dagblog - Comments for "70% of Americans and 76% of Republicans favor banning big Wall Street Bonuses"

Emma, I don't think anyone

Obey — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:29:43 +0000

Emma, I don't think anyone sees it as a cure-all. It is one of a dozen important issues that need to be dealt with if the financial sector is going to get back to doing what it used to do.

But I don't think it can be helped that it is the most visible issue. It is the most tangible manifestation of the problems with the current set-up, and the most jarring form of moral hazard (the culprits making record profits as the recession they caused continues unabated). And fixing the incentive-structure will help.

The entire FIRE sector is

EmmaZahn — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:33:20 +0000

In reply to The bonus-system as it exists

The entire FIRE sector is destabilizing to the economy. Focusing on one tiny aspect gives the illusion of solving a problem that has simply been kicked down the road.

FIRE wants us to believe they are the great provider of all that is good economically but they are just parasites. There may still be some symbiosis but it is now negligible.

The bonus-system as it exists

Obey — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:53:54 +0000

In reply to I do wish so much was not

The bonus-system as it exists is highly destabilizing for the economy. Getting rewarded for short-term performance encourages the dissimulation of the true long-term risk involved in certain financial assets. And encourages the CREATION of financial assets with such a hidden risk. Hence why the capital markets remain dysfunctional.

Beyond that, I find the Swiss solution a decent compromise. Credit Suisse - who got no direct bailout - had their bonus pool invested in their toxic assets, so those first hit by losses would be the bankers themselves before any 'socialized' losses. UBS - who got a bailout - had the managers' bonuses from the bubble years clawed back.

So there are no legal obstacles to such solutions, if the government wishes to implement them.

I do wish so much was not

EmmaZahn — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:37:38 +0000

In reply to 70% of Americans and 76% of Republicans favor banning big Wall Street Bonuses

I do wish so much was not made of the bonuses. They are/were a long-standing tradition in stock brokerage firms. Everyone gets them. They are not necessarily fair because some employees are more equal than others but they are usually based on specific parameters like position, length of service, etc. and are considered by most as part of their total compensation package along with health insurance, etc. They are so normal, customary and specific that an employee could likely sue if they were not paid. Oh, and the really big bonuses are normally part of a written agreement so not paying them would for sure end up in court.

Yup ... nothing the wily

kgb999 — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:21:56 +0000

In reply to So, ummmmmmm, what are you

Yup ... nothing the wily prairie indi loves more than corporatist crap dipped in a nice centrist coating! Yum. Wins 'em over every time. I feel a Democratic votealanche a-commin.

Even if indeed America were a conservative nation (uuuh yeah). There is still the little niggling problem that it's pretty difficult to define what the hell they are doing as conservative any more than it is liberal.

Oy. You Canadian geese, you

LisB — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:54:47 +0000

In reply to I love how you bitch about

Oy. You Canadian geese, you just keep flying over and crashing head-on into our stuff, don't ya?

I love how you bitch about

quinn esq — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:40:49 +0000

In reply to Which only makes Brew's point

I love how you bitch about "the people" all the time... and how obama would be so much better if only "the people" were better... then when "the people" want something progressive, and your guy doesn't even make an effort, but just sides with the powers that be... clearly, it's the fault of the people.

Whatever.

If there's nothing Obama can do, tell him to vacate the goddamn job, willya? Let's either find someone who'll take a shot at it, or use the cash for deficit reduction.

Which only makes Brew's point

Elusive Trope — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:54:15 +0000

In reply to Well, Clinton won because

Which only makes Brew's point even more. Had Perot not come in and siphoned off conservative independents, we would have had four more years of HW. At least in 92, the people were stumbling toward FDR.

Well, Clinton won because

we are stardust — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:44:53 +0000

In reply to Yes, but...Obama won

Well, Clinton won because of that about Tax-lips Bush, but also...Ross Perot?

Yes, but...Obama won

brewmn — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:36:46 +0000

In reply to Brew. Your defeatism is

Yes, but...Obama won primarily because the failure of Bush and the Republicans couldn't be ignored by even the most mushy-headed of traditionally right-leaning Independents. Clinton won because Bush the Elder broke the one inviolable commitment a Republican can make: he raised taxes after daring the public to read his lips on that very point.

Plus, neither won by running as an FDR Democrat. Both Clinton and Obama won by presenting themselves as "New", i.e., not very liberal, Democrats and by being not-Bush. And, sadly that is how they are governing, not very liberal. And I still maintain that the minute they ran as true anti-establishment candidates, that would have been the end of their candidacies or their effectiveness as president.