What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
84 Comments
- seattlegirluw, on 04/29/2009, -0/+25Okay, I guess that Citigroup has a point -- that losses would have been MUCH worse (and could get MUCH worse) if there hadn't been certain people in other departments making a lot of money. That helped offset the mortgage-backed securities losses.
But here's the real question, folks: Where, exactly, are these folks going to go? We keep hearing that they'll leave. But who's hiring? And even assuming there ARE a few corps with the funds to lure these traders/bankers away, how much bonus can they promise, given the recent bonus restrictions?! Are they really going to risk their jobs in this economy? In this job market? - Tremere, on 05/01/2009, -4/+24if they're so good at making money, why do they need bonuses?
- inactive, on 05/01/2009, -4/+19Yes. Many top flight people have already left places where restrictions were in place. UBS, Deutchebank, private equity, hedge funds, the list goes on. If your resume says "generated $800M in income in 2008" I don't care how ***** the economy is, people are going to look at you.
- seltaeb4, on 05/01/2009, -9/+20These SOBs have no shame.
- Aero347, on 05/01/2009, -3/+14Sustaining them because they are "Too large to fail"? Well maybe my house is too large to foreclose. Maybe my car is too expensive to repo. Maybe my representatives votes are for sale, maybe it's time to outlaw lobbyists.
- inactive, on 05/01/2009, -5/+13Financial people are a dime a dozen. If they don't want to work without a bonus, I'm sure I can find at least 50 other people that are willing to replace them and work longer hours and harder than these people.
- alex7575, on 05/01/2009, -2/+9They win the only way they know how: they fail at failing...
- eahlers, on 05/01/2009, -6/+13This may be an unpopular view, but traders who are making a profit deserve to have bonuses In the financial industry, the "bonuses" often make up the bulk of a traders income.
If these bonus aren't paid, either one of two things happen. The traders will loose their incentive to bring as much money in as possible for Citi, or they will move on and find someone who will pay them. And trust me, no matter how bad the economy is their is always a market for successful traders.
It's in Citi's best interest to keep their top people, and to keep them performing. - inactive, on 05/01/2009, -2/+8PS Some good examples would be Richard Bernstein and David Rosenberg of BoA who basically walked away from key positions for greener pasture. Bernstein is starting his own fund and Rosenberg went to Canada to work in wealth management.
- cfuse, on 05/01/2009, -0/+6Can we stop rewarding fraud and start making some examples? I'd be ok with life imprisonment and forfeiture of all (family and business protected) assets - they don't have to execute them.
We don't have to pay them, just demonstrate consequences - they've already shown that self preservation is what they are really good at. - inactive, on 05/01/2009, -1/+7The whole goal of a building mature, stable organization is to have systems and backups in place so that the overall success doesn't rely merely on the performance of a few individuals. If Citigroup, with 10s of thousands of employees, relies on a handful of "stars" to operate then it is carrying far too much risk. If their prospectus reads, "generated $800M income in 2008 solely because of 1 individual who can't be replaced by anyone else" then their HR department and managers need a serious ass kicking.
- Aero347, on 05/01/2009, -2/+8Alright, just so I understand this, it's simply a coincidence that corporations who employ lobbyists to protect their 'interests' in washington, destroy the economy by risky investments that tied up our whole financial system on the gambit that our economy was going to keep soaring, are also the same corporations receiving bailouts and funneling money from washington in each and every way they can, while middle class and lower class americans lose their houses, vehicles, jobs and still have a huge amount of debt to pay that cannot be dissolved by bankruptcy thanks to the same corporate lobbyists. I don't even want our money back, I just want the corruption gone. The entire system is gone. At this point it's like trying to fix the rudder on the sinking titanic.
- freakedguru, on 05/01/2009, -0/+6Thank gods the first reply was actually reasonable. I salute you sir.
- aletoledo, on 05/01/2009, -0/+5I just love how the elite think the world would fall apart without them. Us poor, unruly natives need the steady hand of these great people!
Of course the part that they don't mention is that I don't need Citigroup in my life. Maybe keeping those people at the helm is important to some people, but I have no interest in the product they sell. If the product they sell is so wonderful to some, then when these people leave to go setup shop someplace else, then they'll sell the same product in the new place as well.
That is the key point, product. People seem to think that there is magic in what these people do. That is NOT capitalism, that is socialism. Under capitalism the product they sell is what drives the economy. Under socialism, the economy is created by the elites who tell everyone what to do or make. I say no thank-you to socialism, let these people leave and let Citibank fail. - lordmike, on 05/01/2009, -3/+8Again, what makes these people so special, other than they know how to tank the economy? It's not like they actually make anything... They are eminently replaceable... Other businesses have to replace employees 'cos they can't pay them in this bad economy, why does Citibank get an exception? Get off the government teat, and they can pay these ***** as much as they want!
