Blogs and Stories
The G-20 Bonus Madness
Win McNamee / Getty Images
France will huff and puff at the G-20 sessions today. Germany will dig in its heels. But in the end, the U.S. and U.K. rule the global banking system—and they’ve pre-cooked a deal.
Farewell G-7 (or G-8 if you include Russia). Hail the G-20, the new and expanded group of summiteers that is taking over responsibility for the global economy. The G-20 will assume the role of a permanent council on global economic co-operation, a role previously held by the much smaller group.
It’s been going that way for a couple of years now. But the Pittsburgh summit, which began Thursday night and continues today, will go down in history as the one in which the old G-7 of advanced economies (America, Britain, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Canada) finally gave way to a much larger cast of characters, which includes the new emerging economies—such as China, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil—of the 21st century.
Click Image To View Our Gallery
It’s not yet clear if the Pittsburgh summit will be remembered for anything else. Certainly not the street demonstrations, which are small beer compared with Seattle or Genoa and which have been easily controlled by the tear gas and ear-splitting sirens of the local robocops, who seem to have the whole city in lockdown. And certainly not for anything dramatic on bankers’ bonuses, despite all the rhetoric in the lead up to Pittsburgh.
Allistair Darling, Britain’s chancellor (or treasury secretary), was making stark warnings about bonuses in the run-up to Pittsburgh: “The party has got to be over,” he told the BBC. But Darling agrees with the Obama administration that governments should not intervene directly on the size of bonuses, but rather merely lay down some general ground rules.
London has had a Labour government for 12 years, and Washington has a new Democratic regime which some Republicans like to depict as “socialist”. But neither wants to cap bankers’ bonuses, even after last year’s financial meltdown.
President Sarkozy of France would go much further: he has already threatened to walk out if a “substantial, significant and detailed” deal on cutting bankers’ bonuses is not reached. He wants to cap bankers’ pay and bonuses at a certain percentage of their banks’ assets or revenue. His Finance Minister, the chic and articulate Christine Lagarde, agrees: it would be “absolutely outrageous and extraordinary if leaders of other countries did not understand the necessity to change the system and not go back to business as usual.”
• More Daily Beast G-20 coverageBut Little Sarko is always threatening to throw his toys out the pram if he doesn’t get his way—and when he doesn’t, he settles for sulking instead. He won’t walk out today, even though the Americans and British will stop him getting anything like as much as he wants. When it comes to banking, the Anglo-American special relationship is still very much alive: the French aren’t players in the global bank system; the U.S. and the UK are; and that’s what Sarkozy is out to undermine. Or that’s the view in Washington and London, anyway.
Most Europeans are closer to the French than the British, however. "Europeans are horrified by banks, some reliant on taxpayers' money, once again paying exorbitant bonuses," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in a statement preceding the official opening of the G-20 summit. Germany’s powerful Chancellor, Angela Merkel, agrees.
She rarely sees eye to eye on anything with the French president. But on bankers’ bonuses they are as one. But then again, Ms. Merkel faces an election on Sunday and there is as much disgust about bankers' remuneration in Germany as there is anywhere else, even though German bankers were far from being the greediest (and, unlike France, Germany does really have a huge global banking presence).








Andrew, don't you think that any admin coming in in 2009 would have gotten an ear-full from the World Leaders about the extent of greed, seeded on wall st. over years to create the Financial Terrorism effect surfacing Sept 2008?
They had victims and they need to be heard on what they need to protect their masses.
Most of the World Community sees this financial meltdown as being the fault of the United States of America.
I thought in a democratic nation, the government is 'by the people, for the people." Those is power seem to have forgotten us, as the corrupt elite act more and more like third world dictators.
What happened to my generation, which rebelled in the 60-70's? We've become the very assholes we used to rail against.
When are we going to wake up and smell the shit?
Unfortunately, it's the apathy of my generation that needs to be fought. No one my age cares about anything outside their own artificial little world, and it pisses me off. It's one thing not to know very much about an issue, but it's another thing to not even be interested in learning what the issues are.
The world needs another social revolution, but I don't know if we can give it one.
