Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[JSB]

Certainly these people will most likely succeed in whatever field they choose to enter and they will steamroll the competition, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough of them to displace all the "average joes".

Also, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing to eliminate investment banking, just limit some of its worst excesses. If investment banking were to be a little less lucrative than it is now, it would still be an extremely high-paying field, competitive with top litigation attorneys, highly specialized surgeons, and upper level corporate executives.

I don't see any problem with investment bankers being paid a lot of money for making their firms money; I do see a huge problem with investment bankers making 7 or 8 figure dollar bonuses at the same time their bank is bleeding money and taking government assistance to stay afloat.

The problem here is privatized profit and socialized losses, a terrible moral hazard that removes all negative incentive for high-risk behavior. Wall Street has become a casino, where the house always wins, and the suckers are the general public being fleeced of their 401Ks, their tax money, and their pension funds.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Now you understand that post a bit better, MariconesUnited?

I don't know where you work or what you do for a living. But imagine that you get a few new colleagues who happen to be retrenched ex-investment bankers.

These are people who graduated from Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, at or near the top of the class; they are willing to have no social life; they are ready to work 70 hours a week; very ambitious; very competitive etc etc.

Assuming that you are an "average joe", do you see now why that blogger said that these people will eat you up, flatten you in competition; and leave you trailing in their dust?

The only reason why they haven't been doing that to "average joes" so far, is that they don't hang out in the same places where "average joes" hang out. Instead they hang out in places where they can aim to make millions of dollars (i.e in investment banks) - and that's not where "average joes" hang out.

If however they are forced out of their investment banks, and they have to land up in an "average joe" environment instead ....... well, I feel sorry for the "average joes". The average joes will be .... EATEN ALIVE.

(Metaphorically).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JSB

Certainly these people will most likely succeed in whatever field they choose to enter and they will steamroll the competition, but there simply aren't anywhere near enough of them to displace all the "average joes".

Frankly, most of them are not interested in competing with average joes. If they cannot make their millions in an investment bank, then they will set up their own hedge fund or private equity company and make their millions there.

Where do you think all the hedge fund managers came from? Most of them are formerly from investment banks.

I don't see any problem with investment bankers being paid a lot of money for making their firms money; I do see a huge problem with investment bankers making 7 or 8 figure dollar bonuses at the same time their bank is bleeding money and taking government assistance to stay afloat.

How this works -

1. Everybody in the bank gets a monthly salary (which may or may not be particularly big). In addition to this, front office staff get bonuses which are mathematically tied to the profit they generate. Eg let's say the percentage is 10%. Then if I make a profit of $100,000 for the bank, I get $10,000 as my bonus.

2. Some traders make a lot of profit for the bank. So let's say a trader makes $10,000,000 profit for the bank. So his own bonus will be $1,000,000.

3. What happens next? Well, just like in any other industry, banks have to compete for staff. So for instance, let's say I am working in Bank A and it's March. Bank B wishes to hire me. The problem is that by the time I resign, serve notice and join Bank B, it will be June. Half the year is gone. Effectively I have lost half the year, which means I've lost half a year to make the profits to which my annual bonus is tied.

4. For people in other industries, this doesn't necessarily mean a lot (because their bonuses are small). In my particular example, though, if the trader is averaging $1,000,000 in bonuses, to lose half a year means potentially suffering a loss of $500,000.

5. Therefore Bank B, to induce me to join, will typically give me a guaranteed bonus in the first year. Eg they will put it down in my contract that I will get $1,000,000 as bonuses in my first year at Bank B, no matter what.

6. What happens next? I join Bank B. Then it turns out for the next half of the year, Bank B as a whole does badly. Well, that's not my fault and I still expect to be paid my $1,000,000, because that is what we agreed and put in the contract! That is why Bank B pays out the big bonuses even though it lost money.

[Beingist]

Thanks for this explanation, ALG. Quite insightful, indeed.

I just wanted to make one note--

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

4. For people in other industries, this doesn't necessarily mean a lot (because their bonuses are small). In my particular example, though, if the trader is averaging $1,000,000 in bonuses, to lose half a year means potentially suffering a loss of $500,000.

Actually, no, there's no potential for loss, here, since they've still earned a half a year's bonuses, they're still $500,000 in the positive.

But, of course, no one in the business is going to see that, because they're too busy living their lives for the sake of making a gazillion dollars before they die, at whomever's expense, to see that they've just made $500,000. If I made that much in six months, I could (and would) simply retire. Indeed, that much money would last me the rest of my life. Bankers, conversely, are looking at a presumed loss that simply doesn't exist.

