Paying Back the Feds


Over at TNR, Simon Johnson talks about what might happen if Goldman Sachs is allowed to pay back the TARP bailout money it was given back in October.  The government money came with certain restrictions, including restrictions on executive compensation, and Johnson argues that removing these restraints would allow Goldman to go back to the swashbuckling business model that got us into our current mess in the first place.  Plus there’s this:

Another risk is the effects on other banks.  If Goldman can really attract all the talent, which is what they’re arguing, and really go back to an earlier business model, that’s going to take away profits and remove future profitability from other banks, and that could increase the pressure on them.

Hold on a second.  I thought high earners didn’t deserve their pay because it turns out they produced huge losses instead of huge gains?  So why would Goldman Sachs be so eager to hire them all back?  And even if they do, who cares?  The rest of the industry is better off without them.  Isn’t that the party line?

Not anymore, I guess.  Johnson is basically admitting here that if Goldman can use high pay to attract top talent, then they’ll be more profitable and competitors will suffer.  But if that’s the case, no direct cap on executive pay is ever going to stop firms from bidding top talent into the stratosphere.  They’ll always figure a way around any cap we put in place, and trying to keep up is a mug’s game.

Much better is to let them pay whatever they want, and focus instead on ways to shrink both the size and profitability of the industry as a whole.  A limit on bank size is one possibility.  Limits on leverage are another.  Stricter regulation of opaque credit derivatives and off-balance sheet accounting is yet another.  Or, if you want to focus on pay itself, do it indirectly by creating tax advantages for long-term restricted stock grants that motivate better investing behavior.  And needless to say, do this for everyone, not just banks that took TARP funds.  Do this, and deflation of the Wall Street pay bubble will follow naturally.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.