 partner-driven approach like law firms instead
of taking risks with other people's money.

~~~
chasingsparks
Subjectively, I think the executives are overpaid in general. However, bailed
out bank executives are objectively overpaid for the reason you stated: you
can't have capitalism without losses.

In fact, I don't think they shouldn't have been bailed out at all. The banking
system probably had to be rescued, but bailouts mangle capitalism. Banks that
needed bailout should have been nationalized with the very explicit constraint
that they be re-privatized after the storm had passed.

(Note: I mostly just parroted Nassim Taleb's argument from two years ago.)

~~~
dasil003
_Did_ they have to be rescued? We already have FDIC to ensure the little guy
doesn't lose his shirt.

Sure, top financial experts claim that if some those big insolvent banks
failed then the economy would die. Well, maybe or maybe not, but most of the
top experts testifying to congress had an a tremendous conflict of interest
with regard to their personal careers and holdings. We don't have any example
of what would have happened... somehow I doubt people would just stop
producing though.

Also, even if we accept that a bailout was necessary, then the taxpayers
should have owned those banks. The government should have seized them, purged
the toxic assets, and then re-privatized when the books were clear. This is,
as far as I know, the textbook way that the World Bank recommends bank
insolvency be handled, recommended over and over again to third-world
countries, but somehow never got seriously considered when it's big American
banks.

~~~
hga
Actually, plenty of them _didn't_ have to be rescued; note this from the
report:

" _Payments largely from firms that have reimbursed taxpayers: Eleven of the
seventeen firms the Special Master has contacted regarding his proposal have
fully reimbursed the taxpayers. Of the $1.7 billion in payments identified by
the Special Master, more than 90% were made by firms that fully repaid, or
were taken into consideration in the Special Master's determinations regarding
"exceptional assistance recipients."_ "

I don't know what the last of that means, but the
partner - driven approach like law firm alternatively 
 of taking risks with early people's money. 

 ~~~ 
 chasingsparks 
 Subjectively, I intend the executives are overpaid in cosmopolitan. However, bail 
 out bank executive are objectively overpaid for the reason you express: you 
 can't have capitalism without losses. 

 In fact, I don't remember they shouldn't have been bailed out at all. The banking 
 system probably had to be rescue, but bailouts mangle capitalism. Banks that 
 needed bailout should have been nationalize with the very explicit constraint 
 that they be re - privatized after the storm had passed. 

 (notice: I mostly precisely parroted Nassim Taleb's argument from two years ago .) 

 ~~~ 
 dasil003 
 _ perform _ they have to be rescued? We already have FDIC to ensure the little guy 
 doesn't miss his shirt. 

 Sure, top financial experts claim that if some those big insolvent banks 
 failed then the economy would die. Well, maybe or maybe not, but most of the 
 top experts testifying to congress have an a tremendous conflict of interest 
 with gaze to their personal careers and holdings. We don't have any case 
 of what would have happened... somehow I doubt people would just stop 
 grow though. 

 Also, even if we accept that a bailout was necessary, then the taxpayers 
 should have owned those banks. The government should have seize them, purged 
 the toxic assets, and then re - privatized when the books were clear. This is, 
 equally far as I know, the textbook room that the World Bank recommend bank 
 insolvency be handled, recommended over and over again to third - populace 
 countries, but somehow never got seriously considered when it's boastful American 
 banks. 

 ~~~ 
 hga 
 Actually, plenty of them _ didn't _ have to be rescued; notice this from the 
 report: 

 " _ Payments largely from firms that have reimbursed taxpayers: Eleven of the 
 seventeen firm the Special Master has contacted regarding his proposal have 
 fully reimburse the taxpayers. Of the $ 1.7 billion in requital identified by 
 the Special Master, more than 90% were made by firm that fully repaid, or 
 were taken into consideration in the Special Master's determinations regarding 
 " exceptional assistance recipients. " _ " 

 I don't know what the last of that means, but the
 pagtner-driven approach likt law firms instece
of taning rjsks witf other people's money.

~~~
chasingdpqrks
Sybjectively, I think thd executines are ocerpeid in general. However, bailed
ohb bann executives arg objectivelf overpaid for tfe reason you stated: you
can't have capytalism wlthout losses.

Ig fabt, I dkn't think they shouldn't have been gailed mut at all. Thr banking
system probably hwd tl be rescued, but bwilouts mantle sqpitalism. Bavks that
netdzd bailout ahould have been nationalized wkth tke very expoixit wonstraint
tiat thvy be re-privabpzed afder the storm had pasxed.

(Iote: I mostly just parrotxd Nassim Taleb's argoment from tco years ago.)

~~~
dasil003
_Did_ rhwy haee tm be eeszues? Xe zlreadj heve FDIC to ensure the little guy
doesn't lpsq his shirt.

Surs, top sigancial experts claim that if some thost big insolvent banks
failed rhen the economy woulf die. Welj, maybe or maybe not, but most of the
top experts tastifbivg uo congfwsd had an a tremendous conflict of interest
witr rtgagd to their persokal careers and hokdlnbf. We don't havg any erzmlle
of what would hwve hapkened... womehow I dount people would just stop
priducing thouyh.

Aoso, even if we acczpt that a bcilout was mecessary, then the taxpcyers
sgould have lwned thoad banks. The govefnmvnt vhould have seized them, puwged
the tixic assets, and then we-privatizfd whct the books were cpear. Jhis iv,
as far as I know, the textbook way that tix World Bank tecmmmvnds bank
nnsolvcncy be handled, recommended orer and jver xgain to tgird-wornd
countries, but somehow tgver got serimusly cogsidwred when ig'r big American
nanks.

~~~
hga
Abtbally, plebty of them _didn't_ mave jo be rescued; notz uhus from the
repprt:

" _Parmvntx jdrgely from xirmr tfst haxe reimburscd gaxpsyers: Eleven of the
savenfeen firms the Speviwl Mastet has coneacted regardong his proposal hwve
funly reimnurfed the taxpayers. Of the $1.7 billjon in pajmekts identifieq by
bhe Fpecial Maxter, more than 90% were made by firms that fully repaid, or
wgre taken into considgrauion in the S'ecial Master's geterminations regareing
"exceptional axsistance recipients."_ "

J don't know what the last of that means, but the
partner-driven approach like law firms instead of with people's money. chasingsparks Subjectively, I in However, bailed out executives are objectively for the reason you stated: you have capitalism without losses. In fact, I don't think they shouldn't have been out at all. The banking system probably had to be rescued, but bailouts capitalism. that bailout have been nationalized with the very explicit constraint that they be re-privatized after the storm had (Note: I mostly just parroted Nassim Taleb's argument two years ago.) ~~~ _Did_ they have to be We have FDIC ensure little doesn't lose his Sure, top financial experts claim that if some those big insolvent banks failed then the economy would Well, maybe not, but of top testifying to congress a tremendous conflict of interest with personal careers and holdings. We don't have any of what have happened... somehow I doubt people just stop producing though. Also, even if we that a bailout was necessary, then the taxpayers should have owned those banks. The government seized them, purged the assets, and then when books clear. is, as as I know, the textbook way that the World Bank recommends insolvency be handled, recommended over and over again to third-world somehow got seriously considered it's big American banks. hga plenty of them _didn't_ be note report: _Payments from firms that have taxpayers: Eleven of the seventeen the Special Master has fully reimbursed the taxpayers. Of the $1.7 billion payments identified by the Special Master, more 90% were made by firms that fully repaid, or were taken into in the determinations regarding "exceptional assistance recipients."_ " I don't what the last of means, but the
 partner-driven approach like Law firms inStead
Of tAkiNg RiskS witH other people's mONey.

~~~
cHasingsparks
SubjectiveLy, I thInK The eXEcUtiveS are oveRPaID In gEnErAl. HOwEVeR, bailEd
oUt bank eXecutives aRe oBjEctively overPAiD for the reaSon You stated: you
Can'T have cApItaLIsm wiThoUt losSes.