I know it wasn't your intention, but thanks for the example of the greed of bankers.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Thanks for this explanation, ALG. Quite insightful, indeed.

I just wanted to make one note--
Actually, no, there's no potential for loss, here, since they've still earned a half a year's bonuses, they're still $500,000 in the positive.

But, of course, no one in the business is going to see that, because they're too busy living their lives for the sake of making a gazillion dollars before they die, at whomever's expense, to see that they've just made $500,000. If I made that much in six months, I could (and would) simply retire. Indeed, that much money would last me the rest of my life. Bankers, conversely, are looking at a presumed loss that simply doesn't exist.

I know it wasn't your intention, but thanks for the example of the greed of bankers.

Do you know when yearly bonuses are paid?

$500,000 would not last you that long, unless you invested it, and even then, you wouldn't be retired. You'd have to get an investment banker to make you more money : D

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Do you know when yearly bonuses are paid?

$500,000 would not last you that long, unless you invested it, and even then, you wouldn't be retired. You'd have to get an investment banker to make you more money : D

Not necessarily. My lifestyle is pretty simple. I can live fairly comfortably on $40k/year, which gives me 12 years of capital.

I wouldn't deal with an investment banker if my life depended on it. I'd find other ways.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not necessarily. My lifestyle is pretty simple. I can live fairly comfortably on $40k/year, which gives me 12 years of capital.

I wouldn't deal with an investment banker if my life depended on it. I'd find other ways.

Well, many people could live on $5000, but it's not our job to determine what is and isn't enough. If $500,000 is enough for you to live for so many years, barring unforeseen circumstances, and lower and lower interest returns on less and less money, that does not mean that $500,000 should be good enough for others. Should we have a limit to how much we want? Sure. But, the world doesn't work that way. If everyone decided that $100,000 was enough, and no more was needed, then we wouldn't have modern living, because no one would bother to make more then they "need".

yearly bonuses are paid at the end of the year. If you leave half way through, you don't get to keep half of it. You lose $500,000.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

yearly bonuses are paid at the end of the year. If you leave half way through, you don't get to keep half of it. You lose $500,000.

No, you're still not losing anything. Losing means you'd have to pay someone $500,000. In this case, you just have to wait before receiving $500,000. You still lose nothing.

Moreover, this is on top of a salary, anyway (or, half a year's salary, at any rate). My point is not that we should limit our income, but rather, if we could just appreciate what we DO have, we wouldn't be thinking that we were losing $500,000, when, in fact, we made $500,000. My point is that such figures that bankers are dealing with shows the rampant greed prevalent.

Not that we can prohibit or prevent it, of course. But exposing it helps to make the point, anyway.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No, you're still not losing anything. Losing means you'd have to pay someone $500,000. In this case, you just have to wait before receiving $500,000. You still lose nothing.

Moreover, this is on top of a salary, anyway (or, half a year's salary, at any rate). My point is not that we should limit our income, but rather, if we could just appreciate what we DO have, we wouldn't be thinking that we were losing $500,000, when, in fact, we made $500,000. My point is that such figures that bankers are dealing with shows the rampant greed prevalent.

Not that we can prohibit or prevent it, of course. But exposing it helps to make the point, anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

If I work for a year, unpaid, expecting to be paid $100,000 at the end of the year, and when the end of the year comes, I am not paid... I LOST a years worth of pay, worth $100,000. I put in the time, expecting the money. My time, is worth money. That is what money is worth. You paid someone your TIME.

If they put in time, expecting to be paid $500,000, and they leave before getting that money, which WAS already theirs, then they lost $500,000. They gave the bank the $500,000 that they would have taken, in return for costing them an employee. I'm really not sure how you are trying to debate this.

They get a guaranteed $1,000,000 for starting the new job, to compensate for leaving the first job, and the $500,000 that they worked 6 months for. Bonus' come from getting clients, not from just sitting around doing nothing. He put in effort for that money, and needs to be compensated. They signed a contract for that $1,000,000, and he SHOULD be paid, even if the bank doesn't make a good profit that year.

Now, that bonus' shouldn't be paid out from bailout tax payer money. That I agree with.

And if we are talking about greed. People in other countries live on $1 a day. How DARE you be so greedy as to need $40,000 a year to survive

Money is relative to living conditions and how the person views money. You view it differently then them. Me, I make like $200 an hour for barely working at all, and being lazy all day. The OCW people would probably spit on me.

Ps. while I do make $200 an hour, I don't have 8 hours of work a day to do, so don't think I'm all rich lol cause I'm not.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I think you are missing the point.

If I work for a year, unpaid, expecting to be paid $100,000 at the end of the year [...]

You don't need to explain any further from right there.

That you expected to be paid any dollar value in a year means that you lose only on the expectation. Even if you never get paid a single dime, you still don't lose anything (well, except for, maybe gas to get you to work, etc.).

And no, I get the point, and it derives from greed, pure and simple. It's the same greed that sells you a product by getting you to assume that you should buy something because you save $xxx!!!, without emphasizing that you still need to pay $x,xxx. (I think that might be defined as a "false comparison," but idk). Here, the belief is that you lose $xxx,xxx, without realizing that you are still earning and will eventually be receiving that same amount.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

You don't need to explain any further from right there.

That you expected to be paid any dollar value in a year means that you lose only on the expectation. Even if you never get paid a single dime, you still don't lose anything (well, except for, maybe gas to get you to work, etc.).

And no, I get the point, and it derives from greed, pure and simple. It's the same greed that sells you a product by getting you to assume that you should buy something because you save $xxx!!!, without emphasizing that you still need to pay $x,xxx. (I think that might be defined as a "false comparison," but idk). Here, the belief is that you lose $xxx,xxx, without realizing that you are still earning and will eventually be receiving that same amount.

do you really see no value in time? Would you really be ok with losing a year of your time? If so, I got a job for you.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

do you really see no value in time? Would you really be ok with losing a year of your time? If so, I got a job for you.

I never said I would be okay with anything. I'm only going by the definition of loss, which is, basically, that you have something one minute, and don't have it the next. If you never have it to begin with, there's nothing to be lost.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I never said I would be okay with anything. I'm only going by the definition of loss, which is, basically, that you have something one minute, and don't have it the next. If you never have it to begin with, there's nothing to be lost.

Again, do you not See value in time? Can you not lose time? This isn't a "time is relative" argument either. You are playing atous with semantics, nothing more.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Again, do you not See value in time? Can you not lose time? This isn't a "time is relative" argument either. You are playing atous with semantics, nothing more.

Seriously, what value can you place on time? If you worked 6 months, made $500,000, and then didn't work for the next 6 months, that's still $240/hour for what you worked, which is still thirteen times what I make in an hour, and that assumes I worked the whole year. Where's the loss? huh? huh?

No, the responsibility for the semantics belongs to the one who says they lose anything in the case given as an example. My point is that it typifies greed, and is the reason why people are camping out in the snow.

[Acting Like Godot]

Anyway both of you are complicating the story.

The question was - why did banks pay big bonuses to certain employees, when the banks were not profitable?

The answer was - they were obliged to do so. They had contractually agreed to do so.

And the reason why they had agreed to do so is that this is what they need to do to attract employees in an industry where bonuses form a very large part of the overall remuneration package

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Anyway both of you are complicating the story.

The question was - why did banks pay big bonuses to certain employees, when the banks were not profitable?

The answer was - they were obliged to do so. They had contractually agreed to do so.

And the reason why they had agreed to do so is that this is what they need to do to attract employees in an industry where bonuses form a very large part of the overall remuneration package

Yes, and again, thank you, ALG.

Unfortunately, though, some of those banks that lost that money after fulfilling their promises for those big bonuses got bailed out at taxpayers' expense, and are going to get bailed out again, when it happens again. And in order to do all this bailing out, ever more debt is being created, and ever more money is being printed, ultimately making what money we *do* have worth less than toilet paper, while the prices of everything make it more difficult to even function in the workaday world.

That's *my* problem, I know, but considering the title of this thread, it seems as good a place as any to rant about it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, if it is of any consolation to you, the average working lifespan of employees in the industry is not very long.

As I mentioned, IBs regularly cull their ranks even in good times, much more so in bad times. Their employees are expensive, therefore those who fail to deliver get the sack quite quickly.

The scary part of many types of jobs in the IB business is that the definition of "fail to deliver" is very clear-cut and non-fudgeable. The target is effectively a clear-cut figure eg "bring in $50,000,000 in sales revenue" and if you don't make the figure, well, basically you're out.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Well, many people could live on $5000, but it's not our job to determine what is and isn't enough. If $500,000 is enough for you to live for so many years, barring unforeseen circumstances, and lower and lower interest returns on less and less money, that does not mean that $500,000 should be good enough for others. Should we have a limit to how much we want? Sure. But, the world doesn't work that way. If everyone decided that $100,000 was enough, and no more was needed, then we wouldn't have modern living, because no one would bother to make more then they "need".

yearly bonuses are paid at the end of the year. If you leave half way through, you don't get to keep half of it. You lose $500,000.

