financial perpetuum mobile apprenti-sorcerers (1980, updated 30.6.09)

Private, national & common wealth in the post-socialism/capitalism era
Bewildered by what's been happening, both nationally and globally, in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall?
I.e. where the unwittingly weakened nation-state - formerly a bulwark against plain-levelling & globalization -
no longer tempers the social, economic & other pitfalls foreseen by Marx, Gramsci, Minsky, McCulley,etc.
Where - as the Laffer & Rider Curves illustrate in the tax & the social fields - excessive poor/rich gradients
upset the social fabric, wash away fertility factors with uncontrolled erosive powers & contribute to famine.
Where indeed, as Patrick Martin pointed out, monopolistic capitalism and the associated reckless greed
are no longer kept in check by Adam Smith' invisible hand, i.e. by the balance of contradictory interests.
And where the capacity for self-correction is increasingly inhibited by loss of freedom, mooring & orientation
which led to market frenzies & false alpha birds feeding on hype & bubbles, reminiscent of the Roaring 20s.
IMF & FATF estimate black funds (drugs, tax evasion etc) to be 2-5% of world's GDP (2006: $960-2400bn).
An IMF Report indicates these funds to be increasingly chased under anti-terrorism & ever flimsier pretexts.
Courtesy by the IV Reich's Secret Service, the world has indeed been made hostage of ill-considered rules
which impede more legitimate business than crime. For big time money laundering, the US Treasury set the
standard in 2001 with its 31% confiscatory backup withholding tax on unidentified investors in US securities,
turning foreign bankers from trustees of clients into IRS agents (qualified intermediaries) subject to US laws.
Private equity & hedge funds thus found a government-sponsored access to black funds, while the latters'
entry into subprime markets was also eased by the Internet. Results: predatory lending & systemic risks.
Society's organization needs re-thinking with Plato, G.Duttweiler, M,Yunus, J.M.Arizmendiarrieta etc.
For man's evolution may only be stressed by technological leaps but not accelerated beyond natural limits.
Return on investment rates above productivity gains/organic growth are not sustainable, predatory & usuric.
If driven by managers, lawyers & funds on the back of other stakeholders, M&As are thus Ponzi schemes
where shareholder value adepts can maraud with stacked Monopoly cards, helped by micro-economic laws.
Like compulsory social insurance systems whose doom is delayed or obscured only by inflation, war, etc.
And where the cunniest operators are state-supported by myopic magistrates hood-winked into fiscal deals.
Gary J. Aguirre's US Senate testimony details fraud & market mechanics which were at work before 1929,
e.g. Ponzi structures, unregulated pools of money, siphoning from unsuspecting mutual fund investors, and
abuse-prone market dominance: hedge funds' $1.5 trillion drive half of the $28 trillion NYSE's daily trading.
Tongue-in-cheek, Warren Buffet famously opined: "derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction";
yet, under increasing performance & compliance pressures, some bankers still see a future in fee hunting.
Society wised up against churning of accounts by undelicate trustees, but not yet against macro-parasitism
which feasts on ignorance, sucks & devours a firm's life-preserving substance, & weakens society's pillars.
Which turns economic rat races into societal tailspins with early burn-outs & senior citizens being wasted,
& instills values causing youth to be educated out of sync, resulting in drug, violence & €1000 generations.
With profit-driven quarterly thinking & cost-cuttings also eroding due infrastructure maintenance & renewal,
& democracy's promises ridiculed by Fatf, EU & UN bureaucratic lawmaking as if Berlin Wall fell eastwards.
So why not thinking things over & “Revisiting Das Kapital while some dance on the Titanic”? Iconoclast

.
.

Revisiting Das Kapital while some dance on the Titanic
courtesy by: Swiss Investors Protection Association - url: www.solami.com/capitalism.htm
.../wealth.htm ¦ .../QI.htm ¦ .../1929.htm ¦ .../barbarians.htm ¦ .../buccaneers.htm ¦ .../bubbles.htm ¦ .../caisses.htm
../hedge.htm ¦ ..../goldies.htm ¦ .../swissbanks.htm ¦ .../costbenefit.htm ¦ .../oecdmandate.htm ¦ .../GAFI.htm ¦ .../crime.htm
tks 4 notification of errors, comments & suggestions: +4122-7400362 ¦ swissbit@solami.com

The U.S. Gross National Debt:__

globally floating IOUs tied to US housing: $7.5 trillion
hedge-fund asset growth 2001-06: $0.539 to 1.43 trillion
IRS-protected & FATF-targeted black funds: $1 to 2.4 trillion
M&A totalling in 2006: $3.8 trillion ¦ billion dollar bonus gurus

paycheck devide: food for next revolution

suggestion: see first the more regularly updated index-only
U.S. Federal Reserve Bank: Modern Money Mechanics ¦ Debt-based money, video (E, F, D), comments
U.S. FED: the biggest Ponzi scheme ever - On the imperative to return to constitutional money, video
Global Systemic Crisis - Crise Systémique Globale; the financial perpetuum mobile doesn't work either ¦ M3 fog
How bankers mutated from client confidants to fee-hunting IRS agents in storage, moving & deconstruction business
& let the Swiss Bankers Association nilly-willy torpedo not-invented-here regulations against systemic risks
pork bellies ¦ Subprime crisis ¦ Private equity: Locusts & asset strippers or saviours of clapped-out companies?
1929 crash mechanism spinning again? ¦ TV's Big Brother Ponzi scam ¦ Gold matters ¦ The €1000 Generation
Current players ¦ Past negative headline makers: after a bout with the law, where are they now? ¦ Richistan
Le capitalisme est en train de s'autodétruire ¦ Le nouvel âge du capitalisme: Bulles, krachs et rebonds
Muhammad Yunus' Microcredit: reanimating the sovereign citizen in the post-socialism/capitalism era
Theologen über Geld-Zins-Boden: Carl Amery | Karl Barth | Christoph Blumhardt | Eugen Drewermann |
Ulrich Duchrow | Wilhelm Haller | Hans Kessler | Christoph Körner | Pinchas Lapide | Jürgen Moltmann |
Friedrich Naumann | Leonhard Ragaz | Thomas Ruster | Kurt Scharf | Johannes Ude | barbarians all over
The interest of gold: confidence ¦ Der Zinsertrag von Gold: Vertrauen ¦ L'intérêt de l'or: confiance
Switzerland. tax eldorado for failed golden boys, greed gurus, hedge fund managers & other apprentice-sourcerers?