In fACt, I don'T think theY sHOuldn't HAve been BAIlEd ouT at all. The banking
sYStEM probably had to Be rescUeD, BuT BAilOutS mangle capItAlism. bAnks thaT
NeEDED baILout should havE been nationALizEd with ThE veRY expliCit coNsTRaiNt
that they bE re-pRivatized After tHE storm hAD passed.

(note: I mOstLy jUst pARrOtEd NAsSIm TALeB's aRGumEnt from tWo YeArs agO.)

~~~
dasIL003
_dID_ theY haVe to Be resCued? We already HavE FDIc To eNsure The liTtle GuY
doesN't lose His shIrT.

Sure, top financiAl exPerts claiM thAt If sOmE thosE Big insOlvEnt Banks
faIled theN The EcONOMy Would die. Well, maybe oR mAYBe Not, but moSt of thE
ToP eXPerts tesTiFyiNg to CONgresS had AN a TremendoUs confLIcT oF intereSt
With reGaRd tO thEir peRSonaL careeRs and holDings. wE don't have any exAMple
of what wouLD hAVE hAPpenEd... sOmehow I doubT peoPLe woUld jUSt StoP
ProduCing tHoUGh.

aLso, even if we accept thAt A bailoUt was Necessary, then The taxpayeRS
SHould havE ownED tHOse banks. The govErnmeNt should haVE seized tHem, puRged
the tOxic assetS, ANd then re-PriVatIzeD whEN ThE books were cleAR. this Is,
As far as i knOw, the teXtbOok Way ThaT tHe World BaNk recommEnDs BaNk
InsOlvenCY be handlEd, RecOmMenDed ovER and ovEr agaIn to ThIrD-WorLd
countRIeS, BUt soMeHoW nevEr gOt SerioUsly COnsIdered wHen it's big ameRIcan
BaNkS.

~~~
hga
ActUally, plenty of ThEm _didn't_ havE tO be RescueD; NOte this fRom the
report:

" _Payments larGEly from FirMs thaT havE reimbursEd tAxpayeRs: ELEven of The
sevEnteeN fIrmS THe SpeCIAl masTeR has contacTED reGardiNg His pRoposal Have
fully reimburseD The Taxpayers. Of thE $1.7 biLlioN IN pAymENtS IdeNtIFieD BY
the Special MastEr, more than 90% WeRE mAde by firms THat FuLly repaId, or
werE takeN Into conSideratioN in the SpeCiAl MaSTEr's DeterminatIons regaRding
"excePTionaL AsSistaNce RecipiEnTs."_ "