Just to add to what Russian rocket has said. Here's where the wage of the average over 30 plusbanker goes

Kids private education. - in England the best schools can cost 30k per year per child

The wife/partner usually will not work, so up to the man solely to maintain the household.

Big mansion - the best schools for the kids are always in the affluent areas. So the investment banker usually has a hefty mortgage. Peter w might be familiar with buck hurst hill and the Laughton area for a high number of IB who own property here. Decent 4 bed from 750k - 1.2 million. Not even talking detached.as Russian rocket says 500k is not enough.

Divorce - if your marriage goes south like most do. Be prepared in England to lose half your saved wealth. Plus if you have kids aged 18, 15 and 2. You cannot sell the house till your partner remarries and the 2 yr old turns 18. This one usually throws a spanner in the wealth of the banker especially when the divorce is at the tail end of his career.

This might sound rude, but the only people who say I can live on a small amount and retire are people who are not aware of the vast amount of experiences there on this planet. They neither have big goals for themselves or the world. I f they did they would see that there is alot to experience for yourselves , families and the world with even one million a year

Since banking is a stressful job, 2 - 3 holidays re of great importance

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Orecle

Just to add to what Russian rocket has said. Here's where the wage of the average over 30 plusbanker goes

Kids private education. - in England the best schools can cost 30k per year per child

The wife/partner usually will not work, so up to the man solely to maintain the household.

Big mansion - the best schools for the kids are always in the affluent areas. So the investment banker usually has a hefty mortgage. Peter w might be familiar with buck hurst hill and the Laughton area for a high number of IB who own property here. Decent 4 bed from 750k - 1.2 million. Not even talking detached.as Russian rocket says 500k is not enough.

Divorce - if your marriage goes south like most do. Be prepared in England to lose half your saved wealth. Plus if you have kids aged 18, 15 and 2. You cannot sell the house till your partner remarries and the 2 yr old turns 18. This one usually throws a spanner in the wealth of the banker especially when the divorce is at the tail end of his career.

This might sound rude, but the only people who say I can live on a small amount and retire are people who are not aware of the vast amount of experiences there on this planet. They neither have big goals for themselves or the world. I f they did they would see that there is alot to experience for yourselves , families and the world with even one million a year

Since banking is a stressful job, 2 - 3 holidays re of great importance

What happens when the banks have paid back all of their bail outs and things go back to how they were before 2008? Nobody complained then about anything.

I agree that one's beliefs about money and what they deem as enough, excessive or even greedy are entirely their own opinion based on their circumstances.

This whole thing is a very grey area, sure there are extremes of people working for bailed out banks recieving 7 figure bonuses while others have lost everything due to the crash.

But there are a lot of people who simply choose to have an 'easy life' with an average paid job without too much stress and accept the lifestyle that goes with it. Then you have those who choose to strive for more for whatever reason that could be.

I chose the second option because I want to live a life that I absolutely choose to live 100% on my terms. That involves complete financial security that isn't based on a job in someone else's business that I have no control over. It also involves the means to see the world in comfort and style, devote time to things I am really passionate about get myself into a position where I can give something back and help those less fortunate than myself who are in that position through no fault of their own and have no control over their situation.

I'm not there but I'm getitng there, it involves risk, hard work, giving up free time to study, learn and moonlight. It also involves getting outside of my comfort zone and generally the things that the 99% are not prepared to do.

Being resentful about people who have got themselves into positions where they make a lot of money (either working or passively) is keeping you poor. It's a limiting belief that diverts responsibility away from you and lays blame on others for your situation. It's an easy trap to fall into and it will never get you anywhere.

[Peterw]

Just a thought about the whole 99% thing.

Why is it that such a small % of the population own so much of the wealth and more importantly what can realistically be done to change it?

Why is it that 90% of new business fail?

Why is it that 95% or retail traders fail?

Affiliate/Online marketing - same deal, a very small proportion are actually living that dream. The rest are buying their top secret, must have get rich quick products. A few are making a full time living and ever fewer are making it without having to put in a lot of work, probably more than average Joe is to make the same from a 9-5.

