If the person is doing something that makes the company money, then yes. There were traders/ account manager etc that make tons of money for their companies...how is it fair that they dont get paid? They did their job and did it well
There is a difference between getting paid and getting bonuses.
Bonuses are frequently NOT tied to performance. CEO's that run their companies into the doldrums often still get huge leaving payouts, just because it is standard practice.
Absolutely they should get one. Their companies have worked many years to set up the current system of payoffs and bribes to extract the most money they can from the consumer and taxpayer.
The capitalist approach is in control because we want it this way. Why or how could anybody inject a moral argument in the bonus system set up by the very elite. Any other way of doing this would be .... um.... socialist by design.
It's a waste of time to think that we the public could effect any change in an extremely ensconced system. The complicity is far too reaching.
The problem with your question is that the response is socialism. I think it's appalling that executives get millions of dollars in bonuses, especially when it is taxpayer stimulus/bailout money. But the fact is that the government can't control how private business operates in a capitalist society (even if they give money to try and save the economy from recession). It's easy to complain about it now when things are bad, but really you should have been complaining when things were good, and their bonuses were 4X higher.
Whether it's morally right or not is another story. Morals don't play a role in government actions though, unless they have something to gain by acting morally.
I think it is a lot more complex than just calling it a socialism. If it is a private business then they should not depend on government/taxpayers to bail them out. They should declare bankcuptsy, and be out of business. It is actually looks like socialism for bankers, and capitalism for the rest
I'm not trying to label anything here, but government intervention into banks' affairs is no longer capitalism. If you want to argue against capitalism, that's fine, but within our current system banks have all the right in the world to allocate their money (even if the government gave it to them, it's still theirs) as they see fit. I don't think the government bailouts were to protect these super-rich bankers as much as save a domino effect of economic failure throughout the world.
I agree with you that it's wrong, and it completely disgusts me, but that's a moral argument, not a political one.
That is exactly what they want you to believe. Banks set up rules for their customers, and give them penalties when they do not abide by those rules, and they sock it to us, a lot worse than how our government has done to them. Loaning them money to them the same way banks have been screwing the public for years.
The only difference is, the general public doesn't have high priced lawyers and middle men, finding us ways to wiggle out from under our obligations to the banks, as they probably have people working around the clock to try to find ways to get themselves out of paying what they owe the government, just in time to give themselves a nice reward using our money!
I think forgiving, and paying off bad mortgages isn't going far enough. There is a zillion more times debt in Credit Cards. What they should do is get the banks to lower the interest rates on Credit Cards immediately, not only so people can pay back their debt, but, a low interest rate, and giving credit to more customers would stimulate the economy.
The government should be kicking these companies asses, but, are really the ones to blame for letting them get away with creating so much debt with their high interest rates to begin with. It's true that people should not be spending what they don't have...but, there are so many companies lining up to take their credit, that blaming the consumer for everything is kind of pointless. Every company I know has it's own credit card.
Another thing this country can do without is the stock market.
and corporate buyouts. If you look at Companies that are NOT controlled by stockholders, they are mainly successful. All you need in a stockheld company is for your major invester to pull out, and watch your stock profits plummet. Some companies will buyout another company because it is successful, just so they can eliminate their competition.
Buy it out, liquidate it, and close it down. happens all the time. very sad, especially when thousands lose their jobs.
It's all a big game. A game that I think it is time to end.
I understand what you're saying, but you are arguing for socialism. I'm not branding you or trying to take away credibility, but the system you described as wrong is capitalism.
Ok, It migh be considered socialism. But, lets take a look at homelessness, poverty, a mile high crime rate, and, a small handfull of people living like gods, and you tell me what is right about captalism. besides the small handful of people living like gods, it sucks for the rest of us.
And, I have absolutley no problem saying it. It stinks! But, to have the idea that Capitalism and Socialism can exist together
without people clining to the idea of a system that obviously
only works when it is convenient, is better then slipping into a depression created by people who don't want to give up their precious way of life, over the needs of the many.