Albin Michel 1988

And if the Russians were to repeg the ruble to gold?
FUMÉ ROUGE
Gérard Le Roux et Robert Bouchard
extrait (p.204-207; souligné par nos soins)

...
— Qu'est-ce que vous nous conseillez ?
— Très simple. Mettre la pédale douce dans votre propagande contre les Blancs d'Afrique du Sud. Tout le monde sait que la véritable raison de votre embargo, c'est d'empêcher l'or de trouver sa vraie place. Ça c'est votre arme numéro deux, l'arme numéro un étant, depuis quarante ans, d'empêcher les Russes d'accéder à une devise crédible. Mais maintenant, ces deux armes travaillent contre la détente et, bientôt, contre votre économie. Et de toute façon, mettez-vous bien ça dans la tête, quoi que vous fassiez, un jour ou l'autre, les Russes auront une monnaie convertible et crédible" *?
— C'est quoi une monnaie crédible, d'après vous? demanda Crasmianski, sceptique.
— Demandez ça à vingt banquiers ou à vingt politico-financiers et vous aurez quarante réponses différentes. Mais pour l'homme de la rue, c'est très simple. Pour lui, la monnaie crédible, ce n'est rien d'autre qu'un moyen par lequel il se rassure chaque jour sur ce qu'il peut acheter avec ce qu'il a dans la poche: cigarettes, café, machine à laver, restaurant. Et les politiciens et les fonctionnaires auront beau lui expliquer que tout va bien avec des chiffres, des courbes et des statistiques, si son restaurant a augmenté le plat du jour de quinze francs, il se dira que sa monnaie fout le camp. L'or a toujours été et restera la seule monnaie indiscutable et acceptable partout, car il permet d'acheter n'importe quoi. C'est donc l'"inavouable" pour les économistes qui sont payés pour nous faire croire qu'il y a d'autres valeurs plus importantes. L'or est peut-être un système barbare mais...
— Je vois où vous voulez en venir, interrompit "Hot Pants ". Vous pensez que la Russie va faire appel à la simplicité dans un monde, monétairement parlant, fou-fou-fou?
— C'est à peu près ça.
— Quand même, une garantie russe n'est pas une garantie, grommela l'agent américain.
— Faut évoluer, mon vieux. Vous l'avez bien fait en ce qui concerne les armements. Votre Congrès n'a pas admis en la matière les garanties soviétiques...? Ils seront aussi obligés de le faire en ce qui concerne l'économie. Car au fond, quelles sont, en la matière, les garanties de l'Occident depuis dix ans? C'est surtout l'irresponsabilité qui est garantie. Quelles sont les garanties commerciales, alors que n'importe quel avocat un peu futé a le pouvoir d'annuler un contrat signé, si bien qu'un mauvais payeur ou un escroc peut sortir indemne d'une affaire et profiter pendant des années de l'argent volé grâce à son non-respect des accords signés? Les Russes ne sont pas comme ça. Ils discutent dur avant, mais une fois le contrat signé, ils le respectent scrupuleusement. Notre Occident crève de deux choses fondamentales: la variation des monnaies et le manque de moralité en affaires. Tôt ou tard, on cherchera à corriger les deux. Le moment est peut-être arrivé.
— Racontez-nous votre scénario, demanda Crasmianski qui commençait à s'énerver.
— Les Russes vendent, bon an mal an, quatre cents tonnes d'or pour payer leurs achats à l'étranger. Cela représente le tiers du marché mondial. Maintenant, imaginez que les Russes proclament un rouble garanti par l'or. N'oubliez pas que la Russie est le deuxième producteur d'or et que c'est elle qui possède le plus grand stock d'or au monde. Donc, si les Russes disent qu'ils garantissent pour toujours tant d'or pour tant de roubles, on les croira volontiers. Du moins au début. Ça suffit pour faire travailler les méninges et exciter les investisseurs, spéculateurs et autres gros requins. Sachs ne me contredira pas.
— Oui, oui, d'accord, surtout en ce qui concerne la limite dans le temps, répondit Sachs.
— Alors, la Russie n'aura plus besoin de vendre son or qui restera dans ses coffres en garantie de son rouble-papier. Donc, elle retirera du marché les quatre cents tonnes d'or qu'elle vendait chaque année, ce qui représente 35 % de tout l'or vendu dans le monde. Cela fera un gros gros trou sur le marché, voire entraînera une pénurie. Devinez jusqu'où grimpera le prix de ce métal? Devinez la panique des pays dits riches qui n'en ont pas? Devinez l'inquiétude du citoyen qui n'en a pas?»
    «Hot Pants» regardait, avec un sourire un peu moqueur, Crasmianski se gratter le menton.
    «Et pensez à ce chiffre, monsieur Crasmianski, continua Giancarlo: si seulement 0,5 % de tous les titres cotés dans le monde étaient vendus à leur valeur actuelle et qu'avec le montant de cet argent on achète de l'or, on pourrait acheter en vingt-quatre heures le total de la production mondiale sur dix ans. Alors, même si le rouble n'atteignait pas une crédibilité définitive, ils auraient gagné tellement d'argent avec la hausse de l'or qu'ils pourraient se payer ce qu'ils voudraient pendant
des années.
— Nous patinons sur une glace très fine, soupira "Hot Pants". Certains le savent.»
    L'agent Crasmianski leva un œil désapprobateur vers Sachs. Cette perspective apocalyptique le faisait frissonner. Et ce que venait de dire l'Italien apportait de l'eau au moulin de ceux qui affirmaient qu'il y avait une taupe russe haut placée dans la direction des affaires économiques et financières à Washington.
    «Autre chose?
— Oui. La XIXe conférence du Parti qui a entériné la ' politique de Gorbatchev va être suivie d'une autre réunion, autrement plus importante parce qu'elle sera "stratégique".
— Pourquoi "stratégique"?
— Parce que c'est là qu'ils décideront de ce qu'ils vont faire de leur victoire. Laisser les portes de la Russie ouvertes ou les refermer brusquement.
— Je transmettrai, se contenta de dire l'agent américain. Peut-être qu'ils n'ont pas étudié ça à fond. ...

Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie 80/1989

Bibel, Kirchen und Zinswirtschaft
Roland Geitmann

Überarbeitete Fassung eines Vortrags auf einer Tagung der „Internationalen Vereinigung für Natürliche Wirtschaftsordnung“ am 10. September 1989 in Wuppertal-Neviges. – Zuerst veröffentlicht in der „Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie“ 80. Folge (1989), S. 17–24 und danach mehrfach nachgedruckt.

Was Hunderttausende von überschuldeten Haushalten in der Bundesrepublik, Tausende von Firmenkonkursen und dadurch bedingte Familientragödien um uns herum nicht vermochten, bewirken schließlich Hunger und Elend der hoch verschuldeten Entwicklungsländer wenigstens ansatzweise, nämlich dass einzelne Theologen sich öffentlich an biblische Regeln über Zinsen und Schuldenerlass erinnern (1), also daran, dass es verwerflich ist, sich an der Not anderer zu bereichern und mehr zurückzuverlangen, als man leihweise gegeben hat. Der weltweite Skandal, dass wir Reichen im Norden vom Süden nicht nur Schuldentilgung verlangen, sondern auch Zinsen eintreiben, und zwar mehr, als wir Entwicklungshilfe leisten, kann vielleicht auch den Blick dafür schärfen, dass solche Ausbeutung Grundprinzip unserer Wirtschaft geworden ist. Noch wird kaum erkannt, dass in allen Preisen ein erheblicher Zinsanteil steckt, dass vier Fünftel der Verbraucher viel mehr Zinsen zahlen als sie je einnehmen, dass die Verzinsung des Anlagekapitals zu exponentiellem Wachstum unserer Wirtschaft zwingt und damit der Treibriemen ist für Umweltzerstörung, Technisierung, Arbeitslosigkeit, Verarmung, Staatsverschuldung und militärische Rüstung. (2)

Die tödlichen Auswirkungen solcher auf Habsucht und Ausbeutung fußenden Wirtschaftsweise sind der Menschheit im Prinzip seit Jahrtausenden bekannt; Babylon, Ägypten und Rom, aber auch das alte Israel der Könige liefern dafür Anschauungsmaterial. Deshalb kann nicht überraschen, dass sich Regeln zur Geld- und Bodenordnung, und dabei insbesondere das Zinsverbot, wie ein roter Faden durch die Religionsgeschichte, insbesondere auch das Christentum, ziehen. In einer Zeit, welche diese Weisheiten nahezu völlig vergessen hat und in der sich die Folgen dessen dramatisch zuspitzen, mag es hilfreich sein, sich der Erkenntnisse früherer Jahrhunderte zu erinnern und daraus Impulse für die Suche nach einer gerechten Ordnung zu entnehmen.

