We’re here!
We’re queer!
We don’t want any more paycuts!

Why oh why must the peasantry engage in this terrible class warfare when their lords and masters simply want to horde and embezzle and cheat for an honest day’s pay?

“So let’s see, paying people 400 times the average worker is going to make the company more successful? Is the brain power of the CEO so irreplaceable, so precious and uniquely powerful that it deserves that level of compensation—EVEN WHEN YOU RUN YOUR COMPANY INTO THE SH*TTER?!”

Yes, and Yes — in the twisted corporate world.  I’m sure they believe they should be getting 4,000 times what the average worker is getting.  They’re just so important!!!...

“He added that he knew what inequality felt like after spending his childhood in a mining town in Wales. Both his grandfathers were miners who had to retire from work through injury.”

...so like the freshman who gets brutalized by upperclassmen, and then goes on to become an upperclassman who brutalizes freshmen, he swore that he would spread as much inequality as possible in honor of his grandfathers.  Or something.

Fucking nuts, combined with a God Complex…

These kind of craptacular statements appear to stem from either a lack of media training or, well, um, synapse misfiring and complete tunnelvision about what other message might be conveyed with that statement.

But… but… what’s good for the corporations is good for all of us!  It must be true!  This memo from corporate HQ says so!

I feel pretty sure they actually believe their own PR.  They all sit on each other’s boards, cycle back and forth between industry and political appointments, attend the same country clubs, and just generally spend time telling each other how awesome they are and how very just it is that they are the masters of the universe.

Groupthink, through and through.

How do we convince them “Go Galt” and get the fuck out of here?

Here’s the thing.  I agree that it’s OK to pay a higher amount to attract talented and qualified people.  But, the people running banks are responsible for massive failures.  Why “invest” in people who are clearly incompetent?  It reminds of Zoidberg when he invested in a sandwich instead of stocks.  Predictably, the sandwich deteriorated in value over time, just like the current bank CEOs have already done.

Unfortunately, far too many average people buy into this bullshit. I have a close acquaintance, now retired, who was fond of claiming that corporate execs deserve their huge salaries and bonuses because “only a tiny fraction of people have the ability to do what they do.” Of course, he had no answer when I asked him how much business acumen it takes to drive a multi-billion dollar company to the brink of bankruptcy. This guy is no fool, but he still completely bought into the notion that these execs are somehow irreplaceable men of genius who have some arcane knowledge that the average person can’t hope to acquire.

Unfortunately, the media only reinforces that delusion by focusing its coverage of “economic news” on the stock market, corporate profits, and celebrity CEOs and financial gurus, topics of no more than passing importance - if that - to the economic well-being of the vast majority of Americans. As long as that continues, greedy bastards like Lord Griffiths will feel free to tell the public to its face to blow him - and swallow.

I like how they take a reaonsable idea (some economic disparity allows for development that benefits eventhose at the bottom of the pile) and take it to a totally ridiculous extreme. By all means, let’s reward the behavior that got us into this mess! That can’t possibly create more problems down the road.

The problem isn’t rewarding employees for a well done job ... it is rewarding employees REGARDLESS of whether they actually produce!  He’s not talking about compensation + bonus, but about entitlement! 

In the real world, doing such a poor job that your company goes bankrupt is not a bonus situation!

Let me assure his Lordship that I would be quite capable of running a large multinational bank into bankruptcy, and that I would be willing to do so for far less compensation than the incumbants.  Resume available on request.

Oh, and read the comments ... what few of them survived the abuse test.  People are FURIOUS at this bastard.

I think it would be totally cool if, on Nov 5, a bunch of Guy Fawkes masked anons went after this bastard with a couple of tonnes of cake.

Let’s not forget that the taxpayers socialized losses that enabled these “profits”.  And that if the CEOs were paid merely 40 times what the workers made, and the remaining wealth were spent on the business and employees, we wouldn’t be in this shit hole in the first place.

Do they really think Louix XVIII and Marie Antoinette didn’t think they were good people?  They thought they cared about the masses, and they thought they deserved their castles.

What happens when the peasantry is so far divided from royalty?  The many chop off the heads of the few. 

A social safety net works both ways: it keeps the poor from absolute misery and it keeps the poor happy enough that they don’t revolt.

Tax the fuck out of them.  Bring back the 90% tax on everything over, say $5 million in any type of compensation.  100% corporate tax on every bit of compensation to executives that’s over 40 times the lowest employee’s salary.  They’ll just have work that much harder, right?  They’re so spiffy wondrous that they can just put their noses to the grindstone and make evenmore weatlh, right?