Go back to the days of the railroad tycoons, and the rich
during the 1800's. And during the depression, where the rich were living it up, while a good portion of the nation pretty much starved to death.
They already exist together. Who maintains and builds your roads? Who oversees airport regulation? Who sets standards of product quality? Who runs the postal service? Who (usually) supplies your drinking water?
Capitalism is the lifeblood of the modern world. But capitalism without "socialism" like things such as government oversight of food safety standards, or road-sweeping, or drivers' licence testing, would be a free-for-all
I don't question the fact that the government already does many things that could be considered "socialist," and am quite supportive of a strong government role. Things like roads, safety standards, HEALTHCARE, and others that you listed should be organized by the government... after all, it's what statehood is and differentiates countries from one another.
However, government CONTROL over powerful private corporations or banks, as I said, crosses the line towards socialism. So unless someone is arguing against the fundamentals of capitalism, it's impossible to criticize these bonuses, however shameful and disgusting they really are.
Isn't the issue that the companies giving out the bonuses took money from the government -- so they were the first to break with free market principles, you might say. If we were to follow free market principles to the letter, we should have let them fall in the first place.
Banking is a particularly thorny issue, because banking is unique(?) in that it provides a public service while being a private sphere of activity at the same time.
This issue came up in Britain a while back, because banks were closing local branches in villages and small towns, thus making elderly customers without transportation or computer access without services, and also making small business drive with large deposits across several miles -- hardly good practice. Yet, as banks are private companies, they were within their "right" to do so.
A country that had a thriving free market with lots of entrepreneurial activity, but no large corporations and no stock market is not a socialist country. Especially if things like health care were kept in private hands also. There is a difference between government regulation and government control/ownership.
Canada has a government that aligned itself with the Bush Republicans philosophically, but it still did not remove any of the controls and regulations that we have on finance and banking -- as a result, none of our banks took bailout money, and none of them fell; and we outperformed everyone during the economic crisis.
Similarly, health care in many countries is in private hands, but it is overseen in such a way as to ensure that everyone has access to an affordable health provider. Prices are controlled, but the health service is entirely privately-run otherwise.
Anyway, there is a yawning gap between socialism on the one hand, and requiring a cap on bankers' salaries, let us say, on the other.
I'm glad you figured out the con in Health care reform, its growth on your part!
That's up to the owners and/or shareholders of the banks.
If they've done a good job they should get a reasonable bonus,there's no question of that.The issue is what is reasonable?
I think the real issue here is not if they should or should not get a bonus. The real issue is why do we feel it is up to us. Why should we have any say at all. If I gave my son a thousand dollars, why should it matter to anyone but him.
yes why not everybody should get some bonuses and perks for motivation
Egiv, brimancandy and adsenses strategies I realy liked your arguments, each of you has a strong point of view, very intelligent post, i will have to read your posts again , before writing my responce.
Sure, as soon as they pay back all the TARP money they borrowed and buy back the shares that the govt owns ,to put money back in the Treasury ,reducing the defecit so i don't have to pay in taxes. Then whatevers left is theirs. BACK to CAPITALISM again from state owned entities. GOv'ts should not own shares in stock compnies period.
The only bonus they should get is a swift kick in the pants!
I don't mind paying anyone for a job well done.But let's not be ridiculous! And to the point where our tax dollars have to bail their butts out again.
by Cagsil6 years ago
Hey Hubberville,I am planning on writing my next about the state of affairs of the Financial business' and Government action.However, I would like to point out one specific problem, for which, needs to be addressed...
by Sophia Angelique6 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
by cjhunsinger7 years ago
If it is true that the US is on the road to socialism and if it is being orchestrated by UN treaty; how bad can that be? Equality must be mandated, income, housing and the family must all be defined by government...
by Brian6 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a...
by Charles James6 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by James Smith4 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.