Das jüdisch-christliche (und auch im Koran verankerte) Zinsverbot hat eine 3000 Jahre alte Geschichte. Theologen der letzten 150 Jahre neigen dazu, die Bedeutung dieses Verbotes rückwirkend zu relativieren und das Anliegen als überholt darzustellen. Deswegen sind viele Interpretationsfragen in dieser Ideengeschichte umstritten. (3)

1 Bibel
1.1 Altes Testament

Das älteste, nämlich das zweite Buch Mose (Exodus) verbietet in Kap. 22 Vers 24/5 das Zinsnehmen: "Wenn du Silber leihst einem aus meinem Volke, dem Armen neben dir, sei gegen ihn nicht wie ein Schuldherr; legt ihm nicht Zins auf.“

In der jüngeren Quelle des dritten Buches Mose (Leviticus) heißt es im Kap. 25 Vers 35-37: „Und wenn dein Bruder verarmt und seine Hand neben dir wackelt, so sollst du ihn festhalten wie einen Fremdling und Beisassen, auf dass er neben dir lebe. Nimm nicht von ihm Zins und Mehrung und fürchte dich vor deinem Gott, auf dass dein Bruder neben dir lebe. Dein Geld gib ihm nicht auf Zins und um Mehrung gib ihm nicht deine Nahrungsmittel.“

Das in seinem Alter umstrittene fünfte Buch Mose (Deuteronomium) fasst das Zinsverbot in folgende Worte: „Du sollst nicht Zins auferlegen deinem Bruder, Zins auf Geld, Zins für Nahrungsmittel, Zins für irgend eine Sache, die man auf Zins leiht. Dem Fremden magst du Zins auferlegen, aber deinem Bruder sollst du nicht Zins auferlegen, damit dich segne der Herr, dein Gott, bei jeglicher Unternehmung deiner Hand in dem Lande, dahin du kommst, um es in Besitz zu nehmen.“

Nach der rabbinischen Lehre umfasst das Zinsverbot alles, was über das Geliehene hinausgeht, jegliches Mehr. Jeder Zins, unabhängig von seiner Höhe, gilt hiernach als verbotener Wucher. Der Hinweis auf den armen Bruder als Zinszahler deutet zwar darauf hin, dass primär das Konsumdarlehen gemeint ist. Dies erlaubt aber noch nicht den in neuerer Zeit gezogenen Gegenschluss, dass das verzinste Produktivdarlehen folglich erlaubt sei. Als zulässig gelten allerdings Geldeinlagen gegen Gewinn- und Verlustbeteiligung, wie sie später auch der Islam aufgreift und in verschiedenen Formen weiter entwickelt.

Das Zinsverbot ist eingebettet in weitere Regeln: das „Erlassjahr“ (5. Mose 15, 1 - 11), wonach in jedem 7. Jahr alle Schulden zu erlassen sind, und das „Halljahr“ (3. Mose 25), das im 50. Jahr den Grundbesitz an die ursprünglichen Eigentümer zurückfallen lässt, so dass der Boden nicht auf Dauer veräußert werden kann und sich sein Preis am Wert der noch ausstehenden Ernten bemisst. Diese für seine Durchsetzbarkeit notwendige Einbettung in Erlassregeln und Bodenrecht hat das Zinsverbot im Laufe der Geschichte verloren - mit schwerwiegenden Folgen.

Sehr deutlich beschränkt das Deuteronomium das Zinsverbot auf Darlehen an Juden und erlaubt die Zinsnahme von Fremden. Dieses sog. Personalitätsprinzip ist jedoch nicht spezifisch jüdisch, sondern kennzeichnet alle antiken und mittelalterlichen Rechtsordnungen (4). Verständlicherweise werden Hilfs- und Liebespflichten nur gegenüber den eigenen Volkszugehörigen auferlegt. Andernfalls wären Fremde sogar begünstigt, wenn sie von Juden Zinsen nehmen dürften, aber an Juden keine zu zahlen hätten. Heute ist solche Unterscheidung in dieser Frage jedoch nicht mehr angemessen. Schon der Prophet Ezechiel (Hesekiel) macht sie nicht mehr: „Wer auf Zins leiht und Zuschlag nimmt, sollte der am Leben bleiben? - Er wird nicht am Leben bleiben! ... Er muss sterben! Sein Blut komme über ihn!" (18, 13) (5)

1.2 Christliche Botschaft

Noch weiter geht Jesus Christus in seinen Forderungen. In seiner Bergpredigt sagt er: „Vielmehr liebet eure Feinde und tut Gutes und leihet, ohne etwas zurückzuerwarten. Dann wird euer Lohn groß sein und ihr werdet Söhne des Höchsten sein." (Lukas 6, 35).

Damit wird das Verbot des Zinsnehmens als selbstverständlich vorausgesetzt und darüber hinaus gefordert, gegebenenfalls auch auf die Rückgabe des Geliehenen zu verzichten. Dies wird noch deutlicher bei der Wiedergabe der Bergpredigt bei Matthäus (5, 38 ff.), wo das Thema „Borgen“ im Zusammenhang mit der Aufforderung angesprochen wird, nach einem Schlag auf den rechten Backen auch den anderen darzubieten sowie dem, der den Rock will, auch den Mantel zu lassen. Anschließend heißt es: ”Gib dem, der dich bittet, und wende dich nicht von dem ab, der von dir borgen will!" (5, 42).

Dass materielles Gewinnstreben und Christusnachfolge unvereinbare Gegensätze sind, wird an vielen Stellen deutlich, etwa in dem Ausspruch, dass ein Kamel leichter durch ein „Nadelöhr“ gehe (womit ein Fußgängertor gemeint ist), als dass ein Reicher ins Reich Gottes komme (Matthäus 19, 24), und in dem markanten Satz: „Ihr könnt nicht Gott dienen und dem Mammon." (Matthäus 6, 24)

2 Kirche
2.1 Frühzeit

Als Quellen hierfür dienen neben den Synoden vor allem die als „Kirchenväter“ und Heilige verehrten altchristlichen Kirchenschriftsteller, die entgegen den geltenden römischen Gesetzen das Zinsnehmen einhellig untersagten (6). Von Lactantius (gest. 330 n.Chr.), einem der höchstgebildeten und gelehrtesten Männer seiner Zeit, stammt folgender Satz:

„Es ist äußerst ungerecht, mehr zu fordern als man gegeben hat. So handeln, das ist seinen Nächsten ausbeuten und auf perfide Weise mit seiner Not spekulieren."

