I made the mistake last night of watching Question Time. I'd stopped watching it some time last year when I became disenfranchised with it completely at the point that they were asking Trisha Goddard of daytime-TV-wife-cheating-DNA-test-revealing fame her opinion on the helicopter shortage in Afghanistan and its effects on the troops. Frankly, the list of people in the whole world that are reasonably qualified to answer that question is pretty small, and something tells me that Trisha isn't one of them.
But I relapsed, and last night I watched the episode first aired this gone thursday, the 25th February. As was to be expected (since it's always a sure-fire crowd pleaser), there was a question regarding the fact that the Royal Bank of Scotland have recently paid their bank staff £1.6bn in bonuses despite making a £3.6bn loss. The entire panel, with the exception of Nigel Farage, were in agreement that the bankers were greedy, out-of-touch monsters.
Except in the year before this, they lost over £24bn. Given the state of the economy, and the fact they still had (and, I daresay, still have albeit in ever-dwindling amounts) bad debts to basically sack off, I think making such a "small" loss is pretty amazing. This isn't rewarding failure, because they didn't fail. They haven't started making profit overnight, but given the depths of the problem, what's to be expected? It's like I mentioned in the Robin Hood post - it's short termism. The idea that the best way to get our money back is to "squeeze them til the pips squeak" is as economically irresponsible as it is demonstrable of a deplorable lack of understanding of the sector.
Once again I'm faced with the analogy of the African debts. The best way to get our money back is to get them back into making profit, and we won't do that in the current climate by forcing all the best paid staff to leave. The fact we own them makes this all the more the case. I just wish the public would stop validating the politicians anti-banker rhetoric by applauding whenever Peter Hain says "hey, bonuses are bad, but at least they're getting smaller bonuses now!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure where to stand on bank bonuses. You're argument's correct, but the bonuses are obscene. Look at any government wage at the same level and they won't get 10% of a banker's annual income. I accept it because in general these people fuel the economy (especially britain's), but as people they seem appalling. Especially as many of them move abroad to avoid tax. I mean if you have a £3mill bonus, what is it to you if half goes to the country that supports such obscene amounts of money as a bonus? The idea of moving country just so you can have more money you don't need is incredibly vulgar.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but it's worth remembering that they also take the least from the country in the first place. Trickle down economics is pretty startlingly true - all the money the rich people spend goes to pay for other people's wages in the form of pump manufacturers for swimming pools and people working in Dixons selling £10k TVs. Likewise, the money they have in the bank goes towards loans which in turn help start and maintain businesses, and allow others to grow - all of which have the result of more jobs. Finally, they're also the least likely to use the NHS, public transport, send their kids to state schools etc.
ReplyDeleteNow i'm not saying they should pay less tax, but they already DO pay shit loads. They could just pay more. Besides, I really don't care how much a bank (or any company) choses to pay its employees. It's totally up to them really. It only matters when the tax payer pays for it (as is the case in RBS, but I've laid out my argument above!)
PS the next posting you'll hate...