Bankers
29 January 2011, 08:40 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankers
I asked this in another thread but could not get a response.
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
29 January 2011, 09:19 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
no ever gets rich using (and risking) their own money
it is always both easier, and safer, to do it with someone elses ---- that's why bankers get paid so much
it is always both easier, and safer, to do it with someone elses ---- that's why bankers get paid so much
29 January 2011, 09:20 PM
#5
The individuals managing hedge funds etc etc are likely to be very well educated in economics etc and it's not a job for just anyone.
Still it does not warrant the bonus structure that's still in place despite the fact the same individuals made massive errors (along with silly lending) that resulted in the near collapse of the whole damn system.
Still it does not warrant the bonus structure that's still in place despite the fact the same individuals made massive errors (along with silly lending) that resulted in the near collapse of the whole damn system.
29 January 2011, 10:06 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The individuals managing hedge funds etc etc are likely to be very well educated in economics etc and it's not a job for just anyone.
Still it does not warrant the bonus structure that's still in place despite the fact the same individuals made massive errors (along with silly lending) that resulted in the near collapse of the whole damn system.
Still it does not warrant the bonus structure that's still in place despite the fact the same individuals made massive errors (along with silly lending) that resulted in the near collapse of the whole damn system.
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
29 January 2011, 10:10 PM
#7
So they get reward so because they are well educated?
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
The point I was making is that another poster asked can't any Tom, Dick or Harry (so to speak) do a bankers job. Hence my explanation. Actually a good argument against functionalist meritocracy is exactly as you say, they don't save lives. A doctor earning £150k a year saves and preserves lots of life every 12 months. What does the average footballer do to earn ten times that? If we lived in a true meritocracy doctors would earn much more than footballers!
You are correct about the markets, they are a construction, pure and simple.
Last edited by Pink_Floyd; 29 January 2011 at 10:14 PM.
Trending Topics
29 January 2011, 10:11 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think people forget and tarnish the normal workers of the bank with the same brush these people are the ones who do all the normal day to day jobs like processing, things in the branches and so on and they do not get huge bonuses.
29 January 2011, 10:13 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
I asked this in another thread but could not get a response.
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
..an damn i bet 'youve' got plenty stashed away
29 January 2011, 10:20 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
So they get reward so because they are well educated?
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
isn't the flaw in modern day capitalism, as practised by the UK/US, that it just follows the line of least resistance -- and the natural extension of that in an economy is banking, it creates nothing, but is very well paid
29 January 2011, 10:25 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
The basic concept of a bank is somewhere that people can keep their money. If they wish, they can earn interest on that by allowing the bank to lend it as they see fit, earning themselves a slice of the profit in the process in the form of interest. Clearly the modern banking system is nothing like that, since all money comes from banks in the first place - as Gordon Brown said: "credit is the lifeblood of the economy". But I think they should be awarded as they see fit. If we (or more importantly, government) are stupid enough to set up a situation in which they are rewarded for failure, then that isn't their problem, in my opinion. If I was a banker I'd me milking it for everything it was worth. Any ideas of moral obligations are laughable, and it's interesting to note that such assertions usually come from the far left - quite a great deal of irony when speaking of morals there.
29 January 2011, 10:28 PM
#12
The basic concept of a bank is somewhere that people can keep their money. If they wish, they can earn interest on that by allowing the bank to lend it as they see fit, earning themselves a slice of the profit in the process in the form of interest. Clearly the modern banking system is nothing like that, since all money comes from banks in the first place - as Gordon Brown said: "credit is the lifeblood of the economy". But I think they should be awarded as they see fit. If we (or more importantly, government) are stupid enough to set up a situation in which they are rewarded for failure, then that isn't their problem, in my opinion. If I was a banker I'd me milking it for everything it was worth. Any ideas of moral obligations are laughable, and it's interesting to note that such assertions usually come from the far left - quite a great deal of irony when speaking of morals there.
