investment in equity or sensible debt issue. Some options are necessary for financial planning, but they go onto secondary markets and become another attraction in what has become a casino.

[Emil Miller]

The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was the tipping point, and it only took 9 years.

Warren Buffett once said, and I cannot find the quote, that trading is a bit like having an island where 5 people do all the work and the other 3 bet on the productivity of the 5.

He is right, and I am seperating trading of derivitive instruments that have no utility as opposed to actual investment in equity or sensible debt issue. Some options are necessary for financial planning, but they go onto secondary markets and become another attraction in what has become a casino.

I agree that there has to be, of necessity, risk taking in investment banking but that shouldn't apply to the retail business. The introduction of the Glass-Steagall act made it illegal for banks to use ordinary depositors money in that way. Those who encouraged its removal and then took risks with their ordinary customers money are guilty of irresponsibility at best and immoral behaviour at worst. People such as Dick Fuld and Henry Paulson in the US and Adam Applegarth and Fred Goodwin in the UK are directly responsible for millions of people losing their homes and employment. The dust has far from settled on this economic crisis but if it ends with blood on the streets it won't be because of a failure of capitalism but rather the greed of a handful of individuals.

[Darcy88]

Let us not do the Canada vs. whoever thing again.

Canada is an industrious and innovative country, and recently due to the following, it has done better than most:

1. Massive, and I mean, massive natural resources in proportion to population. It has large Oil reserves, gold, nickel, diamonds, and lead. All prices in these commodities have doubled and tripled. Canada benefits enormously. This drives the country recently, but when commodity markets go down - and they will, Canada will feel the effect. But all due respect for harnessing resources.

2. Bank regulations - They are tight, but while regulations preserves the sector, it does not have proportionately the seem reach and power that the US financial institutions have and want.

But again, let's just say I have a very vested interest in Canada. And even when Oil and commodities go down Canada still prospers because of it's educated and industrious ways. Hats off to Canada.

I should say that when I visit certain oil rich countries in desert areas they are often quite proud of their "achievements" and say so with alot of volume, at which point I get nod politely, grow very silent and sip on my scotch....

All good points but I think its much simpler than that. The human brain is composed 60% of fat and runs mostly on carbohydrates. All that maple syrup and Canadian bacon... that's the key.

[OrphanPip]

2. Bank regulations - They are tight, but while regulations preserves the sector, it does not have proportionately the seem reach and power that the US financial institutions have and want.


Though Toronto-Dominion bank is now the 6th largest in North America (in terms of branches) because of the buyout of a number of American banks after the financial meltdown. So, the protections did provide outlets for expansion in a relatively weak global market.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Right now, I'm convinced that the banks and richest individuals are the ones running this country right now. The government works for them, not the people. An actual honest politician, Elizabeth Warren, said it best:


‎What's happened is that Washington now works for those who can hire an army of lobbyists and an army of lawyers. You know, if you're in the drug business, and you are selling prescriptions to seniors, and you don't want to have to negotiate over the prices, Washington works beautifully for you. If you want subsidies to drill for oil, Washington is working for you. If you run a hedge fund and want to pay the lowest possible taxes, Washington is working for you.

In fact, there was recently a study, just in the last couple of weeks, there was a study in which it comes out that thirty of the largest companies in the United States are now spending more on lobbying than they pay in federal taxes.

Think about that. I mean that is the investment, and that's what they see as the future.

[Alexander III]

Though Toronto-Dominion bank is now the 6th largest in North America (in terms of branches) because of the buyout of a number of American banks after the financial meltdown. So, the protections did provide outlets for expansion in a relatively weak global market.

Thats rationalizing cowardice - Canada's GPD is roughly 1/14th of that of America, despite having greater natural reasources. Also canada's gdp is the 14th in the world, right infront of iran and turkey.


Darcy, I think we are both ususing the word "free market" meaning two different things, I use it in the ecnomical scientific sense.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Man, Wikipedia's hits must have gone through the roof due to this thread alone.

[tonywalt]

Though Toronto-Dominion bank is now the 6th largest in North America (in terms of branches) because of the buyout of a number of American banks after the financial meltdown. So, the protections did provide outlets for expansion in a relatively weak global market.

True, they have done some expansion. It's a different country with a somewhat different model or formula, but clearly it was spawned by the people of each country.

[Darcy88]

Thats rationalizing cowardice - Canada's GPD is roughly 1/14th of that of America, despite having greater natural reasources. Also canada's gdp is the 14th in the world, right infront of iran and turkey.


Darcy, I think we are both ususing the word "free market" meaning two different things, I use it in the ecnomical scientific sense.

