3 ms·
This sounds like we're tackling a symptom not the disease. Instead of figuring out how to stop bankers from being paid so much in bonuses, we should answer ask
by wsetchell 15y ago
This sounds like we're tackling a symptom not the disease. Instead of figuring out how to stop bankers from being paid so much in bonuses, we should answer ask why a few times.
"Why can banks pay their employees so much?" - because they make so much money, and have so few employees.
"Why can banks make so much money?" - I'm not sure but it seems like banks can take risks, but pass off the real risk to others.
"Why can banks take risks, but not have to worry about the downside of those risks" - ...
I think if you follow that train of thinking you'll get to some structural problem in our current system. It doesn't seem like there is an easy fix here.
- rhizome 15y agoWell, it used to be that banks were prohibited from taking risks. 100 years ago banking was a boring job.
- albertsun 15y agoIt sounds like you're responding to the headline and not the article. Taleb didn't say anything about bankers being paid too much (or "so much"). His argument was that bonuses encourage risk taking and that having bank compensation be less variable (i.e. base salary would go up, but not fluctuate) would lead to less risk taking.
- barrkel 15y agoDid you read the article? Taleb was arguing against bonuses as incentives to take risk, without corresponding downsides. He was not arguing against bankers being paid lots of money.
- nickik 15y agoI think there is. 1) Don't save them and make sure the understand that. 2) Take them you of the money creation process. 3) Stable Money (Gold is an example or something like bitcoin (an algorithem))