Wall Streeters make the kind of money they do because they're jerks who take huge risks and don't care what anyone thinks. They play the game to win, not to be nice guys. Isn't it better to follow their lead? This blogger thinks so - <link>

And, God, really how can these weepy repliers be so blind. They're all fish complaining about water. Everything we have and enjoy is driven by these crazy assholes moving money around the world -- invisible money that makes absolutely no sense. As F.Scott said, the rock of our life rests on a butterfly's wing. If we want to cut the balls off bankers and traders we better be ready to go live on a communal farm somewhere and shit in a bucket ... a wooden bucket we hooped ourselves. Jeez.

While the lesson on success 101 is never a bad thing to review, this does nothing to justify the situation being discussed here.

No one begrudges anyone good bonus programs based on success. If a loan officer brings in new accounts and they not brought in via illegal or questionable methods and they actually pay their loans then yes, by all means pay a bonus. But your little link doesnt in any way suggest that wearing the right suit, going to right school, working the right number of hours etc should entitle you to million dollar bonus plans when you dont deliver real results.

If anything, your link points to one of the biggest problems of all--lack of concern for quality work, lack of concern for ethics, and over confidence in appearances and image. While I certainly dont take issue with an effort made to look professional, it is perhaps the least key aspect of REAL success. If your suit is nice but not expensive and you bring in deals which are legit and will result in long term business THAT is what is well deserving of bonus money.....your ability to outspend your coworkers at the tailor isnt exactly a reason the taxpayer should foot your bill.

*** Wall Streeters make the kind of money they do because they're jerks who take huge risks and don't care what anyone thinks. **** They take exactly ZERO risks. They are playing with other peoples' money. And if they make money for them, they get paid. And if they lose money for them, they still get paid. Yeah, real risk-takers those guys.

I think its time investment companies play by the same rules as the rest of us. Perform or else.

I can see charging a fee for service, but certainly not paying a big percentage regardless of performance.

Fine if they are taking huge risks with their own money. But since all the large investment banks went public, it is with other people's money. The bottom line is that these people are predators who are destroying civilization and need to be stopped no matter what it takes.

Well, I think it is quite fair for congress to impose limits on executive pay for firms that have accepted government funds (as long as they are up front about these terms). However, for other firms, what do you care? If it's a public company, you own stock, and it bothers you, then sell it. Plenty of other places to invest. If you don't own stock in these companies, then quit bitching about payment schemes that don't affect you at all. Destroying civilization? Need to be stopped? They're greedy, sure, but no need to be so hyperbolic.

No government protected/bailed out company should be able to piss investors or tax payers money away in non-justifiable bonus money. To hear some of these banks explain the payoffs, these people needed to be paid the bonus money or they might go to another employer....what? So someone underperforms and you are afraid they might work for your competition?

I cant quite figure out anyone who would defend such piss poor management decisions unless of course that is something you do yourself....I believe it is a payoff for good ol boys in the network and regardless of the fact that the board goes along with such bribes it should be illegal....paying for business failure should be illegal--consider its potential as a means of covering up bribes or a no show job for the mafia and other illegal activity for example.....we didnt pay off the mob-we just gave Tony a bonus so he wont shake down our competition.......

So yes, such corruption is something we should discourage....after all isnt that one of the reasons Im supposed to support capitalism--its supposed to reward SUCCESS right?

I don't see why there is any more reason to question the right and responsibility of the government to tell corporations (which, despite flawed court rulings, are not human and are afforded no protection by the Constitution) what to do and what to reveal than there is to question the right and responsibility of the government to tell you that you must drive to the right of the center line on the road and stop at red lights. You do drive to the right of the center line and stop at red lights, don't you?

If I follow you, your logical line of reasoning is that the government implements and enforces sensible rules to make the public roadways safer and more efficient, so they should be able to tell anyone how much they're allowed to be paid. Furthermore, since I follow traffic laws I should be in favor of such a move. I've read your post a couple times, and it really looks like that's your argument. And yet I have trouble believing someone really made such a bizarre, silly, irrelevant argument.

Let me try a different tack. We have had minimum wage laws for years and nobody has successfully opposed them. It is no less reasonable to accept that the government can make maximum wage laws.

The point is that the government can pass any law and it must be obeyed unless and until it is overthrown. If the law can be proven unconstitutional, that would overthrow it, but still it would be valid until that happens.

The point is that the government can pass any law and it must be obeyed unless and until it is overthrown.

Duh. That's hardly in contention. The question is, is it a good law or not?

"The question is, is it a good law or not?"

OK, that's easy: Yes. It is a good law. I guess I was reading you loosely as complaining that they had no right to do that. Obviously, they do. Actually, your brief question above still addresses that: There are two ways a law can be considered good. Either it does some good thing, or it is a law which has been written and passed in an appropriate manner so that it won't be overthrown. Yeah, I know: you don't like that observation either.

I worked in the financial markets for years, both on the trading floor and upstairs. jj64 has got it absolutely right. In fairness, the vast, vast majority of the time this is the proper level of detachment needed on the job to be most effective. Particularly in frenzied market conditions, the MORE I devalued the money in my mind the better the focus, and the better my decisionmaking was.

Unfortunately for financial types (and others), this detachment often carries over into the real world. These guys really do tend to live in a bubble, socializing with only one another, and reinforcing each other's 'Ayn Rand-ian' sense of ultimate entitlement, sometimes explicitly, after drinks. Short phrases like 'hey, that's the market' (especially if the market's been manipulated) or 'It is what it is' (when what it is is a preventible travesty) suffice in the place of taking responsibility for things the individual can change, whether for an entire investment firm, bank, or just himself.

Yes. It is a good law

In your opinion. I disagree. Why are you so bent out of shape about people making obscene amounts of money if it doesn't affect you at all? The only people that should care are stockholders, if it's a public company... and they have ways to address their grievances. They can buy enough stock to make the board listen to them, they can get many shareholders to band together, or they can simply invest elsewhere. I guess the left is now concerned about the fate of the poor people in the investor class. Funny.