Nachdrücklich verdammte der heilige Gregor von Nyssa (ca. 334 - 394 n.Chr.), griechischer Bischof und bedeutender Theologe und Mystiker, den Zins: „Was ist für ein Unterschied, durch Einbruch in Besitz fremden Gutes zu kommen auf heimliche Weise und durch Mord als Wegelagerer, indem man sich selbst zum Herrn des Besitzes jenes Menschen macht oder ob man durch Zwang, der in den Zinsen liegt, das in Besitz nimmt, was einem nicht gehört?“

Auch Ambrosius (340 - 397), Augustinus (354 - 430) und Hieronymus (331 - 420) verurteilten das Zinsnehmen scharf, obwohl sie sich dadurch heftigen Angriffen aussetzten.

Auf zahllosen frühkirchlichen Synoden wurde das Zinsverbot beschlossen und bekräftigt. Die Synode von Elvira (im Jahr 306) verbot das Zinsnehmen sowohl dem Klerus als auch den Laien. Nach dem christenfreundlichen Mailänder Toleranz-Edikt im Jahre 313 durch Konstantin erwies sich die Kirche prompt um ein Stück angepasster und beschränkte das Zinsverbot auf den Klerus, so die Synode von Arles im Jahr 314 und das Konzil von Nicäa im Jahr 325 wie auch spätere Synoden und Konzilien (7). Eine Unterscheidung zwischen Wucher und Zins gab es indes ebenso wenig wie danach, zu welchem Zweck das Darlehen gegeben wurde, ob zum Konsum oder zum Erwerb (8). Zur Begründung dienten zum einen das Alte und Neue Testament, zum anderen die natürlichen Prinzipien der Gerechtigkeit, wie sie schon in der griechischen Philosophie insbesondere durch Aristoteles formuliert wurden.

2.2 Mittelalter

Allgemeine Geltung erlangte das Zinsverbot erst unter den Karolingern. Nachdem England 787 vorausging, legte Karl der Große der Synode von Aachen im Jahr 789 ein entsprechendes Gesetz vor. Kaiser Lothar bestimmte im Jahr 825: „Wer Zins nimmt, wird mit dem Königsbann belegt, wer wiederholt Zins nimmt, wird aus der Kirche ausgestoßen und soll vom Grafen gefangen gesetzt werden.“

Nach Geltung und Wirkung ist zweifellos das Mittelalter der Höhepunkt des Zinsverbots. Die religiöse Haltung der Menschen, das mittelalterliche Bodenrecht und die zunächst noch vorherrschende Naturalwirtschaft machten dies möglich. Als die Geldwirtschaft zunahm, erleichterten es die immer wieder zum Umtausch aufgerufenen Brakteaten von ca. 1150 bis 1350 (9), das Zinsverbot aufrechtzuerhalten, zumal die von Landwirtschaft und Handwerk ferngehaltenen und auf Geld- und Warenhandel beschränkten Juden die Rolle des Sündenbocks wahrnahmen.

Deshalb konnte das zweite Laterankonzil 1139 beschließen: „Wer Zins nimmt, soll aus der Kirche ausgestoßen und nur nach strengster Buße und mit größter Vorsicht wieder aufgenommen werden. Einem Zinsnehmer, der ohne Bekehrung stirbt, soll das christliche Begräbnis verweigert werden.“

Papst Eugen III. verkündete 1150: „Wer mehr nimmt als die Leihsumme ausmacht, verstrickt sich in die Sünde des Wuchers. Alles, was zur Leihsumme hinzukommt, ist Wucher.“

Und selbstbewusst gegenüber weltlichen Herrschern statuierten die Päpste Alexander III. (1179) und Clemens V. (1311): „Jede Gesetzgebung, die den Zins erlaubt, ist null und nichtig."

Wie diffizil die Materie jedoch bei näherem Hinsehen ist, zeigen die ausführlichen Erörterungen beim heiligen Thomas von Aquin (1224 - 1274), dem bedeutendsten Theologen und Philosophen des Mittelalters. Zwar verurteilt auch er den Zins als in sich ungerecht (unter Berufung u.a. auf Aristoteles): „Das Geld kann nur durch Ausgeben gebraucht werden, also ist dem Gläubiger kein Zins zu vergüten. Auf Zins ausleihen ist Sünde."

Doch anerkennt Thomas nicht nur Miete und Pacht, und zwar bei Dingen, die durch den Gebrauch nicht verbraucht werden, sondern auch Gewinn- und Verlustbeteiligung durch einen Gesellschaftsvertrag und Schadensersatz kraft gesonderter Vereinbarung.

Gedrängt durch die Bedürfnisse der Wirtschaftspraxis entwickelt die Spätscholastik (14./15. Jh.) hieraus eine verzweigte Zinstiteltheorie, welche das Zinsverbot zunehmend durchlöchert. Danach kann der Darlehnsgeber im begründeten Einzelfall Ersatz für ihm entstandenen Schaden oder auch entgangenen Gewinn verlangen, wie auch einen Risikozuschlag und Konventionalstrafe bei verzögerter Rückzahlung, sofern solches gesondert vereinbart wurde. Auch entsprach es dem eigenen Interesse der Kirche, insbesondere dem vieler Klöster, den Rentenkauf anzuerkennen, wodurch sich der Grundstücksverkäufer von dem Käufer eine regelmäßige Leistung versprechen lassen konnte, sei es auf Dauer, sei es einseitig oder beidseitig kündbar. Sobald diese Leistung nicht mehr abhängig war von dem jeweiligen Ertrag eines konkreten Grundstücks, näherte sich ein solches Vertragsverhältnis dem verzinsten Darlehen.

Anerkannt wurde auch die Forderung nach Ersatz von Aufwendungen, die Leihanstalten kirchlicher Orden (Montes pietatis) hatten, die in der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts in italienischen Städten hilfsbedürftigen Menschen gegen Pfand Geld oder andere Dinge liehen.

Sehr umstritten blieb dagegen der Versuch, das Zinsverbot durch einen sogenannten „contractus trinus“ zu umgehen, bei dem durch Koppelung eines Gesellschaftsvertrages mit zwei Versicherungsverträgen eine feste Gewinnbeteiligung und die Rückgabe des geliehenen Betrages vereinbart wurden.

2.3 Neuzeit

Seit dem Ende der Brakteatenzeit konnte sich die Kirche mit dem Zinsverbot nicht mehr durchsetzen. Sobald das Geld wieder als Wertaufbewahrungsmittel geeignet war, sorgten Gewinnsucht, Phantasie und die Vielfalt der wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse für eine rasche Verbreitung des Zinses und damit für eine zunehmende Aufspaltung in Arme und wenige Reiche sowie für den wirtschaftlich-sozialen Niedergang im 14./15. Jahrhundert. Gefördert wurde diese Entwicklung durch studierte Juristen, die das römische Rechtsdenken übernahmen, insbesondere die mit dem römischen Eigentumsbegriff verbundene absolute Verfügungsgewalt, und damit dem römischen Geldgeist zum Durchbruch verhalfen.