29 January 2011, 11:16 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
I asked this in another thread but could not get a response.
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
We deem it good and necessary that Bankers should be entitled to huge pay and bonuses - and thus able to draw goods and services out of the real economy.....like any economic elite...others work for them.
But what is so 'difficult' about banking that it requires such apparent skill and brains?
It's just lending money after all?
: sleep:
29 January 2011, 11:37 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree with anything you say
The point I was making is that another poster asked can't any Tom, Dick or Harry (so to speak) do a bankers job. Hence my explanation. Actually a good argument against functionalist meritocracy is exactly as you say, they don't save lives. A doctor earning £150k a year saves and preserves lots of life every 12 months. What does the average footballer do to earn ten times that? If we lived in a true meritocracy doctors would earn much more than footballers!
You are correct about the markets, they are a construction, pure and simple.
The point I was making is that another poster asked can't any Tom, Dick or Harry (so to speak) do a bankers job. Hence my explanation. Actually a good argument against functionalist meritocracy is exactly as you say, they don't save lives. A doctor earning £150k a year saves and preserves lots of life every 12 months. What does the average footballer do to earn ten times that? If we lived in a true meritocracy doctors would earn much more than footballers!
You are correct about the markets, they are a construction, pure and simple.
29 January 2011, 11:40 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bankers in the traditional sense "oil the wheels", the means to an end, but they have become the end
isn't the flaw in modern day capitalism, as practised by the UK/US, that it just follows the line of least resistance -- and the natural extension of that in an economy is banking, it creates nothing, but is very well paid
isn't the flaw in modern day capitalism, as practised by the UK/US, that it just follows the line of least resistance -- and the natural extension of that in an economy is banking, it creates nothing, but is very well paid
30 January 2011, 12:11 AM
#18
Sure but a free market is a kind of meritocracy, but because of the bail-out it is now impossible to argue that Bankers pay is a result of a free market; the whole system may have gone down without the Gov intervention....the 'free market' of bankers pay is only now an artificial habitat surviving because of Gov action. It functions as a free market on the inside but it's fake as a whole.
30 January 2011, 12:15 AM
#19
30 January 2011, 12:34 AM
#20
So they get reward so because they are well educated?
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
My point is why does society see fit to require very clever people to manage hedge funds etc when they could be curing cancer or doing something else?
Hedge funds are not even creating wealth. The stock market does not create wealth it creates NOTHING. It used to be a vehicle for companies to raise funds basically...a very basic concept, now it's seen as a vehicle to pay for all our retirements? How does that work exactly? You can't eat stock or use them to heat your home.
Yes these clever people could be curing cancer, but people are still allow to work in their chosen profession. Also many in the financial sector donate/raise money for many sponsorships and charities including cancer charities.
30 January 2011, 12:36 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Of course. They're running a business, not a charity. This is a free country; they aren't under any obligation to provide anything other than the service you are in agreement to pay for. Every party has personal responsibility. It's interesting reading investment books written 50 or so years ago... you get a clear picture of a world where the most prominent financial institutions are the most prudent and boring - presumably because they are the ones people trust the most with their savings. Nowadays it's as if everyone thinks it's their divine right to services free of risk... with all the pesky work of thinking done for them. That might sound trivial, but the wider implications for personal freedom and the functioning of the market system are quite serious..
30 January 2011, 12:45 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
30 January 2011, 12:59 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They get rewarded because they make shed loads of money for their employers, plain and simple. They perhaps don't create the wealth but what they do is facilitate a means of exchanging/re-distribution of wealth allowing you to buy fine foods and to heat your mansion. Yes these clever people could be curing cancer, but people are still allow to work in their chosen profession. Also many in the financial sector donate/raise money for many sponsorships and charities including cancer charities.
Yes these clever people could be curing cancer, but people are still allow to work in their chosen profession. Also many in the financial sector donate/raise money for many sponsorships and charities including cancer charities.How hard can it be?