Our resources pretty much are American resources. They consider our oil fields "domestic." Considering that Turkey and Iran have over double our population I'd say our ranking ahead of them is not bad. Iran is also resource rich.

On your other point... I think I understand and I agree. I was talking in particular of the neoliberal trade reforms that have been enacted in the last two decades. Capitalism in general I am somewhat less hostile towards.

[OrphanPip]

Thats rationalizing cowardice - Canada's GPD is roughly 1/14th of that of America, despite having greater natural reasources. Also canada's gdp is the 14th in the world, right infront of iran and turkey.

Um first of all, Canada's GDP is 10th in the world according to the IMF, World Bank and CIA factbook. We are 14th per capita, which places us higher than the 3 economic powerhouses of Europe, the UK, Germany, and France.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

Also, I don't see how rational sound economic policy which turned out to be more effective in the long run is "rationalizing cowardice." It would be more apt to refer to your post as rationalizing recklessness or plain stupidity. No rational person thinks the deregulation of the American banking sector has had a net positive effect.

Edit: I see now you used the nominal PPP, which isn't an indication of the actual size of a nation's economy, but is meant to reflect quality of life differences. However, PPP is useless nominally as an indicator, but should only be considered in terms of per capita.

[Emil Miller]

As difficult as it is to seperate them, just remember there may be some itching to close this thread down, so please leave government out of it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's stupid to try and leave out government when it comes to economics. But, whatever, if someone has to report my post to keep a thread (that's already in clear violation of the rules anyways) going, so be it.

Anyways, my comment was as political as anything else here. This board discusses governments all the time. Government and politics aren't the same thing. In any case, they're just as adjacent as economics and politics. Hell, you have people talking about capitalism here, a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. And I was hardly the first person to bring up governments.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's stupid to try and leave out government when it comes to economics. But, whatever, if someone has to report my post to keep a thread (that's already in clear violation of the rules anyways) going, so be it.

Anyways, my comment was as political as anything else here. This board discusses governments all the time. Government and politics aren't the same thing. In any case, they're just as adjacent as economics and politics. Hell, you have people talking about capitalism here, a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. And I was hardly the first person to bring up governments.

This is real close to what I was thinking. I can give my opinion to the question, but I won't be able to discuss it any further. I don't think that the bankers should be receiving their bonuses, but I also don't think that lawyers (especially the crooked like in congress) should be raking in the same wages (or more) as they always have been. Most of the world has taken pay cuts, why not the lawyers, politicians, and bankers.

[smerdyakov]

This is real close to what I was thinking. I can give my opinion to the question, but I won't be able to discuss it any further. I don't think that the bankers should be receiving their bonuses, but I also don't think that lawyers (especially the crooked like in congress) should be raking in the same wages (or more) as they always have been. Most of the world has taken pay cuts, why not the lawyers, politicians, and bankers.


Yeah but what kind of road are we going down if the government starts meddling with the private sector wage structures-totalitarianism.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah but what kind of road are we going down if the government starts meddling with the private sector wage structures-totalitarianism.

I never said that the government should be in charge of regulating it, I just said that they should have their pay cut as well.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree. Bankers, politicians, all of 'em are getting too much, and it's only because they're helping each other. It's a big circle jerk, and the common man can't participate.

[smerdyakov]

Tough regulation is what's needed in the banking sector (stopping huge greedy speculators borrowing billions/ let people start businesses, buy houses). Light touch regulation led to the crisis in the first place. And the governments were in the banks pockets-the government encouraged this massive lending at the time. Now the Government owns some of the banks. So now we, the taxpayer, effectively own the banks. So why won't they lend us our money. Screw of the century and hardly anyone takes a flyin bit of notice...crazy so it is. A kleptocracy!

[Darcy88]

I never said that the government should be in charge of regulating it, I just said that they should have their pay cut as well.

Congressmen make 170k a year. Wall street banksters often pull in bonuses worth millions. Politicians are paid such handsome amounts so that the best and brightest might be attracted to positions of power. It actually makes sense if you think about it. Otherwise only the rich would run for office, as they often do, but you still get the odd person who chooses public service over other potentially more lucrative careers.

[JuniperWoolf]

"Tax(idermy) the Rich!"

-clever protest sign


Let us not do the Canada vs. whoever thing again.

But we're doing so well, and according to the loose modern American definition of the word, we're "socialists!" Where's the fun in that if you can't rub everyone's nose in it?


Man, Wikipedia's hits must have gone through the roof due to this thread alone.

:smilielol5:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This is weird. My second post was gone, now it's back. Odd.

[Emil Miller]

It's stupid to try and leave out government when it comes to economics.

This thread is not discussing economics per se but bankers bonuses which are a single facet of the economy. If people stick to the bonus question, which is currently outside governmental remit, the thread may remain open for further comment.

[tonywalt]

"Tax(idermy) the Rich!"

-clever protest sign



But we're doing so well, and according to the loose modern American definition of the word, we're "socialists!" Where's the fun in that if you can't rub everyone's nose in it?



:smilielol5:

(in whining voice) Because I don't have a country to root for and would feel left out of the game:frown5:(stomps away)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've been trying to form a response that doesn't step into Serious Cat's litter tray but it is a little difficult. So I'll just say that I don't agree with this level of bonus or the top whacking salaries no way. However arguing about them is too little, too late, bolting the door after the horse and lots and lots of other clichés rolled into one.

I am equally annoyed though by the same tame excuse (threats) that come around each year that they'll take their talents overseas if they're not allowed to cream off millions and millions. For me that's got to be one of the most pathetic justifications I have ever heard.

It does come back to Serious Cat's litter tray though, where arguing about the contrast switch on a broken TV somewhat misses the point anyway.

[Emil Miller]

I've been trying to form a response that doesn't step into Serious Cat's litter tray but it is a little difficult. So I'll just say that I don't agree with this level of bonus or the top whacking salaries no way. However arguing about them is too little, too late, bolting the door after the horse and lots and lots of other clichés rolled into one.

I am equally annoyed though by the same tame excuse (threats) that come around each year that they'll take their talents overseas if they're not allowed to cream off millions and millions. For me that's got to be one of the most pathetic justifications I have ever heard.

It does come back to Serious Cat's litter tray though, where arguing about the contrast switch on a broken TV somewhat misses the point anyway.

There may be some bankers who good at what they do but if they are getting a salary that's 64 times the average person's, as it's reported the head of RBS gets, then that should be more than enough to satisfy his living requirements.
There should be no bonuses given to people on that kind of salary, but when they are the ones who actually award themselves a bonus, that's simply inexcusable. It's also an insult for any restrictions on bonuses to be for this year only which allows them to get up their old tricks next year and beyond.
This cartoon is amusing but it highlights the absurd situation that bankers have created in their own favour.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3117/article20936301187854c0.jpg

[MystyrMystyry]

I think it depends on what they do with the money. I like to believe the over-stuffed buy and care for precious works of art which galleries can't afford, and one day hopefully donate their collections.

If I hear they're installing gold dunnies in their mansions it's a turn-off, but who's to say what is and isn't art these days, and I suppose it can always be melted down.

Of those mansions and castles: they should be kept in good condition for posterity, yes? And who else wants to live in one? Especially considering the cost to air condition, clean, retain gardeners etc, and everyone's income ultimately matches their expenditure.

In their own twisted, disruptive, non-productive way, the well-off do try to do good, even if someone has to lose their crappy house in their crappy suburb - or better - their small over-priced business which was probably doomed to failure anyway.

We must always remember that there would be no cheap air travel without a first class section ;)

[tonywalt]

With rare exception, these guys at the power top of corporations are into power and profile.

Art - From some first hand and second hand experience, they buy whatever is trendy. Its a bit like Kabbalah in Hollywood.

Home - It is not so much the home, but what they enjoy is the location and size. They can brag about the value of their house for a full dinner-been there:Yawn:

Bonus dynamics - The board of directors decide on the bonuses and that's quite a clubby networked outfit. You will see the same Ivy Leauge/OxCam people and in Cayman the highest currency people are the OxCam people-they are demonstrably clubby and exclusive. They let you know who they are real damn quick.

The shareholders approve directors annually, but they somehow let the culture continue, under the threat of the standard "in order to attract talent, you have to pay them or they will leave" order.

[Emil Miller]

I think it depends on what they do with the money. I like to believe the over-stuffed buy and care for precious works of art which galleries can't afford, and one day hopefully donate their collections.

If I hear they're installing gold dunnies in their mansions it's a turn-off, but who's to say what is and isn't art these days, and I suppose it can always be melted down.

Of those mansions and castles: they should be kept in good condition for posterity, yes? And who else wants to live in one? Especially considering the cost to air condition, clean, retain gardeners etc, and everyone's income ultimately matches their expenditure.

In their own twisted, disruptive, non-productive way, the well-off do try to do good, even if someone has to lose their crappy house in their crappy suburb - or better - their small over-priced business which was probably doomed to failure anyway.