Eine solche Entwicklung brachte z.B. einen Jakob Fugger (II., 1459 - 1525) hervor, der in Venedig seine Lehrzeit verbrachte und mit Spürsinn die enormen, aber brachliegenden Geldrücklagen des mittleren und oberen Klerus aufstöberte und heimlich als verzinste Einlagen heranzog, um sie gewinnbringend weiterzuverleihen, insbesondere an Kaiser Maximilian I. gegen Übertragung von Silber- und Kupfermonopolen und an Päpste, für die er führender Bankier wurde und auch den Ablassverkauf organisierte (10). Beiläufig versuchte er auch auf die theologische Meinungsbildung zur Zinsfrage Einfluss zu nehmen, indem er den Theologieprofessor der bayerischen Landesuniversität Ingolstadt Johannes Eck protegierte und im Jahr 1515 eine Scheindisputation in Bologna förderte, bei der Eck für eine generelle Erlaubnis des Zinsnehmens bis 5 % plädierte (11).

Durch Handelsmonopole und Zinsbelastung bewirkte Teuerungen und dementsprechende wirtschaftliche und soziale Not der ländlichen Bevölkerung waren Schubkräfte für die Reformation Martin Luthers (1483 - 1546). In mehreren Schriften wendet er sich leidenschaftlich gegen Wucher und Monopole: „Darum ist ein Wucherer und Geizhals wahrlich kein rechter Mensch; er sündigt auch nicht eigentlich menschlich! Er muss ein Werwolf sein, schlimmer noch als alle Tyrannen, Mörder und Räuber, schier so böse wie der Teufel selbst! Er sitzt nämlich nicht als ein Feind, sondern als ein Freund und Mitbürger im Schutz und Frieden der Gemeinde und raubt und mordet dennoch gräulicher als jeder Feind und Mordbrenner. Wenn man daher die Straßenräuber, Mörder und Befehder rädert und köpft, um wie viel mehr noch sollte man da erst alle Wucherer rädern und foltern, alle Geizhälse verjagen, verfluchen und köpfen. ...“ (12)

Luther geht davon aus, dass Wucher (unabhängig von seiner Höhe) stets vorliegt, wo man Geld leiht und dafür mehr oder Besseres fordert oder nimmt, und dass Wucher Teuerung zur Folge hat und in kurzer Zeit das ganze Land auffrisst. Allerdings nennt auch er Ausnahmen, indem er Schadensersatz bei verspäteter Rückzahlung und bei konkretem Gewinnentgang zubilligt, den „Zinskauf“ (Rentenkauf) über ein „benanntes“ Grundstück in Form eines bestimmten Prozentsatzes des konkreten Ertrags erlaubt und darüber hinaus das „kleine Notwücherlein“ zulässt, das z.B. dann vorliege, wenn eine Witwe außer einer Zinseinnahme für ihr Vermögen sonst nichts zum Leben habe. Trotz der entschiedenen Verurteilung des Zinsnehmens ermahnt Luther in der Praxis, den Zins pünktlich zu zahlen, sofern die Forderung nicht vom Fürsten für ungültig erklärt wurde, und rät diesem, den Zins nicht abrupt zu senken.

Der Reformator Ulrich Zwingli (1484 - 1531) geht in Richtung Säkularisierung einen Schritt weiter, indem er einerseits den Zins für ungöttlich und unchristlich erklärt, andererseits dem Staat das Recht zuerkennt, den Zinsfuß festzusetzen.

Die Nähe zu Handel und Produktion ist noch stärker spürbar bei Johann Calvin (1509 -1564), der das Zinsnehmen erlaubt, wenn es mit Billigkeit und brüderlicher Liebe im Einklang stehe; im Gegensatz zum Wucher könne der Zins nicht unerlaubt sein, da sonst gewinnträchtiger Handel unmöglich sei. „Geld ist dazu da, sich durch wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit zu vermehren." Diese Einstellung hat den Kapitalismus insbesondere in England und Amerika gefördert.

Im 16. Jahrhundert wurde um die Zinsfrage außerordentlich heftig gerungen. Um 1600 schließlich wurde auf evangelischer Seite Luthers prinzipielle Absage an das Zinsnehmen „unauffällig korrigiert und der entstehenden Geldwirtschaft Rechnung getragen.“ (13) Die zunehmende Verquickung von Staat und Wirtschaft, das evangelische Staatskirchentum und die staatlichen Bindungen der theologischen Fakultäten haben das Thema Zins so nachhaltig in der Versenkung verschwinden lassen, dass viele protestantischen Pfarrer heute außer dem missverstandenen Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Talenten (Matthäus 25, 27) hierzu keinerlei Assoziationen mehr haben und im Zins insbesondere kein theologisches Problem mehr sehen (14).

Demgegenüber muss man der Katholischen Kirche bescheinigen, dass sie viel länger und nachhaltiger um die Zinsfrage rang. Obwohl weltliche Mächte zunehmend den Zins ausdrücklich zuließen (so italienische Städte seit dem 14. Jahrhundert, Kurhessen 1550, Bayern 1553, Mecklenburg 1562, Preußen und Polen 1569, zuletzt Frankreich 1789), und trotz heftiger Angriffe bekräftigten über 40 Synoden im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert das Zinsverbot. Veranlasst durch zinsfreundliche Schriften u.a. des italienischen Gelehrten Scipio Maffei erließ Papst Benedikt XIV. im Jahre 1745 die bedeutsame Enzyklika „Vix pervenit“, in der er das Zinsverbot aufrechterhielt, wenn auch mit Hinweis auf die in der Spätscholastik entwickelten externen Ausnahmetitel.

Die Industrialisierung im 19. Jahrhundert und der Siegeszug des Kapitalismus veranlassten jedoch zahlreiche katholische Moraltheologen (insbesondere Pesch, Biederlack, Pruner, Zehentbauer, Ratzinger, Schindler, Cathrein, Linsenmann), das Zinsnehmen zu rechtfertigen (15). Die tatsächlichen Verhältnisse hätten sich verändert; Geld sei fruchtbar geworden, denn generell bestehe die Möglichkeit zu gewinnträchtiger Anlage. Es wird zwischen Zins und Wucher unterschieden bzw. zwischen Konsumtiv- und Produktivdarlehen. Man beruft sich auf das „moderne sittliche Bewusstsein“ und darauf, dass der Zins förderlich sei für Handel und Verkehr. Die tragischen Folgen erkennen nur Wenige.

Nur Einzelne hielten dagegen. Zu nennen sind insbesondere: Karl von Vogelsang (1818 - 1890), Jurist aus Mecklenburg, 1850 konvertiert, gründete in Wien die Monatsschrift für christliche Sozialreform und bekannte, „der Zins ist der Angelpunkt der Sozialen Frage" und Wilhelm Hohoff (1848 - 1923), Pfarrer und Verehrer von Karl Marx, Verfechter einer Vereinigung von Christentum und Sozialismus und entschiedener Vertreter der Arbeitswerttheorie, wonach nur menschliche Arbeit Werte schaffen kann. Aus späterer Zeit sind zu nennen vor allem Anton Orel (1881 - 1959), Jurist und Jugendführer mit seinem zweibändigen Werk „Oeconomia perennis“ (1930), des Weiteren Johannes Kleinhappl (16), der Grazer Theologieprofessor Johannes Ude (17) wie auch Abt Alois Wiesinger und Franz Koutny (18).