There are probably more similar statistics that show in other areas that 'average Joe' is statistically consigned to mediocrity and the life of a 'have not'.

On the flip side, the 10% of businesses need the rest of the population who just want a job to do the jobs. Similarly the entrepreneurs need everyone else to buy their product or service. The 5% of successful retail traders need the 95% of failed ones to be on the other side of their trades.

Why do these numbers have to be so acutely disproportionate? What does it say about the human race, nature and the law of the jungle in general?

And going forward is it something that can be changed and if so how? Do we try and enforce regulation on banks and big businesses (forcing them to go where they can operate freely and taking their jobs and tax payments with them)? Do we try and educate up and coming entrepreneurs on social responsibility?

What can actually be done going forward to make it fairer for both sides, because they both do need each other..

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not necessarily. My lifestyle is pretty simple. I can live fairly comfortably on $40k/year, which gives me 12 years of capital.

I digress. But did I ever mention that apart from being a lawyer, I hold qualifications to be a personal financial adviser?

12 years is not a suitable target unless you are already a senior citizen.

In personal financial planning, the usual big target is to ensure that you have enough money to support yourself till you die.

Let's assume that you are, say, 30 years old. And that life expectancy in your country is, say, 75 years. In your financial planning, it then makes sense for you to aim to be able to support yourself till you are 75 years.

Unfortunately, $500,000 for 45 years is not that much. You have only $11,000 per year. Actually, much less, if you factor in inflation. Of course, if you actually plan to have kids and raise them etc, you will need even more money.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Why do these numbers have to be so acutely disproportionate? What does it say about the human race, nature and the law of the jungle in general?

It's the Pareto principle. Mr Average Joe doesn't like to hear it, but the Pareto principle (80/20) holds true in so many different spheres in life, including spheres relating to achievement, success etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Beingist

You don't need to explain any further from right there.

That you expected to be paid any dollar value in a year means that you lose only on the expectation. Even if you never get paid a single dime, you still don't lose anything (well, except for, maybe gas to get you to work, etc.).

And no, I get the point, and it derives from greed, pure and simple. It's the same greed that sells you a product by getting you to assume that you should buy something because you save $xxx!!!, without emphasizing that you still need to pay $x,xxx. (I think that might be defined as a "false comparison," but idk). Here, the belief is that you lose $xxx,xxx, without realizing that you are still earning and will eventually be receiving that same amount.

There is a simpler way to put it.

Would you change your job, for a worse job?

Logically the answer is no. Therefore Bank B needs to assure you of a certain level of compensation before you would move to Bank B. That is all.

[Reefs]

@ ALG & Orecle

What is the logic behind those long working hours?

Don't they factor in that overworked people are more likely to make stupid decisions?

[Acting Like Godot]

For me personally, the long working hours arise from the fact that it's an extremely international business. I work in Asia, but from time to time, I have to talk on the phone to people in New York or London or elsewhere, which means that I may have to take calls very late at night. Similarly, colleagues in New York may have to start work very early, so as to talk to me.

Also, because it's very international, your public holidays are not very sacred. For example, this Wednesday was a public holiday in my country. I still worked on Wednesday night. Because something had happened in another country (in Europe), and they needed my input right away.

[Brutha]

The only reason why they haven't been doing that to "average joes" so far, is that they don't hang out in the same places where "average joes" hang out. Instead they hang out in places where they can aim to make millions of dollars (i.e in investment banks) - and that's not where "average joes" hang out.

If however they are forced out of their investment banks, and they have to land up in an "average joe" environment instead ....... well, I feel sorry for the "average joes". The average joes will be .... EATEN ALIVE.

As a society maybe we would prefer if the most intelligent and driven people would work on real problems such as curing cancers.

The question was - why did banks pay big bonuses to certain employees, when the banks were not profitable?

The answer was - they were obliged to do so. They had contractually agreed to do so.

If the banks would have wanted there was enough political will to write into TARP a passage that would void those obligations.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

As a society maybe we would prefer if the most intelligent and driven people would work on real problems such as curing cancers.
If the banks would have wanted there was enough political will to write into TARP a passage that would void those obligations.

If a contract can be voided by the government, then all contracts become pointless. But yes, they could have done it. And it clearly shows how pointless the bailouts actually were and how corrupt government is, and should have much less power then they currently do.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

As a society maybe we would prefer if the most intelligent and driven people would work on real problems such as curing cancers.

But as a society, we haven't preferred that.

People earn what they earn - whether they are nurses, doctors, bankers, pop stars, janitors, policemen or Hollywood actresses - because society made it that way.