Oh, and let’s not forget to bust up corps that are “too big to fail”.  If they’re too big, bust’em up.  It’ll be harder to fuck up the salary structure that way anyway.

So, I’m not all up on my economic book learnin’, but aren’t these exceptionally handsome bonuses being paid to guys that failed at their jobs? I’ve got a short memory, being merely a plebe, but I seem to recall the economy collapsing at some point in the past year.

Someone should start bringing guillotines to these stockholder meetings.

I’m kind of surprised that this comment hasn’t been deleted:

Yes, and Bankers need to learn to tolerate being strung up from lampposts by the heels, and machinegunned to ribbons. Because it’s gonna happen. Yes it is.

Not that I disapprove, mind you. I don’t go in for the self-righteous “We must be better than they are” and “violence is always baaaaaad” bullshit. Just a tad surprised that the Grauniad didn’t deem it “inappropriate.”

Catgirl & Ms Kate are dead-on.  We, in Western society, don’t object to the idea of bonuses and rewards.  We only object to it when incompetence is what is being rewarded.

It is funny, isn’t it, how outsourcing never seems to include the upper echelon of management? I swear, if I was on a board of directors, I’d be looking to outsource my CEO position to India. I’m sure for only two, three million dollars, I could get an Indian businessperson who could wreck my company just as well as the American or Brit making 35 million. Heck, who am I kidding—the Indian would unquestionably do a better job.

I think the logic is far more sound in this case than it is with a call center.

Oh, and rereading, when I say the Indian would “do a better job,” I mean they would do a better job running my company, not wrecking it. To truly wreck a company, you need an American glibertarian. Everyone knows that.

(Caren, you’ve got a couple too many I’s there for Louis XVI.)

I’m still astounded at how many critics saw Marie Antoinette and walked away thinking it was politics-free.  Hello, did we see the same movie?  Did the screaming mob outside Versailles give you a little hint that maybe something was wrong?  Maybe the scene where Louis is beggaring his country to support a war on another continent?  Anything?

The Rimmless-Glasses, Pinstripe-Suit, White-Collar-Crimminals-with-Fangs crowd are being remarkably candid lately,  aren’t they?

“glibertarian”

Fucking Brilliant.  My favorite new word.

Speaking to an audience at St Paul’s Cathedral in London about morality in the marketplace last night, Griffiths said the British public should “tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all.”

“I’ve never heard such nonsense.  Off With Their Heads!”
- the Queen of Hearts from Alice In Wonderland.

We should also remember that these massive payouts have been, for decades, not just “bonuses” but goddamn hush-money.  The more corrupt, the more legally and morally questionable a company’s goings-on and the more secrecy required for group ass-covering and continued profit-making, the more imperative it is that Buddy 1 keeps Buddy 2 loyal and discreet, even if Buddy 2 moves to another corporation.  Am I that cynical?  O my yes.

Hush-money, people.  It’s a culture.

But, but… you could just never attract qualified people for just 11 times, or even 22 times what the average worker makes!  Those Japanese, German, French, Italian, Canadian and British businesses prove that every day.  You can only succeed in business if you pay 400x or more the average worker salary to your CEO.  How else can you explain the remarkable success of GM, Chrysler, BoA, AIG, Enron, and companies like them?

I thought even Allan Greenspan had stopped quoting that Ayn Rand “the market will solve every problem” crap now that almost every phone has a video camera inside.

And Ranylt, there was a section on the New York Times freakonomics blog where they talked with former drug dealers about the tv show “The Wire.” They then asked these same gentlemen what they thought of bailouts and they all basically agreed with Lord Griffiths. Why? Because the guys they needed to do the worst things (like kill rival gang members) were worth more to them than all of their other street hustlers combined. Bank execs. and drug dealers have a lot in common.

“I’m kind of surprised that this comment hasn’t been deleted:

“Yes, and Bankers need to learn to tolerate being strung up from lampposts by the heels, and machinegunned to ribbons. Because it’s gonna happen. Yes it is.”’

Considering how many comments were deleted from that thread, one wonders just how vicious they were if this one was left intact!

And, yes, Lord Fatso heah is a fine example of the sort of grasping, short-sighted Greedmonger who’s determined to keep pushing things until actual violence breaks out. We’ve either got another FDR on the way, or another Robespierre. Which one would this greedy fool prefer, do you suppose?