- homercles337, on 05/01/2009, -2/+7*****. These people dont make anything. All they do is move numbers around. Its a totally brainless activity that is well suited to CS dropouts. Its so brainless that i bet i could train *you* to do the ***** these guys do. All you need is no conscience and greed.
- akhomestead, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5I think mentality of these types of people is it's never enough. More money means more power.
- tj_walker, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4They get bonuses and I get sacked. Nice. Now no jobs for me in the Tech Sector. Anyone want a dinosaur UNIX/Linux guy with hardware/software background?
= : )K - boundless316, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5I don't mind Citi paying employees their worth but when a company wants to pay them with taxpayer funds said company must assume certain responsibilities. Use of those funds down to the very last penny has to be justified. An employee is worth a $1 million bonus, fine, prove it. Release the records showing how much he or she has earned along with any other information normally available to the board.
Don't want to do that you say? Well you shouldn't have accepted my money. - HappyScrappy, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Tell you what. You prove to me mathematically that these people are skilled and not just lucky, and I'll back them getting bonuses.
I don't support bonuses for traders because as far as I can tell, all they do is sit around and devise Martingale systems. - maz2331, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5Maybe a few of them have some serious cash saved already, and can just basically retire. At a certain point the stress becomes not worth it if there's no real rewards.
- RGB0099CC, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Wow, you seriously are asking for examples of fraud. Where have you been for the last year or so?
- homercles337, on 05/01/2009, -2/+6*****. They have generated this whole perspective of "super stars" or "generated income" to fool dopes like you into fighting for them. Any industry that relies on a small number of superstars is bound to fail. These people dont make anything. They move numbers around. Thats it. I could probably train *you* to do something so brainless.
- fandyllic, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3Umm... if you had to borrow money to prevent from being insolvent, what I wonder is how you can declare profits without paying that money back first.
The bailouts are a shameful corrupt corporate welfare. - inactive, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3What free market?
- solid12345, on 05/01/2009, -1/+4Thank you, problem is here people don't have a rat's ass idea how some people get paid due to their narrow-minded view that the world works just like their own job. Not everyone is paid by salary or hourly, bartenders get paid on tips, sales people get paid on commissions, and in this instance traders get paid in bonuses.
- Elranzer, on 05/01/2009, -1/+4There are restrictions on food stamps and WIC vouchers, you know. They can't spend it on things like junk food, beer and cigarettes*.
(*But what sometimes happens is that the food stamps or WIC recipients sell them off for real cash but at a much lower worth, so they CAN buy the junk. But most recipients don't do that.) - RGB0099CC, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3It isn't their own funds they are putting at risk. Try again.
- HawgFrog, on 05/01/2009, -1/+4Pay their bonuses from the interest they have increased an their card holders. My card went from 9% to 18% overnight. Never late with a payment either. Paid the card off and hope the greedy turds fail. Let the "stars" find another job.
- annenk38, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3Once their companies are in the black again and every penny they borrowed is repaid to the treasury, we'll talk bonuses. As of right now, their banks are effectively bankrupt -- their stock price propped up artificially by the US treasury. Some free market.
- avidlinuxuser, on 05/01/2009, -3/+6@locdogg I would learn from Adam Smith. It would be unwise to use their wealth as a measure of their intelligence. These guys aren't really that smart. In fact, most business types I know are failed CS majors. There skill is no more than making themselves look more skilled than they are.
- Richandler, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3Who, cares! If we end up seeing the government attempting to bailout citi again, we do all the petitioning to stop them. Otherwise who they give bonuses is their decision because we have no spoke loud enough against our own governments involvement. If this leads them to failure and bankruptcy we should let it happen instead of crying about it while we sit and watch our money handed over to them.
- Elranzer, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3They're not content making their own money. They want OUR money as well.
- fandyllic, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2Too big to fail doesn't justify socialized risk for privatized profits.
Also, we don't truly know if too big to fail is even true. Ironically, not nationalizing banks is creating winners and losers while distorting the beloved market that supposedly wouldn't lead us into this crisis int he first place. - dalittle, on 05/01/2009, -4/+6how about the free market sort this out and if Citigroup is taking Government money they get to spend it like we want, no bonuses for crappy companies.
- Aero347, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3Really, because if you foreclose my house it makes so many of my family members homeless. Even though I took out a second mortgage and went to Vegas and now I can't pay it back.. But PLEASE loan me some more money and I'll pay you back when I turn a profit from it! (..in vegas hehehe)
That is the logic in a "Too large to fail" argument. If people have to lose their jobs because of stupid and risky business decisions the government bailout should aid the innocent workers affected by the company failing. But what ever you do don't keep giving your money to the guy that blew his company's assets like it was one of Daddy's corvettes, taking out hundreds of bystanders on the sidewalk. - fandyllic, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2But if Citi is using bailout money to give bonuses, is it in the public's interest to keep their top people, some of whom certainly were tied to the need for the bailouts in the first place. Unless Citi opens their books, we will never know if they are spending money in a fair way.
You want no strings, take no money. - inactive, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2I could be real profitable if the U.S. taxpayers gave me a multi-Billion dollar bailout every few years and I was allowed to cook the books.
- solid12345, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3Why don't you get more pissed at our government for giving them the money in the first place then taking it out on Citigroup. If someone signs you a blank check and you blow it on hookers and yachts, well who is the stupid one here?
- mesasone, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3If these people are so brilliant, why aren't they out there starting the next Google or Berkshire Hathaway and bagging billions instead of millions? They've created this mythos of "we are superior to you" and you've bought into it. It's sad. Let's see this free market we hear about so much. For the millions these guys take home, I bet there many brilliant individuals who will do the same job for less.
If it works with blue collar worker, it will work just fine with these brainiacs too.
EDIT: I do have a compromise. Let's pay these guys in company stock. If they are really as brilliant and vital as they claim and can turn these companies (and the economy at large) around, they will make out like bandits. If they do not have enough confidence in their abilities to accept this arrangement, get your hands out of the cookie jar and ***** off. - avidlinuxuser, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3@locdogg If said action results in the company being in the minus, then he should be fired.
Also, no one at citibank generated 800 million dollars in profit since Citigroup's first profitable quarter since 2007 was Q1 2009, the time they got the government money. - fandyllic, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2I don't understand this continuing argument about "people who will handle hundreds of millions of dollars a day" meaning they are so special. Were they not handling similar amounts when they trashed the economy? Have they magically become incapable of corruption, deceit, and lies because it is today instead of yesterday.
As far as I can tell, a vast bulk of Wall Street, insurance companies, and hedge funds have not remotely come to account for their past losses. For a group of folks who always talk about balance sheets, they seem to forget that the only thing keeping them in balance is a massive, undeserved wad of cash from the American people, most of whom are largely blameless. - itsJALbert, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2@Aero: You can find a cheaper living solution. If in fact there's no possible way, surprise surprise, there are government programs to ensure that you can house your family, although not as lavishly as you'd undoubtedly like. The arguments of "too big to fail" are not arguing for the welfare of the specific company. They're arguing that letting the bad business fail will set off a chain reaction that destroys good businesses, and the ripples will hit you, the taxpayer, harder than if the financial institutions weren't bailed out. To wit, GM and car makers don't have a leg to stand on as far as too big to fail as them failing will not cause as far reaching problems.
Also, note that I did not argue that the banks were or weren't too big to fail. Both sides have valid arguments, and you can judge them how you will.
@fandy: Too big to fail would by nature justify it if it were true, and you could absolutely know that taking the lesser of the two evils by bailing them out would make everyone better. As you point out it the second part, we have no idea if it's true or not. If we did, we could make a decision, and know that it's correct and there'd be no debate on the matter. - itsJALbert, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2Well yes, and I was responding to your hypothetical situation knowing it was just that. The only point I was trying to make is that the "too big to fail" argument isn't really applicable to pretty much anything but the current financial market situation, and even then it's debatable. Even GM doesn't have close to a credible potential for causing an unhandleable ripple effect if it goes down, which is why lobbying and idiotic protectionism with GM grinds my gears, so to speak.
- BenFranklin, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.
- itsJALbert, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2No, not really. The only thing they share in common is that they both analyze the future and indirect impacts of an action. If you're implying that incorrect analysis of future consequences in one situation means that we should never look at future consequences of other actions, I really don't know what to say.
FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economic ... - Elranzer, on 05/01/2009, -0/+1I think it's about time that the few, decent, profitable traders consolidate to the few, profitable remaining banks or financial groups, and let the dying ones die. Don't give the dying groups money to keep their few profitable traders. They'll just come back asking for more.
- stayathomejobs, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1simply amazing ...
- Aero347, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2Agreed
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is