If the banks would have wanted there was enough political will to write into TARP a passage that would void those obligations.

Sure ... And there would be consequences to pay.

This is why there is a general culture of judges and legislators (in many parts of the world) about being very deliberate and careful about their decisions.

When a judge hears a particular case between, let's say, Mr Jones vs ABC Bank, he knows very well that he isn't just hearing a case of Mr Jones vs ABC Bank. He is setting a precedent for the future as well.

If you are careless with your precedent-setting and your law-making, then the effect is that you create a mess for the future. For example, next time, when Brutha signs his employment contract with XYZ Pte Ltd, Brutha can't be sure whether XYZ will really honour its obligations to Brutha.

After all, by then, the law has got thousands of precedents about bank employees (like Mr Jones) who were owed money by the bank (like ABC), and the bank simply didn't have to pay.

When a nation makes sudden, wide-ranging changes to its legislation, it also scares off businesses, investors and people (nationally and internationally).

I mean, let's say that after a lot of planning and research, I decide to set up a business in the USA. In my planning and research, I would taken into, let's say, the US tax system, the US legislation concerning business and commerce, and so on.

If every other year, the US just passes new legislation that drastically alters the existing landscape, well, that gives me very little certainty. It can wreak havoc on my business model.

------------


Additionally, Brutha, I suspect that they COULDN'T have just done the TARP thing you suggested, not so easily anyway.

Somewhere in the US constitution, there's probably something about the constitutional right to your own property. When you are owed money, this is a legal right to be paud. In many legal systems, rights can be treated as property.

In other words, it could be unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights, to pass a law to say that the banks need not pay what they owe to their employees (overriding the employees' right to be paid). To successfully pass such a law, the USA would have to amend its Constitution first. Not at all an easy process.

You have to understand that the guaranteed bonus is just part of the employees' overall remuneration. To say that banks need not pay their bankers it is something like saying that employers need not pay their workers. Even in communist China, that just doesn't sound right anymore.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Brutha

As a society maybe we would prefer if the most intelligent and driven people would work on real problems such as curing cancers.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that this is not the case.

Like ALG outlined, the competitiveness and cut-throat organization of the financial industry, on top of the big bucks, attracts and selects a certain type of people - people further along the psychopathic continuum (and I mean that with all the love in the world... just like us engineers tend to be further along the autistic continuum). As a doctor, you are in a position of power and control over your patients - I think it is a good thing that we don't overselect personalities that would have a tendency to abuse this power and control to work in the medical industry.

[Brutha]

If you are careless with your precedent-setting and your law-making, then the effect is that you create a mess for the future. For example, next time, when Brutha signs his employment contract with XYZ Pte Ltd, Brutha can't be sure whether XYZ will really honour its obligations to Brutha.

That's kinda the point.
You want to create an incentive against behaving in a way that bankrupts your company.

Somewhere in the US constitution, there's probably something about the constitutional right to your own property. When you are owed money, this is a legal right to be paud. In many legal systems, rights can be treated as property.

Bankrupty laws don't violate the US constitution even when they void contracts.
The public justifacation for the bailout is that the banks would have been bankrupt without public assistence.

But as a society, we haven't preferred that.

If you would poll people I think they would tell you that they prefer it.
It's just that the economic system doesn't work in a way to put that preference into reality. That's why it makes sense to use laws to change the economic system.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Bankrupty laws don't violate the US constitution even when they void contracts.

Ok, I think you got that mixed up.

A company goes bankrupt. In certain cases, some of its outstanding contracts at that point can be voided, which means that the company doesn't have to pay what it owes.

But in general, what the bankrupt company owes, it DOES have to pay. When it DOESN'T pay, that's simply because it cannot. It just doesn't have money any more.

The public justifacation for the bailout is that the banks would have been bankrupt without public assistence.

The public justification is that if they had gone bankrupt, that would have caused even more chaos in the financial system which would have then spilled over and killed many other companies and businesses as well as ruined other people.

If you would poll people I think they would tell you that they prefer it.
It's just that the economic system doesn't work in a way to put that preference into reality. That's why it makes sense to use laws to change the economic system.

I guess you are right about the part about preference and reality.

But in this case, how do you propose to use the laws to change the economic system? Do you think it is feasible to pass laws such as:

"Persons who are smart and driven shall not be permitted to work in investment banks but shall instead be required to work in areas such as cancer research ...." etc.

Clearly you will see that there are lots of problems with that kind of law.