RBS reveals biggest loss in UK history

« Terrorism and human rights | Are stocks cheap enough to buy? »

RBS reveals biggest loss in UK history

by ranfuchs ^Pro @ 26/02/09 – 08:23:32

As a result, RBS management has agreed to reduce (not eliminate, God forbid) their performance bonuses, and instead increase their base salary, claiming they will not be able to attract otherwise.

Indeed, if it’s talent that was needed to lose such sums, wouldn’t it be a prudent business decision to attract the less talented?

And let’s get serious for a moment. Bankers are not as hot as they once were. Do we really feel that if we didn’t increase their salaries they will resign, and take, for instance, public service instead? If banks don’t understand the current economic reality of supply and demand they are in the wrong job, and we’d better get rid of them altogether.

On the other hand, if we give them, why shouldn’t they take? After all, this is one of the only things they know how to do
Options:
Tags:
- talent
- economy
- banks
- crisis
- rbs

10 Comments to RBS reveals biggest loss in UK history

Hide subcomments

- tylluanpenry
- 26/02/09 @ 16:42:58
Very true. And I hope some of those greedy bankers are going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes...
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 27/02/09 @ 00:24:57
  We are all at fault. They were just better at the game.
  After all, if you give money to someone, don't blame them if they take it.
  - - tylluanpenry
    - 27/02/09 @ 08:54:56
    But if somebody promises to take that money and use it wisely, we are not to blame if they then jet off to Las Vegas and blow it on roulette, are we? Not if we trusted them, and really the whole issue is about trust and its betrayal by people who wouldn't or couldn't do what they promised.
    
    I trust that when Mr Penry is up a tree he really IS putting up a bat box, and not ogling Bungalow Better at number 53. If I find out he is, then I'm sawing through the ladder...
    - - ranfuchs ^Pro
      - 27/02/09 @ 11:11:25
      We, is not the individual who lost the money, but rather we as a society. When we developed a society that greed is the only ideology, you can’t blame people for being greedy. After all, for too long this is what we praised.
      - tylluanpenry
        
        27/02/09 @ 15:27:32
        
        I'm not sure that society as a whole did develop an ideology of greed (though obviously that is just my opinion.) There are plenty of people out there who are not greedy, who do not worship greed or view life wholly in terms of what they can wring out of it.
        
        When does a group of people become 'society'? I don't know. But I am wary in particular of newspaper headlines that continually claim 'we' do this/that/whatever.
        
        I do accept however that where being greedy is seen as laudable, then obviously people would respond by being greedy.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        ranfuchs ^Pro
        
        27/02/09 @ 15:57:18
        
        Society as a whole never refers to each individual. But although each individual is different you can still differentiate a Russian group of people from an English group. So while stereotypes don't apply to individuals they apply to big groups. This is how statistics works.
        
        When my neighbors stop calling themselves English, and when people stop supporting football teams I will say that we are no more group animals, but true individuals. Until then, most of us are nothing but part of the herd. (how do you explain our blogging otherwise?)
        
        As a group, there is little doubt that in the last decade or two, England's predominant ideology was make money and get rich. All else was forgotten.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        tylluanpenry
        
        27/02/09 @ 16:15:59
        
        Well society may not refer to each individual, but individuals can and probably should do so more often. Otherwise we find ourselves put into pigeon holes we would not necessarily like.
        
        Actually, I don't think blogging makes us part of a herd necessarily. It makes us part of a group of bloggers, perhaps, but a herd? I suppose we could go round in circles trying to define a herd as opposed to a group.
        
        I can agree with you however that making money and getting rich was a prominent ideology.
        And, as it turns out, not a terrible sensible one.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        ranfuchs ^Pro
        
        27/02/09 @ 17:26:42
        
        so at last we have reached some agreement
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 01/03/09 @ 10:04:44
I think you're repeating the same error in reasoning _ you assume we are giving the bankers the money, they are taking. It is not so. They are taking without our consent. As the industry has not been properly regulated the bankers were giving to themselves. They were the only people to self-regulate their industry and employment practices. That has to end.
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 01/03/09 @ 10:22:34
  Who is 'our'?
  
  It was with legal consent, regulators consent, and government encouragement (thank you Blair and Brown)
  
  Your and my consent? No one ever cared about it anyway. The only time anyone cares about it is before the election.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink