Bankers bonuses

[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

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

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) 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.