Doch die Macht des Faktischen siegte schließlich auch in der Katholischen Kirche. 1870 scheiterte eine zur Bekräftigung des Zinsverbots gestartete Initiative von 22 Bischöfen beim Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil, weil dieses wegen des Ausbruchs des deutsch-französischen Krieges vorzeitig beendet wurde. In seiner Sozialenzyklika „Rerum novarum" vom Jahre 1891 über die Arbeiterfrage spricht Papst Leo XIII. zwar von „gierigem Wucher“, „unersättlichem Kapitalismus“ und davon, dass man den „alles verschlingenden Wucher aus der Welt schaffen" solle, ohne jedoch konkrete Schlussfolgerungen für das Zinsverbot zu ziehen.

Im Kirchengesetzbuch von 1918 (Kanon 1543) versucht die Katholische Kirche in einem kühnen Spagat die traditionelle Lehre und die heutige Geldwirtschaft zu vereinen, indem sie einerseits feststellt, dass der Darlehensvertrag keinen Gewinn rechtfertige, dass andererseits aufgrund (weltlichen) Gesetzes die Vereinbarung eines Gewinnes erlaubt sei.

Die Enzyklika “Quadrogesimo Anno” von Pius XI.(1931) über die Herrschaft des Geldes ist geprägt durch den Verteidiger des Zinsnehmens Oswald von Nell-Breuning. Die Enzykliken „Mater et Magistra“ von Papst Johannes XXIII. (1961), „Populorum Progressio“ von Papst Paul VI. (1967) und „Sollicitudo rei socialis“ von Papst Johannes Paul II. sprechen zwar Symptome an, nicht aber das Zinsverbot.

Die eingehend begründete Initiative von deutschen und österreichischen Laien um Paul Bauschulte und Ernst van Loen (19) an das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962 - 1965) mit dem Ziel, die traditionelle Zinswucherlehre zu erneuern, scheitert an dem Widerstand insbesondere des Kapitalismus-Apologeten Kardinal Johannes Messner. (20) Die ersatzlose Streichung des Zins-Kanons im neuen Kirchengesetzbuch von 1983 markiert das Ende des katholischen Zinsverbots.

Welche Schlussfolgerungen erlaubt diese Entwicklung? Die sich christlich nennende Zivilisation hat den modernen Kapitalismus hervorgebracht; wird sie ihn auch selbst wieder überwinden - oder wird dies vielleicht der Islam besorgen? Müssen wir mit dem römischen Juristen und Dichter Seneca (gest. 65 n.Chr.) resignierend sagen: „Es gibt kein Heilmittel dort, wo das, was man als Untugend angesehen hat, zur Gewohnheit wird"?

Martin Luther geht zwar davon aus, dass mit der Erbsünde auch der Wucher in der Welt bleibt, wird aber nicht müde, die Menschen vor ihm zu warnen: „Wucher muss also sein, aber wehe den Wucherern!" (21)

Zuversichtlicher äußert sich demgegenüber der christliche Sozialpolitiker Friedrich Naumann (1860 - 1919): „Wir zweifeln nicht daran, dass eine Zeit kommen wird, in der sich eine christliche Bewegung gegen den Zins erhebt." (22)

Das Zinsverbot ist Ausdruck eines religiös und sozialethisch wohlbegründeten Anliegens, das heute dringlicher ist denn je: Zu verhindern, dass Menschen andere Menschen ausbeuten, dass die Wirtschaft krebsartig die Erde überwuchert und zerstört, wachsende Geld- und Schuldenberge das Leben zu ersticken drohen und dass der Mensch aus Habgier und Machtsucht Gottes Schöpfung dem Götzen Mammon opfert.

Doch ein isoliertes Zinsverbot, das seine notwendige Ergänzung durch Schuldenerlassregeln und Bodenrecht verloren hat, kann dies nicht leisten. Es wäre sogar schädlich, weil die Geldbesitzer mangels Anreizes ihr Geld zurückhalten würden und den Wirtschaftskreislauf ins Stocken brächten. Es müsste deswegen zumindest durch eine Pflicht zur Weitergabe von Geld ergänzt werden. Aber auch das wäre noch nicht ausreichend, weil das Geld dann zur Bodenspekulation verwendet würde mit all den schlimmen Folgen, die wir in Ballungsräumen erleben. Wie in den mosaischen Gesetzen vorgesehen, gehört also ein die Spekulation ausschließendes Bodenrecht zwingend hinzu.

Doch für eine erwachsen werdende Menschheit haben religiöse Ge- und Verbote ihre Verbindlichkeit verloren, auch wenn es leidvoller Erfahrungen bedarf, sie durch eine aus Einsicht selbst zu entwickelnde Ordnung zu ersetzen. Hierfür enthalten die mosaischen Gesetze entscheidende Hinweise, zum einen den, dass es am Boden nur Nutzungsrechte geben darf, und zum anderen die in den Erlassjahren liegende Erkenntnis, dass auch Geld und Geldforderungen altern und einmal sterben müssen wie alles auf der Erde. Diese beiden Elemente finden sich sowohl bei Silvio Gesell (1862 - 1930) (23) als auch bei Rudolf Steiner (1861 - 1925) (24) und könnten bei sachgemäßer Ausgestaltung und Handhabung den Zins marktwirtschaftlich zum Verschwinden bringen (25).

Solche Vorstellungen stoßen auf Widerstand vor allem bei den Mächtigen dieser Welt, deren Geldthron allmählich schrumpfen würde, aber auch bei den Ausgebeuteten, weil ihre Denkgewohnheiten und Sehnsüchte kapitalistisch geprägt sind. Um diesen Widerstand in und um uns herum zu überwinden, bedarf es großer Anstrengungen. Die Kapitulation der Kirchen vor dem Kapitalismus war wohl notwendig, damit sich die Menschen zu ihrer Selbstverantwortung durchringen. Doch letztlich wird uns nur der religiöse Impuls Kraft und Richtung geben, damit die Katastrophen, die wir erleben, zu Geburtswehen einer neuen Zeit werden (26).

Wer mit offenen Augen die vielfältigen Initiativen und Bewegungen wahrnimmt, z.B. auf dem Markt der Möglichkeiten der Evangelischen Kirchentage (27), entdeckt Keime dieser neuen Zeit. Geld nicht festzuhalten und wuchern zu lassen, sondern kaufend, leihend und schenkend weiterzugeben und mit Boden nicht zu spekulieren, sondern ihn zum Nutzen aller zu pflegen, gehört ebenso zu diesen zukunftsweisenden Verhaltensweisen wie der geschwisterliche Umgang mit Menschen, Tieren und Pflanzen. Damit solche Keime gedeihen können, bedarf es sowohl sich wandelnden Bewusstseins als auch veränderter gesellschaftlicher und wirtschaftlicher Rahmenbedingungen. An beidem müssten die Kirchen mitwirken. Nur wenn sie über Appelle hinaus die konkreten Ansatzpunkte notwendiger Veränderungen benennen, insbesondere auch die Geld- und Bodenordnung, und ihre eigene Verstrickung in den Kapitalismus überdenken, werden die Kirchen ihrer Zielsetzung Gerechtigkeit, Frieden und Bewahrung der Schöpfung gerecht werden.

