Hungry for justice, or justice flavored candies?
AIG stock is selling for less than 85 cents a share and they're giving executives $165 million in bonuses. After getting something around $170 billion, this is just a drop in the bucket we're throwing into the Grand Canyon, so a danger we face is getting too angry about this specific $165 million in bonuses instead of the larger problem of risk-free capitalism. It's a philosophical problem.
What we're looking at is a system that does not respect risk. If you're part of the cause of a problem so big it melts down the world economy and you get a million dollar bonus as a retention bonus right before leaving the company, then the message is that there are no repercussions for failure. We know that's not true in the real world, and that if you make less than a quarter million a year, your performance is reviewed and you're expected to at least meet or exceed expectations if you want nice things like bonuses. But if you're one of the captains of industry, "masters of the universe," then you can look at something, recognize that it's outrageously dangerous but profitable in the short term, and "Madoff" away with millions of people's money. And get a huge bonus for your trouble. That should be the target of outrage, not just AIG.
Outrage is only a useful emotion if something comes from it. We should be mad at AIG and huge bonuses for bad executives and Bernie Madoff and the giant collapsing ponzi scheme that is our economy, but we also have to try to make it so it doesn't happen again. We have to look at what we want capitalism to do for us.
Should our economic system aid democracy by keeping everyone healthy enough so they can contribute to society and consume what we produce, and making everyone comfortable enough so they can keep themselves informed and active in the political process while? Or should capitalism be allowed to weaken democracy by widening the gap between the super rich and the super poor, creating teeming uneducated masses that are easily led and generate a profitable requirement for prisons? Do we want social justice, where the prerequisites for a livable and productive life are as available as tap water? Or do we want justice "lite" where we declare that because everyone starts with the same potential, a person's inability to succeed in our society (to become a productive consumer) is just their fault?
What we're looking at is a system that does not respect risk. If you're part of the cause of a problem so big it melts down the world economy and you get a million dollar bonus as a retention bonus right before leaving the company, then the message is that there are no repercussions for failure. We know that's not true in the real world, and that if you make less than a quarter million a year, your performance is reviewed and you're expected to at least meet or exceed expectations if you want nice things like bonuses. But if you're one of the captains of industry, "masters of the universe," then you can look at something, recognize that it's outrageously dangerous but profitable in the short term, and "Madoff" away with millions of people's money. And get a huge bonus for your trouble. That should be the target of outrage, not just AIG.
Outrage is only a useful emotion if something comes from it. We should be mad at AIG and huge bonuses for bad executives and Bernie Madoff and the giant collapsing ponzi scheme that is our economy, but we also have to try to make it so it doesn't happen again. We have to look at what we want capitalism to do for us.
Should our economic system aid democracy by keeping everyone healthy enough so they can contribute to society and consume what we produce, and making everyone comfortable enough so they can keep themselves informed and active in the political process while? Or should capitalism be allowed to weaken democracy by widening the gap between the super rich and the super poor, creating teeming uneducated masses that are easily led and generate a profitable requirement for prisons? Do we want social justice, where the prerequisites for a livable and productive life are as available as tap water? Or do we want justice "lite" where we declare that because everyone starts with the same potential, a person's inability to succeed in our society (to become a productive consumer) is just their fault?