With public anger mounting at the forecast of bumper bonuses for bankers only a year after the industry was rescued by the taxpayer, he said bankers’ bonuses should be seen as part of a longer-term investment in Britain’s economy.

What rubbish. First of all, the word “bonus” is a misnomer—they’re actually incentive payments with contractually specified floors. That’s not just a semantic distinction, because it allows them to receive their money whether or not they perform. To call this sort of payment a “bonus” indicates how divorced from the reality of goals and benchmarks and performance these entitled and myopic MBAs are.

Second, most of this “bonus” money goes into luxury purchases that have a negligable impact on the economy, and into investing. But again, the way they view investing is not something you’d say helps the economy in the long-term:

“I believe that we should be thinking about the medium-term common good, not the short-term common good ... We should not, therefore, be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people,” he said.

Yes, heaven forfend that they think about the long-term good—that would make them value investors (like Warren Buffett) or responsible corporate shareholders, rather than asset strippers and speculators who are more akin to degenerate poker addicts (or day traders). You’re lucky if one of these guys can see past the next fiscal quarter.

These kind of craptacular statements appear to stem from either a lack of media training or, well, um, synapse misfiring and complete tunnelvision about what other message might be conveyed with that statement

Mainstream business journalism is about as rigorous as entertainment journalism—lots of celebrity-worship, obsessions with trends and fashions, compromised ethics and self-dealing, and prognostications on who’s correct in an industry where, to paraphrase William Goldman regarding the entertainment industry, no one really knows anything.

They really are drawing the line and daring us to cross it. What do you think they’ll do when a frustrated ex-employees kills one of their own?  Considering how many in this comment section are suggesting violence might happen, and maybe even warranted…well, that doesn’t sound good for these execs, now does it? If things keep going how they do, it really is only a matter of time.

(Sort of O/T, but DC Fem’s comment about Ayn Rand reminded me) 

Anyone see the new Mark Sanford article in Newsweek praising Ayn Rand?  My “favorite” line:

As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market’s best minds, it staggers toward collapse.

He also gets quite a few digs in at Democrats.  I can’t get over how, after eight years of praising the Bush administration, they’ve now all forgotten it existed… it’s all Obama’s fault for not giving the “free market’s best minds” free rein.

Oh, and for all he talks about the wondrous free market solving everything, it’s ironic to note that Goldman Sachs in particular has benefited from a staggering amount of American corporate welfare in the past year. It’s no co-incidence that they’re essentially “last man standing” in bigtime i-banking—they just knew how to work the government lobbying and regulatory-capture game better than anyone.

That kind of confidence-artist cynicism combined with the moral hazard engendered by these “bonus” structures is a toxic combination in the economy, whether you’re talking about Communist apparatchiks or hereditary aristrocrats or greedhead capitalist oligarchs like this guy. In the end, they contribute no value or negative value in the long term.

They really are drawing the line and daring us to cross it. What do you think they’ll do when a frustrated ex-employees kills one of their own?

Given the arrogance and entitlement that comes along with their MBAs, I don’t think they care. They’re so short-sighted that they pass by Madame Defarge on the street quarter after quarter, thinking “silly, crazy harmless old woman”—until one day she’s marching at the head of a violent mob calling for their heads and turning things upside down for everyone. Then it’s like the reaction to Enron or Lehmann or AIG or a host of other failures on their parts: “who would have ever guessed? (now give me my guaranteed ‘bonus’ for being a good guesser).”

OK, somebody has to do it…
-Milord Griffiths, les paysans n’ont plus de pain!
-S’ils n’ont plus de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche.

As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market’s best minds, it staggers toward collapse.

“As Perrault shows in Cinderella, when a woman is deprived of her prince, she staggers toward collapse.”

Republican magical thinking at its best: basing one’s ideology on fairy tales with no basis in reality. I look forward to Sandford’s 50-page radio address, which will no doubt capture the nation’s focus.

it’s all Obama’s fault for not giving the “free market’s best minds” free rein.

Which is of course diametrically opposed to a reality where—Dem or GOP administration—the Federal cabinet portfolios dealing with finance are stacked with former Goldman Sachs employees. If these mooks are gonna call Obama a “socialist,” they could at least prepend the adjective “Rotarian” for the sake of approaching accuracy.

Gracchus, it’s not just lobbying.  Hank Paulson, who as Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury managed the bank bailout, had been Goldman Sachs CEO before getting tapped for Treasury.

John D: And, yes, Lord Fatso heah is a fine example of the sort of grasping, short-sighted Greedmonger who’s determined to keep pushing things until actual violence breaks out.

