Re:Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)
by arthurcolle on Monday February 09, 2015 @08:24PM
(#9024867)
EDIT: My apologies, I didn't realize the comment thread I had posted to was started as a comment about drug laws. I was merely commenting about my general philosophical belief that democracy is not optimal because an uninformed population should not be making decisions it is uninformed about.
I don't understand your comment, friend. I said nothing about the 'war on drugs'. Uninformed participants in a political or economic system should not be making decisions that affect others in any way. Random citizen John Smith will, out of a sense of righteous indignation, decide against any useful regulation for banks because he is upset that they get recapitalized while his mortgage terms do not get favorably renegotiated, irrespective of the intellectual value of his decision.
Banking and financial activities are fundamental to a healthy and growing economy and everything from home mortgages to credit cards to IPOs are driven by a bank's ability to extend credit and deliver banking services to the citizenry of a country. Bonuses are generally speaking a direct function of a bank's PROFITABILITY, not its ability to cater to every individual's whims and desires to become some rockstar 'rich person' or even the populace's desire to remain middle class. Services are provided, and profits are distributed accordingly.
If affecting political policy is beneficial to shareholders, decisions like Citizens United are logical and the exact type of decisions I'd want my board of directors to make, as an investor, and if that contributes to maximal economic growth then it is optimal for human society, with the exception of environmental concerns which need to be taken more seriously then they have been in our immediate past.
Unedited previous comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your comment, friend. I said nothing about the 'war on drugs'. Uninformed participants in a political or economic system should not be making decisions that affect others in any way. Random citizen John Smith will, out of a sense of righteous indignation, decide against any useful regulation for banks because he is upset that they get recapitalized while his mortgage terms do not get favorably renegotiated, irrespective of the intellectual value of his decision.
Banking and financial activities are fundamental to a healthy and growing economy and everything from home mortgages to credit cards to IPOs are driven by a bank's ability to extend credit and deliver banking services to the citizenry of a country. Bonuses are generally speaking a direct function of a bank's PROFITABILITY, not its ability to cater to every individual's whims and desires to become some rockstar 'rich person' or even the populace's desire to remain middle class. Services are provided, and profits are distributed accordingly.
If affecting political policy is beneficial to shareholders, decisions like Citizens United are logical and the exact type of decisions I'd want my board of directors to make, as an investor, and if that contributes to maximal economic growth then it is optimal for human society, with the exception of environmental concerns which need to be taken more seriously then they have been in our immediate past.