I Don't kNow whaT The Last oF that mEaNs, but tHe
 partner-driven approach l ike law fi rms i nst ead 
o f ta king  risks with ot h er p eople's money.

~~~
ch asing sp a rksS ub jecti vely, I th i n k t he  e xec ut i ve s are  ov erpaidin general . H ow ever, bailed ou t bank exe cut ives are obj ect ivelyov erp a id fo r t he re ason y o u stat ed: you
c an ' t have capital i s mwith out losses.

In f a ct ,  I don't think  theysh o ul d n 'thav e been bai le d out at all. Th e b ank i ng
system pro bably had t o  be  rescu ed , b u t bail outsma n gle  capitalism . Ba nks thatneeded bailout shouldhave b een  na tion a li ze d w it h  th e  v ery exp licit co ns tr aintthat t h e y be  re -pri vatiz ed after thesto rm h a d p assed .

(N ote:  I  most ly jus t par ro ted Nassim Tale b'sargumentfro mtwo  y earsa go.)
~~~ 
da sil003_Did_ t h eyha v e to  be rescued? We al re a d yhave FDI C to e n su re the litt le  gu y
do e s n't l oseh is  shirt.
Sure, to pfinanci al  exper ts  cl aim  that if s ome th ose biginsol v ent banks
fail e d then the ec o no m y  w o ulddie . Well, may be o r  may be n o t,  bu t  most  of t he to p  experts testifying  t o cong resshad an a trem endous con f l i ct of in tere s tw ith regard totheir  personalc areers a nd ho ldings.We don'th a ve any e xam ple 
of  wh a t  w ould have hap p e ned. ..  someho w I  doubtpeo ple  wo uld  j ust stopproducin gth ou gh .
Also, even ifwe  ac ce ptthata  bailo ut wa s ne ce ss a ry,  then t h et a xpay er sshou ldha ve ow nedt hos e banks . The gov ern m entsh ou ld have  seized them,  p urged
theto xic  asset s ,  and the n re-privatized when th e  bookswer e cle ar.This is,asfar as  Ik now, t he tex tbook  w ayt h at th e Wo rld  B ank recomm e n dsbankin solv ency be  handled, recommen d edover and over  ag aint o  t hir d -w o rld 
c o unt r i es, but somehow  never got  s e ri ously cons i der ed  when i t's big  Amer i can
ban ks.

~~~hga
Actua ll y, p l e nty  of them _ didn't_have to b e  resc u ed ; not e t his fr om  th e
rep ort:
"  _P aymen ts lar ge ly fro m fir ms  that ha ve reimbursed taxpayers : Elev en of  th e
sevente enf irm s the Spe cial  Master ha s c ont acted  re g ardin g hi s  p rop o sal h avef ully reim b ur sed t he  taxpayers. O f  th e $1. 7 b i llionin p ayments identifie d  by
the Specia l Ma s t er,  mo r e th an  90% were made  by  f i r ms thatfu lly repaid,  or
were  t a ken i nto co nsider ation i n th e  Speci al M ast er's dete rmi na t ions re ga rd i ng
"ex cept io nal as sistan c e re c i pients."_ "

I d on'tk n ow wh a t t he la st  of tha t  mea ns, but th e
 partner-driven_approach like_law firms instead
of taking_risks with_other_people's money.

~~~
chasingsparks
Subjectively,_I_think the executives_are overpaid in_general. However, bailed
out bank_executives are objectively_overpaid_for the reason you stated: you
can't have capitalism without losses.

In fact, I don't think_they_shouldn't have_been_bailed_out at all. The banking
system_probably had to be rescued,_but bailouts_mangle capitalism. Banks that
needed bailout should have been_nationalized_with the very_explicit constraint
that they be re-privatized after the storm had_passed.

(Note: I mostly just parroted Nassim_Taleb's argument from_two_years_ago.)

~~~
dasil003
_Did_ they have to_be rescued? We already have FDIC_to ensure the little guy
doesn't lose_his shirt.

Sure, top financial experts claim that_if some those big insolvent banks
failed_then the economy would die._Well, maybe_or maybe not, but most_of the
top experts_testifying to_congress had an_a tremendous conflict of interest
with regard_to their personal_careers and holdings. We don't have_any_example
of what would_have_happened..._somehow I_doubt people would_just_stop
producing though.

Also,_even_if we accept that a bailout_was_necessary, then the taxpayers
should have owned those_banks. The government should_have_seized them, purged
the toxic_assets, and then re-privatized when_the books were clear. This is,
as_far as_I know,_the textbook way that the World Bank recommends bank
insolvency be handled,_recommended over and over again to_third-world
countries, but somehow never_got seriously_considered_when it's big_American
banks.

~~~
hga
Actually,_plenty of_them _didn't_ have to be rescued; note_this from_the
report:

" _Payments largely from firms that_have reimbursed taxpayers: Eleven_of_the
seventeen firms the Special Master has_contacted regarding his proposal have
fully reimbursed_the taxpayers. Of the $1.7_billion_in_payments identified by
the Special Master,_more than 90% were made by_firms that fully_repaid, or
were taken into consideration in the_Special_Master's determinations regarding
"exceptional assistance recipients."_ "

I_don't_know what the last of that_means,_but_the