Anmerkungen
1 So Ulrich Duchrow, Kirchen, Christen, Wirtschaftssysteme. Fragen und Thesen aus westeuropäischer Sicht zur Weiterarbeit am Sao Paulo-Aufruf zur gehorsamen Nachfolge, in: Beilage zur Jungen Kirche, Heft 1/Januar 1988, S. 11 f. mit Hinweis auf S. Gesell; ders., Grenzenloses Geld für wenige oder Leben für alle in den Grenzen des Wachstums' - Kirche und Kapitalismus angesichts der Schuldenkrise. Beilage zur „Junge Kirche", Heft 9, September 1988; Claus F. Lücker, Zinsverbot und Schuldenerlaß (1999); Arno Schelle, Das Problem des Zinsnehmens in der Theologie und Wirtschaft (2001).
2 Dazu Helmut Creutz, Dieter Suhr, Werner Onken, Wachstum bis zur Krise? (1986); Helmut Creutz, Das Geld-Syndrom (5. Aufl. 2001/4).
3 S. dazu und zum Folgenden von zinsfreundlicher Seite Franz Xaver Funk, Geschichte des kirchlichen Zinsverbots (1876); aus zinskritischer Sicht Anton Orel, Oeconomia perennis - Die Wirtschaftslehre der Menschheitsüberlieferung im Wandel der Zeiten und in ihrer umwandelbaren Bedeutung (1930); Richard Drewes, Das Zinsproblem in der deutschsprachigen Moraltheologie von 1850 - 1920 (1976). Zum Alten Testament und zum Judentum vgl. Eberhard Klingenberg, Das israelische Zinsverbot in Torah, Misnah und Talmud (1977).
4 E. Klingenberg a.a.O. (Anm. 3) S. 34 ff., 74 ff.
5 S. auch 22, 12; auch Psalm 15. 5; Sprüche 1, 18 f. und 28. 8; Nehemia 5, 1 ff.
6 Genaue Fundstellen über die folgenden Angaben und Zitate enthalten die in Anm. 3 genannten Werke.
7 U.a. Carthago (419), Arles (443), Tours (461), Orleans(538), Constantinopel (692), Toledo (694) mit schrittweisen Abschwächungen: Sanktion erst nach erfolgloser Abmahnung und ab Diakon aufwärts.
8 Str., s. dazu Dewes (siehe Anm. 3) S. 24 ff.
9 Dazu Hans Weitkamp, Das Hochmittelalter - ein Geschenk des Geldwesens.
10 S. dazu Götz Freiherr von Pölnitz, Jakob Fugger, Bd. 1 (1949), insbes. S. 112, 217 ff.
11 Pölnitz (siehe Anm. 10) S. 314 ff.
12 Kleiner Sermon vom Wucher (1519). Großer Sermon vom Wucher (1520). Von Kaufhandlung und Wucher (1524). An die Pfarrherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen (1540). Der Auszug ist dem Schlussteil der letztgenannten Schrift entnommen; zitiert nach Günter Fabiunke. Martin Luther als Nationalökonom (1963) S.229.
13 Martin Honecker, Art. „Geld“ in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie Bd. XII (1984) S. 287.
14 Um so wichtiger sind die Ausnahmen, u.a, die Pfarrer Eduard Burri (s. sein Buch zusammen mit Fritz Schwarz: Der Zins vom Standpunkt der christlichen Ethik, der Moral und der Volkswirtschaft. o.J., ca. 1935), Friedhelm Spiecker, Walter Bischoff und Dr. Skriver (s. Veröffentlichungen in der Zeitschrift der AfC „Glaube und Tat“).
15 Dazu Drewes (siehe Anm. 3).
16 S. schon seine Schrift Arbeit - Pflicht und Recht. Fragen der Wirtschaftsethik (1902) sowie die von E. v. Loen herausgegebenen Bände Christliche Wirtschaftsethik (1991), Christentum und Kapitalismus (1992), Kirchliche Kapitalismuskritik (1993) und Soziales Christentum (1994).
17 U.a.: Christentum oder Zinswirtschaft? (1938): Christliche Moraltheologen als Helfershelfer des Kapitalismus (1957).
18 Franz Koutny, Genesis und Folgen des Kapitalismus (1972).
19 Appell an das Ökumenische Konzil. Dokumentation zur Eingabe katholischer Laien an die Kommission für das Laien-Apostulat betr. Fragen der religiösen und sozialen Aktion zur Vorbereitung des von S.H. Papst Johannes XXIII. einberufenen Ökumenischen Konzils zu Rom 1962.
20 S. z.B. seine Schriften: Die soziale Frage (1934). Das Naturrecht (1950).
21 In der in Anm. 12 zuletzt genannten Schrift: Fabiunke S. 202.
22 Soziales Programm der Evangelischen Kirche, 1890.
23 Die Natürliche Wirtschaftsordnung durch Freiland und Freigeld (1. Auflage 1916, 9. Auflage 1949).
24 Nationalökonomischer Kurs (1. Auflage 1922; 5. Auflage 1919) S. 164 f., 171 ff.: Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage (1. Auflage 1919; 6. Auflage 1976) S. 87 ff.
25 Dazu u.a. Dieter Suhr. Geld ohne Mehrwert. Entlastung der Marktwirtschaft von monetären Transaktionskosten (1983); D. Suhr/H. Godschalk. Optimale Liquidität. Eine liquiditätstheoretische Analyse und ein kreditwirtschaftliches Wettbewerbskonzept (1986); Jobst von Heynitz, Votum für eine nutzer- und eigentumsfreundliche Reform des Bodenrechts, in: Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 1977. S. 230 ff. Siehe auch die laufenden Veröffentlichungen in folgenden Zeitschriften: Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie sowie Fragen der Freiheit, hrsg. vom Seminar für freiheitliche Ordnung, Bad Boll (www.sffo.de).
26 Um dieses Zusammenwirken von religiöser Motivation und sozialer Phantasie insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Geld- und Bodenordnung bemühen sich die Christen für gerechte Wirtschaftsordnung (CGW) e.V., www.cgw.de; s. auch die in Anm. 14 und 17 - 19 Genannten.
27 Z.B. Oikocredit (www.oikocredit.de) und Erlassjahr (www.erlassjahr.de).

RELATED READING
Hyman Minsky, Wikipedia
"The Plankton Theory Meets Minsky", Paul McCulley, March 2007
"Capitalism's Beast of Burden", Paul McCulley, January 2001
Lombard Street, A Description of the Money Market, Walter Bagehot, 1873

The Financial Instability Hypothesis
by Hyman P. Minsky, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
Working Paper No. 74 May 1992 (Prepared for Handbook of Radical Political Economy,
edited by Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer, Edward Elgar: Aldershot, 1993)

