Comments by "dangerouslytalented" (@dangerouslytalented) on "Crazy Facts On Income Inequality, Bank Bonuses" video.

@AstroWaldo Why? It was only AFTER the government stopped regulating that they started going out of control.
1
@Tethloach1 Bullshit. Walmart got where it is because they were willing to use every means at their disposal to destroy their competition, regardless of the government.
1
This is NOT abuot bank profits. It is about EXECUTIVES that are deliberately destroying their own banks, maximising their own bonuses in order to give themselves bonuses. They care not for the banks they work for, they care not for the economy, they care not for anything but their pay.And when the bank collapses, they will be hired by OTHER banks, because the executives in those banks want to learn how to maximise their OWN BONUSES.
1
@mcjon77 Those bonuses are not divided equally. If you get a janitorial position, your bonus would not be that high.It is like if Bill Gates walked into a room with a hundred other people, on average, everybody is a billionaire.
1
@Tethloach1 No, it is not nearly that simple. The money needs to get out of American politics first. I don't know whether it is too late in America or not. But getting rid of the laws altogether will be far worse.
1
@thefalstini It is not even about equality. It is about economics. The richest do not create any jobs through consumption. And they can't create it through production, because there is no money to be made producing things because none of the consumers have any money.
1
Actually I know what it feels like to earn ten thousand dollars an hour, I once won money on a quiz show, eight thousand dollars for a half hour work, pretty fucking good... Of course, it was only the one half hour...
1
@bigboywasim Theoretically, they are repsonsible to shareholders and board of directors. However, nowadays, the executives ARE the board of directors. The executives of one company buy up shares in other companies, and use this leverage to appoint their own boys to executive positions in those companies, and the other companies do the same, so they all end up owning each other.
1
@bigboywasim But they usually flee the coop before that happens. They base their pay on a massive number of factors, the number of loans they dish out, the number of dirivitives they package, the fees and fines the customers accrue, the amount in cash reserves, whatever metric they can think of, not necissarily the stock price, just whatever numbers they think will go up.
1
That 400 top people equalling the bottom 60%? Back in 2008, it was the top 400 people owning as much as the bottom 55%. In three years, they added 5% of the population's wealth. And THAT 5% was middle class.
1
@bigboywasim You do know what happened when Countrywide failed? And Enron? And every other one of those banks? The executives were IMMEDIATELY HIRED BY OTHER EXECUTIVES, because those people were the best at LOOTING THE COMPANY AND GIVING THAT MONEY TO THE EXECUTIVES.
1
@bigboywasim "the moral hazard"? The problem is the bailouts happened AFTER the banks had destroyed themselves. The moral hazard would have been there WITHOUT ANY IMPLIED BAILOUT, because the executives were only interested in robbing the banks and the general populace, and it did not matter whether to them whether the banks collapsed eventually. This is why there were so many stock bubbles before the regulations were enforced in the early 20th century, because of ponzi schemes.
1
@bigboywasim They would be doing this regardless, because the executives are there to make money for THEMSELVES, rigging up their own bonuses in such a way that they can maximise them even if the banks do poorly, hell even if the bank collapses completely. And because the executives are only answerable to each other, only those who are able to maximise the bonuses the best will be promoted to that rank. Kleptocracy. The biggest thieves rise to the top.
1
@rollingcan I think they understand what they are doing, but I think they enjoy it. They enjoy screwing people over and sucking up their bonuses, they get a thrill out of it, the same kind of thrill you get when you play Grand Theft Auto on xbox and kill a hooker. Except the people they are getting a thrill from destroying are REAL PEOPLE.
1
@DamazViccar The problem is, the owners don't have any say over who the CEO is anymore. There are so many shareholders and many of those don't even know they own shares in those companies because it is their pension funds that own them, So the executives elect their own CEOs, and the best man for the job is, obviously, the man who can raise their own bonuses to the stratosphere. Once a corporation is corrupted like that, it's doomed.
1