Please try “fatcat” instead of “fatso” next time.  One evokes the negative cultural image of undeserving rich people, the other is fat shaming.

As Rand shows in her book?  Um, dude, that thing is fiction, not history.

Anybody want to take bets on how long it is before these guys are “carted around Trafalgar Square in tumbrils”?

Gracchus, it’s not just lobbying.  Hank Paulson, who as Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury managed the bank bailout, had been Goldman Sachs CEO before getting tapped for Treasury.

That would be the “regulatory capture” portion of the con. Check out this recent Greenwald column which lays things out. The article was prompted by the following news:

A Goldman Sachs executive has been named the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division.

Oh, and the executive named to this critical position is 29 years old. They’re not even pretending they care about this stuff anymore.

Please try “fatcat” instead of “fatso” next time.  One evokes the negative cultural image of undeserving rich people, the other is fat shaming.

Thank you, Ms Kate. Beat me to it.

With public anger mounting at the forecast of bumper bonuses for bankers only a year after the industry was rescued by the taxpayer, he said bankers’ bonuses should be seen as part of a longer-term investment in Britain’s economy.

This is, of course, crap.  There is the real economy.  There is the good and useful financial economy that serves to enable the real economy.  And then there is the casino financial economy extending from that that rewards people who play games with money.  And every now and again, when they fuck up with their games, everyone suffers.

Left_Wing_Fox, I don’t disagree with you entirely, but there are also various counterexamples from the labor movement in the early half of the 20th century (though in fairness those seemed to be largely self-defense, e.g., of miners against Pinkertons and such).

I’m all for attempting to resolve issues without violence if possible. However, sometimes there’s no other recourse.

“And every now and again, when they fuck up with their games, everyone suffers.”

Even when they’re playing their games in relative obscurity they’re still draining off resources and talent that could be used better elsewhere.  It’s really financial masturbation and we all pay the price for it…

Anyone see the new Mark Sanford article in Newsweek praising Ayn Rand?

Is this the same Sanford who was “Hiking on the Appalachian Trail, but was really vacationing in a South American country while leaving his post unattended for 5 days without notifying anyone”? Also, kinda funny considering how there’s investigations going into how he used taxpayer money to fund some of those trips to see his “soulmate” while insisting state employees use both sides of a post-it note as a money-saving measure…..

Damn….need to finalize the details of my Halloween outfit…:p

Please try “fatcat” instead of “fatso” next time.  One evokes the negative cultural image of undeserving rich people, the other is fat shaming.

How about, “Evil motherfuckers”?

How about, “Evil motherfuckers”?

I’ve always liked “GreedPigs”

Exholt, indeed it is the governor of South Carolina.

Oh, and I have to pass along the last three sentences:

Over the past year, we’ve seen Washington try to solve all our problems—chiefly by borrowing billions from future generations—to little effect. In that sense, this is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.

There are truly no words to express how disgusted I am that this person could write such bullshit and get it in a national publication.

The “blaspheme” button seems more appropriate than ever right now.

I don’t see why the schemes imposed on these companies aren’t their policy to begin with.  Screw giving these dudes cash and letting them go after they screw up your company.  Pay them with stock so they are invested in the company.

Pay them with stock so they are invested in the company.

With their investment mindset, they’d immediately set up an internal automated system that would execute trades every few miliseconds based on an algorithm that takes as inputs the aggregated views of each floor’s office biggest gossiper and the herd transactional behaviour of their colleagues. At the end of each day, they’d calculate their gains or losses, and probably walk out with some office supplies and maybe a computer or two destined for the pawn shop. Then they’d head over to a bar on Park Ave South and brag about their wonderfulness.

Evil Mother Rapers and Father Rapers works even better.

I may not know much, but I can smell religious beliefs a mile a way, and Lord Asshat here is perfectly expressing faith in free market fundamentalism. Notice his use of the verb should. We ‘should’ tolerate inequality and the bonuses ‘should’ be seen as investments in the long-tern health of Britain. And when some clown with a vested interest of getting his bread buttered extra thick tells us we ‘should’ go along with this scheme, our first response ‘should’ be, “Oh really? Why? What moral/theological imperative drives your concept of how the world ‘should’ work?”

Because there is nothing behind Lord Asshat’s assertion that squares with any basic concept of justice.

Perhaps, we ‘should’ congregate around Goldman Sachs’ headquarters with pitchforks and torches.