People made huge money out of asset and derivative bubbles...how is that rationalised? It created no net wealth only paper.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 30 January 2011 at 01:01 AM.
30 January 2011, 01:03 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was nothing to do with perception. We witnessed a conjoining of business and state interests in the bail-out. That is a corporate state not a capitalist one.
30 January 2011, 01:17 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Without doubt. I just meant that it's the perception of the way the system seems to operate that leaves people concerned about 'capitalism' - particularly Liberals in the American sense.
30 January 2011, 01:22 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course. They're running a business, not a charity. This is a free country; they aren't under any obligation to provide anything other than the service you are in agreement to pay for. Every party has personal responsibility. It's interesting reading investment books written 50 or so years ago... you get a clear picture of a world where the most prominent financial institutions are the most prudent and boring - presumably because they are the ones people trust the most with their savings. Nowadays it's as if everyone thinks it's their divine right to services free of risk... with all the pesky work of thinking done for them. That might sound trivial, but the wider implications for personal freedom and the functioning of the market system are quite serious..
30 January 2011, 01:25 AM
#28
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no interest in bankers nor do I have any respect for them. They are greedy nothings.
The amount of people I have seen and heard about, who have got to such a state, with their businesses because the banks will not help is beyond belief. They still take their bonuses though and sleep at night.
They do not impress me, one bit.
Oh and I find it very strange that the very people who bailed them out (the taxpayer) they won't help.
The bankers need to realise, they are not the be all and end all
The amount of people I have seen and heard about, who have got to such a state, with their businesses because the banks will not help is beyond belief. They still take their bonuses though and sleep at night.
They do not impress me, one bit.
Oh and I find it very strange that the very people who bailed them out (the taxpayer) they won't help.
The bankers need to realise, they are not the be all and end all
30 January 2011, 01:26 AM
#29
The comparison here between football players and bankers is quite interesting one, and the first question it brings to my mind is what do each of them give up to get where they are? In the case of a football player, the answer's pretty simple: it's a career that only last 10 to 20 years on average, with the continuous risk of it being cut shorter still by injury, it throws out of the window more or less any hope of a serious academic/intellectual career and all that goes with it, it exposes them to sometimes massively intrusive levels of public/press scrutiny, and probably lots more besides that I haven't thought of. So what about bankers then, can anyone answer that?
30 January 2011, 01:29 AM
#30
Of course. They're running a business, not a charity. This is a free country; they aren't under any obligation to provide anything other than the service you are in agreement to pay for. Every party has personal responsibility. It's interesting reading investment books written 50 or so years ago... you get a clear picture of a world where the most prominent financial institutions are the most prudent and boring - presumably because they are the ones people trust the most with their savings. Nowadays it's as if everyone thinks it's their divine right to services free of risk... with all the pesky work of thinking done for them. That might sound trivial, but the wider implications for personal freedom and the functioning of the market system are quite serious..
A society in which workers are exploited.
Historical materialism is what Marx and Lenin identified as a linear system under which society will progress through phases. Broadly speaking we've have had four phases identified, primitive accumulation, ancient accumulation, feudalism, capitalism and a fifth that is yet, in theory, to be reached, communism.
The 'left' as you suggest are often attributed to having Marxist leanings. However what is interesting about Marx is that he wasn't actually against capitalism, in fact he saw it as a good change and progression away from primitive accumulation where people are seen as commodity and in effect subjected to reification.
To say that objections about the banking system from the left are wrong, is as wrong as saying that the banking system has a right to laissez faire economic policy and the right to 'bail out' money as needed. Just because an individual accesses the services of a banking institution does not justify their existence as an individual entity seen as doing 'society' a favour. Their obligations are simple and defined as you correctly identify, however due to their greed and short-sight they stood in the very apparent shadow of ruin, in which case nobody whether this be a pensioner or millionaire could have further accessed services which they had payed for, nor could have they survived had it not been for government bail out.
Of course this bail out protected those at the top of the tree more than those at the bottom, so who benefited more?