My understanding is that "social revolution" is exactly what Al-Queda is about. Unfortunately any violent undertaking like that can be used to shift even further away from civil liberties and power to the people which inevitably leads to some form of power concentration (look at the US pre-Obama).
No, the only way a "social revolution" is actually going to take root is when it is an idea whose time has come - like democracy in the 1700's - the violence then was not to establish it, it was to protect it after it was established. Unfortunately, it's not time for this idea - see the comments above - or possibly we are looking in the wrong places for this revolution to occur.
Given the economic landscape it seems to me that China and India may be where this revolution starts, not here in the gold Ol' US of A. I wonder if wen need to guide them in this effort?
Now that I thinka about it from your perspective estcruzer, I agree with you on that. China and India are definitely on the rise, so they are likely to be the next ones to have a revolution. That having been said, we should not guide them at all. If they're going to do it, they need to do it alone.
Although, I do think that a social revolution could still take place in the old powers. If the people here would start having a moderately active interest in politics and world events, we might be able to better steer policy toward better things (ending the war in the middle east, capping pay for bankers, some semblence of a national health care system, alternative engergy. You know. Things that Americans call "socialist," but the rest of the world calls "good."). Mostly what I'd like to see is, putting it very bluntly, people giving a shit.
If the global economic summit consists of a tight ensemble or an epic-sized cast, it still comes across as soap opera.
Walking out doesn't really show the disrespect it once did.
Going after bonuses is class warfare.
No it is not. Its about ensuring honesty, accountability, fairness, and reward for work of real value to society - all things that have been absent from modern banking.
Hasn't anyone noticed? We are a debt-ridden third world country on the edge. As for dictators, we have corporations and banks instead. "For the people, by the people" went out the door with the Patriot Act and others might say long before that.
Agree. Andrew, most Americans need to be de-programmed from thinking the world revolves around them. An idiot would know derugulation of Wall Street is the masterpiece of Republicans. Europeans somehow learn faster, while America refuses to. It fucked up the whole world economy and simply cannot accept responsibility.
In Canada, our government has consistently opposed bank mergers because it knows one cannot put a fox in a chicken den. For some reasons, Americans think the fox would somehow develop into a generous beast.
I see.
Based on the description (here) of the effort, (input-and-outcome),
the 'G 20' could have and should have phoned it in.
Somewhere between Free Enterprise and Fascism is RESPONSIBILITY.
Deregulation of the Banking Industry here (U.S.plus the complete
lack of any sort of 'watch-dogging'or even cursory interest! gave
these greedy, arrogant!,foolhardy and irresponsible "people"
carte blanche to roll the dice with other people's money - with NO COMEBACKS.
What were we expecting? Why is anyone surprised?
It will be 'business as usual', will it?
They played, and will be allowed to continue to play'Brinkmanship For Free'.
The 'big dogs'(and I use the term advisedly) played for their BONUSES.
They were GUARANTEED.
Faced with the outraged SEC'and it's stern and clearly-worded prohibition !
of the offensive 'Bonus Payments', there was no hesitation -
(The contempt of Bank of America alone for this directive -and the SEC-
is breathtaking!
There was no hesitation; these people 'went back' with
clear purpose and a new resolve- to ignore and flaunt the "deal".
Why would they abide by the (signed) agreement?
They have seen it before ;shortly they will see it again.
THE 'G 8' DID NOTHING - NOW THE 'G 20' WILL DO NOTHING.
We may then expect this debacle to be revisited in 15 years- give or take.
Given this "performance", our financial institutions SHOULD rightly fail.
If 'we' sit by and allow this we will deserve what we will surely get.
The problem with banks and brokerage firms and capitalism in general is the pervasive disconnect between performance and rewards.
Of course most of the bankers and brokerage firms that were involved in the melt-down of the world economy should not get bonuses, indeed, they should be put in jail.
But it's the "disconnect" that's key. The G-20 must develop a construct where world finance supports those things which stabilize and invigorate world economies, and not sham investments, which only enrich the few with undeserved commissions and fees.
The parameters for investments should be based on fiscal, environmental and societal benefits that can be empirically demonstrated.
"Bucket bets," and "derivatives" of any kind should be internationally outlawed, and never allowed to see the light of day again.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.