I heard FNC’s Neil Cavuto bloviating about this issue the other day, and his basic premise was that if the plan to cut the compnesation packages of TARP recipients went through, it would drive all of these financial executives out of New York to seek work in Hamburg, Beijing, Tokyo, and other major financial cities outside the US.

Seriously.

Ummm… Neil, hate it to break it to ya, but CEOs in Hamburg, Beijing, and Tokyo don’t make 400 times as much as their average employees.  The CEO of Toyota Motor Company makes something like 20 times that of his company’s average employee, and this is generally true for most CEOs in all sectors in places outside of the United States.  We’re the only country on earth that skews the top-level compensation of executives as high as we do.

If only the rage produced by these big “bonuses” would translate into legislative regulation to control the real problems. 

It’s not clear that the execs being paid were the ones who f’d up earlier.  If bonuses are performance-based, they’re OK with me.  It’s hard to say since reporting on this is so piss-poor.  The WaPo did say this morning that 11 of the 25 execs at Bank of America and 13 of the 25 execs at AIG left for companies not subject to the exec pay control before the gov’t pay cut backs were announced.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204422.html

The myth of the tycoon superman dies hard, that is, if it dies at all. I cannot forget reading an article in a high quality news magazine about Kerry Packer—an Australian tycoon, who had recently died.

The journalist suggested that his ideas had much more impact than the ideas of all PhD scholars.  How so? Because he could ask you a two word rhetorical question, and it would fill you with all sorts of reverence, fear, hope, desire, you name it!  Pick a PhD scholar who could manage to do that in 80 000 words! 

In other words, the journalist was writhing in superstition about genius, and had no access to an objective perspective.

<blcokquote>Ummm… Neil, hate it to break it to ya, but CEOs in Hamburg, Beijing, and Tokyo don’t make 400 times as much as their average employees.  The CEO of Toyota Motor Company makes something like 20 times that of his company’s average employee, and this is generally true for most CEOs in all sectors in places outside of the United States.  We’re the only country on earth that skews the top-level compensation of executives as high as we do. </blockquote>

Well, not just the US.  Just as a for-instance, the world’s largest mining company is the Australian-based BHP-Billiton.  When Marius Kloppers took over as CEO in 2007, his total compensation was $US 3,482,948.  In 2009, $US 10,399,589.  On the other hand, he is also the president of the non-ferrous metals division of BHP-B, which is a huge corporation in its own right.

Tom Albanese, CEO of Rio Tinto Group, made $US 12,596,000 in 2007.

Mind you, both of those groups actually made money, so compensation isn’t necessarily unwarranted.

What’s amusing is if you look at the Fortune 500 list of companies by revenue, you can see some fascinating CEO compensation values.

For instance: ExxonMobil, highest revenue company on the planet, Rex Tillerson is listed at $US 4.14 million a year in 2007.

ING Group, 10th largest by revenue, largest financial company in the world in 2007…$1.87 million for Jan Hommen. 

Berkshire Hathaway at #30 in 2007, with Buffet a modest $308,000 a year, compared to AIG that same year (obviously before the meltdown) at #36, Maurice Greenberg made $US 7.59 million.

IBM, at #46 in 2007, paid Sam Palisamo $US 24.5 million.

Goldman-Sachs, #66: Lloyd Blankfein, $US 53.4 million in 2006.

Home Depot, #80: $US 22 million to Frank Blake.

Want a funny comparison?  In 2007 Jim McNerney at Boeing made $1.08 million for the 98th largest company by revenue.  At the same time, Merril Lynch paid Stanley McNeal, for his great job at getting the company to #104, $US 25.56 million.

I’m freaked out by the notion that anyone who supposedly is one of the smartest guys in the room could be so fscking stupid in public. Yo, Grif. We’ve been tolerating the inequality for 20-plus years. It just got us a huge misallocation of resources, a hit to longterm GDP that won’t be healed for at least 10 years, and dislocations not seen since the second world war. We ran the experiment, it produced a negative result.

On the other hand, I’m glad that bloodsucking greedheads like Griffiths keep talking, because we need them to remind us how vicious and evil investment bankers are. Otherwise we might slowly drift back to thinking they’re decent human beings.

I am profoundly embarrassed that this stupid, greedy, aristo-wannabe is Welsh.  May the spectres of a thousand South Wales union shop stewards hound him every night until he comes to his senses (or dies, whichever comes first).

I don’t think he’s even remotely stupid; the more he can say and force us to eat with a smile, the bigger next year’s reward for failure will be.