The Tories of course jump on the tabloid bandwagon.

It is so simple. The stupid insanity was giving huge bonuses to people who claimed them for signing up people who could not repay loans/mortgages.
Those employees have been fired.

Bankers who make millions for companies deserve eventual huge bonuses.

The public are SOOO stupid ("Why should people get more money than me?") and the media so blatant catering for the morons ("Bankers get rich") that politicians - nervous about being criticised - obey slogan headlines.

No wonder society is collapsing.

Thanks JK, you write:

"Bankers who make millions for companies deserve eventual huge bonuses."

What do bankers who lose millions for companies deserve?

Best Wishes,
Jim

They deserve to be fired Jim and I believe most of them were.

Can someone here tell me why staff at RBS who lost 3.6 billion pounds are eligible for a 1 million pound bonus? This is the same bank that the general public has an 84% stake in. This sounds outrageous to me. Then again maybe i'm stupid?

I agree with you up to a point, JK.

People who generate huge profits deserve huge bonuses, but not immediately.

The culture of immediate results = immediate bonuses is surely at least partly responsible for where we find ourselves today, creating a culture of short term gain, which may backfire later on.

I say yes to bonuses but with a built-in delay in payment, to make sure that the effects they are being rewarded for are solid.

Angel wrote:
Can someone here tell me why staff at RBS who lost 3.6 billion pounds are eligible for a 1 million pound bonus? This is the same bank that the general public has an 84% stake in. This sounds outrageous to me. Then again maybe i'm stupid?

I'm afraid you are! The people you made the losses which are still occuring have long gone. The people getting bonuses were not responsible for creating the deals that make the losses.

But you've got to have talented people in to turn the bank around - and, yes, you have to pay them!

According to a former banker on Question Time last night, most branches of the failing banks were making a profit. It was the investment section, operated by those who are given the high bonuses, which were running at a loss. Those who made profits at branch level were given no bonuses, but those who made a loss at higher level were.

Seems a bit upside down to me.

And this still goes on.

Thanks JK, you write:

"They deserve to be fired Jim and I believe most of them were."

But earlier you wrote:

"Bankers who make millions for companies deserve eventual huge bonuses."

Does it not follow that those who lose millions for companies deserve eventual huge fines?

Best Wishes,
Jim

JK2006 wrote:
They deserve to be fired Jim and I believe most of them were.

Yes they were fired, but got huge severence pay for been such a failure. I know that this is in their contract and such contracts should be obeyed, however they should't set up such ridiculous contracts in the first place. You will probably say that you have to draw up such contracts to attract the 'best' people to the job. If one bank does it they all have to do it. Their should be government legislation to prevent shuch payouts to failures. What happened to the Customer is always right.

"17 per cent increases in Wall Street bonuses from 2008 to 2009 ~ from 17.4 billion dollars to 20.3 billion."

TIME magazine 8/3/10, via medialens messageboard.

Is this the working of the free market? If so, then at least we ought to apply the principle consistently and allow banks to collapse when they fail. If not, then what justifies these increases?

What is exposed by the inconsistency of the application of this principle is that we do not live in a free market society. Instead we have free market strictures for the poor and socialism for the rich when it suits them. Where profit is capable of being made industry is handed to private hands. Otherwise it is paid for by the public.

My question about why we should not issue fines to bankers who lose millions of pounds if we reward them with bonuses when they make them remains unanswered. I assume JK is unable to find an answer which preserves the illusion of consistency in his thinking.

Best Wishes,
Jim

We elect the Government that makes the rules Jim; If we feel banks should go under or fines should be levied, then the Government should do that. But, as I often say, democracy does not work. Politicians are the prettiest stoopids elected by the stoopid.

If we don't like banking methods, put our money elsewhere. Don't blame those who do their jobs well for those who did them badly.

Thanks JK, you write:

"We elect the Government that makes the rules Jim"

It is true that we elect the part of the legislature known as the house of commons. Then we come here and debate what the rules ought to be. What they are has no bearing on what they ought to be, therefore what the legislature legislates has no bearing on what the legislature ought to legislate. It is the second that we are discussing here.

You continue:

"If we feel banks should go under or fines should be levied, then the Government should do that. But, as I often say, democracy does not work. Politicians are the prettiest stoopids elected by the stoopid."

Likewise, "If we feel bankers should be rewarded with bonuses when they make millions, then the Government should do that", though that wasn't how you put your initial point. There is no question that the legislature should, though it not always does, declare in law the general will of the people. What you haven't shown, however, is how any of this relates to the question. It was a question for you, not for the legislature.

You then say:

"If we don't like banking methods, put our money elsewhere. Don't blame those who do their jobs well for those who did them badly."

I'm sorry, but this again misses the point entirely. You have set up a straw man. At issue is whether consistency requires a principle of punishment as well as a principle of reward, not how to discriminate between those who make profits from those who don't.

There may well be competition between banks for our money. You have not shown how this is relevant to the question. In any case, there is no choice for British consumers between financial systems, of which we can have only one, and which we must all choose together.

So, sorry to persist old bean, but we still haven't been told. Does Jonathan King believe that, consistent with his principle that bankers who make millions should be rewarded with bonuses, those who lose millions should be punished with fines?

Best Wishes,
Jim

I think those who lose millions should be punished - and I believe they were fired. Not only morally but practically; you do a job badly, you get fired.

But the other question is - were those who foolishly rewarded short term profit makers which eventually caused problems punished or fired?

Hopefully they were. But I'm not a banker. I'm a music person and those executives screwing up our industry are indeed suffering the consequences.

Thanks JK,

I take it that you think those who make huge losses should not be fined.

I'm puzzled that you say they should be fired rather than fined?

There can be no doubt that the correlate of a bonus is a fine, whereas being fired is merely the correlate of keeping your job.

Best Wishes,
Jim

'The one policy fits all' stupidity of the media is threatening our banks recovery.
of course you don't pay bonuses to failures,but what about the people who bring in the profits? All banks need customers,& many of the talented people who can do that have left for banks not under government control,there they can get their rewards.

Also many of the bonuses were from previous years,& were agreed upon before the crash.Profit was made,& as such was deserved.The fools who took us into the mess are as JK pointed out largely gone.

RBS would have indeed made more profit had it not have been held back by government pandering to the media.

Thanks Innocent Accused, you write:

"All banks need customers,& many of the talented people who can do that have left for banks not under government control,there they can get their rewards."

You left out the words "which may fail" and "at our expense as underwriters".

Let's try that again.

"All banks need customers,& many of the talented people who can do that have left for banks not under government control, [which may fail]. There they can get their rewards [at our expense as underwriters]."

But even with the omissions restored, it is impossible to judge the truth of the statement without evidence.

Best Wishes,
Jim