We must always remember that there would be no cheap air travel without a first class section ;)

The question is should they get the money anyway, given that they are extremely highly paid already? Personally, I have nothing against people having a lot of money e.g. entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, who has literally transformed the lives of many millions around the world with his version of DOS and the launch of Windows, or those who are lucky enough to have won a lottery. I envy nobody their wealth, but its the sheer stupidity of a situation whereby someone can simply award himself colossal sums of money on top of the huge salary he is earning.

[Alexander III]

With rare exception, these guys at the power top of corporations are into power and profile.

Art - From some first hand and second hand experience, they buy whatever is trendy. Its a bit like Kabbalah in Hollywood.

Home - It is not so much the home, but what they enjoy is the location and size. They can brag about the value of their house for a full dinner-been there:Yawn:

Bonus dynamics - The board of directors decide on the bonuses and that's quite a clubby networked outfit. You will see the same Ivy Leauge/OxCam people and in Cayman the highest currency people are the OxCam people-they are demonstrably clubby and exclusive. They let you know who they are real damn quick.

The shareholders approve directors annually, but they somehow let the culture continue, under the threat of the standard "in order to attract talent, you have to pay them or they will leave" order.


But what you describe are the nouveau rich - all old families which did not make their money in one swift move but have hsitory and tradition to them - they would never behave in such a way, it would be the height of vulgarity.

[JuniperWoolf]

The people I strive to hang out with don't seem to consider money as their badge of prestige: for them, it's all about what you've worked on, who you know, what you've done, ect. The cool grad students that I follow around don't seem to have very much money at all, they scoff at "materialists" who take business and finance courses instead of "following their passion." I bet it's the same with people in the arts, everyone hates the business and finance kids.

[Emil Miller]

The shareholders approve directors annually, but they somehow let the culture continue, under the threat of the standard "in order to attract talent, you have to pay them or they will leave" order.

The problem here is that the major shareholders are other financial institutions that are likely to be headed by people who are also on the bonus gravy train.

[tonywalt]

But what you describe are the nouveau rich - all old families which did not make their money in one swift move but have hsitory and tradition to them - they would never behave in such a way, it would be the height of vulgarity.

It is to a certain degree, but then again you are European. Donald Trump is by no means nouveau rich (although he would say that) and his father was extremely wealthy, and his father before him.

Actually, he's a primary example of the kind of d#$khead that I generally meet in those circles. Always relatively loud, Eric Cartman(South Beach) type personality, Smart(but not the most intelligent in room), agressive, dominant in a demonstrative way, natural at common denominator social dynamics, dispassionate to a scary degree, cheap brut 44 charisma.

Alot of these guys went to Congress and pleaded for more money and got it, this includes Goldman Sachs who were already insured with Credit Default Swaps to cover their losses. Goldman made money off the hand out and then paid it back in around a year. Sweet loan, if you can get it. Congress was comprised of people who didn't know what they were doing(majority) and the financier background people at the US Treasury(or is it Goldman Sachs:rolleyes:) who damn well knew it was a favour. Anyway they will all be scratching each others backs for many years.

[Buh4Bee]

Tarp is what Tony is referring to. The bail out by the taxpayers. This was done to keep the system stable. In hindsight, it worked. Years later, the culture has not changed. These f$ckers, that sit in the CEO seats and make the bonuses aren't paying the taxes they should. This is my complaint. Why is this 1% not taxed, and why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Be rich, sure, the tax laws should be more equitable.

[Emil Miller]

Tarp is what Tony is referring to. The bail out by the taxpayers. This was done to keep the system stable. In hindsight, it worked. Years later, the culture has not changed. These f$ckers, that sit in the CEO seats and make the bonuses aren't paying the taxes they should. This is my complaint. Why is this 1% not taxed, and why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Be rich, sure, the tax laws should be more equitable.

Bailing out the banks was the only realistic option on the table because the alternative would have been mob rule on the streets, but the general public have been acquiescent in the bonus culture, insofar as they took no notice when they were offered virtually unlimited credit to buy houses, cars, holidays etc. etc. Anybody who was prepared to turn away from the sports pages of their newspapers to the financial news could have seen that bankers and senior personnel of major corporations were pocketing vast sums of money via golden hello's and equally golden goodbye's as they moved from one bank/corporation to another. That in itself was a scandal but the granting of enormous bonuses went on as though nobody had noticed until the system started to collapse and only then did the finger pointing start.

[Buh4Bee]

You're correct Emil in the fact that the public enjoyed the benefits of this culture as well. Why not get a mortgage you can't afford, but at least you have a nice house... Charge your way to hell and back. Who cares? And it was in the newspapers and some people did know about it. But what could the average person do about it? Join a credit union, instead of a bank? Deny themselves credit cards? Some do that, but it doesn't stop the bonuses.