    The financial instability hypothesis has both empirical and theoretical aspects. The readily observed empirical aspect is that, from time to time, capitalist economies exhibit inflations and debt deflations which seem to have the potential to spin out of control. In such processes the economic system's reactions to a movement of the economy amplify the movement--inflation feeds upon inflation and debt-deflation feeds upon debt-deflation.
    Government interventions aimed to contain the deterioration seem to have been inept in some of the historical crises. These historical episodes are evidence supporting the view that the economy does not always conform to the classic precepts of Smith and Walras: they implied that the economy can best be understood by assuming that it is constantly an equilibrium seeking and sustaining system.
    The classic description of a debt deflation was offered by Irving Fisher (1933) and that of a self-sustaining disequilibrating processes by Charles Kindleberger (1978). Martin Wolfson (1986) not only presents a compilation of data on the emergence of financial relations conducive to financial instability, but also examines various financial crisis theories of business cycles.
    As economic theory, the financial instability hypothesis is an interpretation of the substance of Keynes's "General Theory".
This interpretation places the General Theory in history. As the General Theory was written in the early 193Os, the great financial and real contraction of the United States and the other capitalist economies of that time was a part of the evidence the theory aimed to explain. The financial instability hypothesis also draws upon the credit view of money and finance by Joseph Schumpeter (1934, Ch.3) Key works for the financial instability hypothesis in the narrow sense are, of course, Hyman P. Minsky (1975, 1986).
    The theoretical argument of the financial instability hypothesis starts from the characterization of the economy as a capitalist economy with expensive capital assets and a complex, sophisticated financial system. The economic problem is identified following Keynes as the "capital development of the economy," rather than the Knightian "allocation of given resources among alternative employments." The focus is on an accumulating capitalist economy that moves through real calendar time.
    The capital development of a capitalist economy is accompanied by exchanges of present money for future money. The present money pays for resources that go into the production of investment output, whereas the future money is the "profits" which will accrue to the capital asset owning firms (as the capital assets are used in production). As a result of the process by which investment is financed, the control over items in the capital stock by producing units is financed by liabilities--these are commitments to pay money at dates specified or as conditions arise. For each economic unit, the liabilities on its balance sheet determine a time series of prior payment commitments, even as the assets generate a time series of conjectured cash receipts.
    This structure was well stated by Keynes (1972):

"There is a multitude of real assets in the world which constitutes our capital wealth - buildings, stocks of commodities, goods in the course of manufacture and of transport, and so forth. The nominal owners of these assets, however, have not infrequently borrowed money (Keynes' emphasis) in order to become possessed of them. To a corresponding extent the actual owners of wealth have claims, not on real assets, but on money. A considerable part of this financing takes place through the banking system, which interposes its guarantee between its depositors who lend it money, and its borrowing customers to whom it loans money wherewith to finance the purchase of real assets. The interposition of this veil of money between the real asset and the wealth owner is an especially marked characteristic of the modern world." (p.l51)

    This Keynes "veil of money" is different from the Quantity Theory of money "veil of money." The Quantity Theory "veil of money" has the trading exchanges in commodity markets be of goods for money and money for goods: therefore, the exchanges are really of goods for goods. The Keynes veil implies that money is connected with financing through time. A part of the financing of the economy can be structured as dated payment commitments in which banks are the central player. The money flows are first from depositors to banks and from banks to firms: then, at some later dates, from firms to banks and from banks to their depositors. Initially, the exchanges are for the financing of investment, and subsequently, the exchanges fulfill the prior commitments which are stated in the financing contract.
    In a Keynes "veil of money" world, the flow of money to firms is a response to expectations of future profits, and the flow of money from firms is financed by profits that are realized. In the Keynes set up, the key economic exchanges take place as a result of negotiations between generic bankers and generic businessmen. The documents "on the table" in such negotiations detail the costs and profit expectations of the businessmen: businessmen interpret the numbers and the expectations as enthusiasts, bankers as skeptics.
    Thus, in a capitalist economy the past, the present, and the future are linked not only by capital assets and labor force characteristics but also by financial relations. The key financial relationships link the creation and the ownership of capital assets to the structure of financial relations and changes in this structure. Institutional complexity may result in several layers of intermediation between the ultimate owners of the communities' wealth and the units that control and operate the communities' wealth.
    Expectations of business profits determine both the flow of financing contracts to business and the market price of existing financing contracts. Profit realizations determine whether the commitments in financial contracts are fulfilled--whether financial assets perform as the pro formas indicated by the negotiations.
    In the modern world, analyses of financial relations and their implications for system behavior cannot be restricted to the liability structure of businesses and the cash flows they entail. Households (by the way of their ability to borrow on credit cards for big ticket consumer goods such as automobiles, house purchases, and to carry financial assets), governments (with their large floating and funded debts), and international units (as a result of the internationalization of finance) have liability structures which the current performance of the economy either validates or invalidates.
    An increasing complexity of the financial structure, in connection with a greater involvement of governments as refinancing agents for financial institutions as well as ordinary business firms (both of which are marked characteristics of the modern world), may make the system behave differently than in earlier eras. In particular, the much greater participation of national governments in assuring that finance does not degenerate as in the 1929-1933 period means that the down side vulnerability of aggregate profit flows has been much diminished. However, the same interventions may well induce a greater degree of upside (i.e. inflationary) bias to the economy.
    In spite of the greater complexity of financial relations, the key determinant of system behavior remains the level of profits. The financial instability hypothesis incorporates the Kalecki (1965)-Levy (1983) view of profits, in which the structure of aggregate demand determines profits. In the skeletal model, with highly simplified consumption behavior by receivers of profit incomes and wages, in each period aggregate profits equal aggregate investment. In a more complex (though still highly abstract) structure, aggregate profits equal aggregate investment plus the government deficit. Expectations of profits depend upon investment in the future, and realized profits are determined by investment: thus, whether or not liabilities are validated depends upon investment. Investment takes place now because businessmen and their bankers expect investment to take place in the future.
    The financial instability hypothesis, therefore, is a theory of the impact of debt on system behavior and also incorporates the manner in which debt is validated. In contrast to the orthodox Quantity Theory of money, the financial instability hypothesis takes banking seriously as a profit-seeking activity. Banks seek profits by financing activity and bankers. Like all entrepreneurs in a capitalist economy, bankers are aware that innovation assures profits. Thus, bankers (using the term generically for all intermediaries in finance), whether they be brokers or dealers, are merchants of debt who strive to innovate in the assets they acquire and the liabilities they market. This innovative characteristic of banking and finance invalidates the fundamental presupposition of the orthodox Quantity Theory of money to the effect that there is an unchanging "money" item whose velocity of circulation is sufficiently close to being constant: hence, changes in this money's supply have a linear proportional relation to a well defined price level.
    Three distinct income-debt relations for economic units, which are labeled as hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance, can be identified.
    Hedge financing units are those which can fulfill all of their contractual payment obligations by their cash flows: the greater the weight of equity financing in the liability structure, the greater the likelihood that the unit is a hedge financing unit. Speculative finance units are units that can meet their payment commitments on "income account" on their liabilities, even as they cannot repay the principle out of income cash flows. Such units need to "roll over" their liabilities: (e.g. issue new debt to meet commitments on maturing debt). Governments with floating debts, corporations with floating issues of commercial paper, and banks are typically hedge units.
    For Ponzi units, the cash flows from operations are not sufficient to fulfill either the repayment of principle or the interest due on outstanding debts by their cash flows from operations. Such units can sell assets or borrow. Borrowing to pay interest or selling assets to pay interest (and even dividends) on common stock lowers the equity of a unit, even as it increases liabilities and the prior commitment of future incomes. A unit that Ponzi finances lowers the margin of safety that it offers the holders of its debts.
    It can be shown that if hedge financing dominates, then the economy may well be an equilibrium seeking and containing system.
    In contrast, the greater the weight of speculative and Ponzi finance, the greater the likelihood that the economy is a deviation amplifying system. The first theorem of the financial instability hypothesis is that the economy has financing regimes under which it is stable, and financing regimes in which it is unstable. The second theorem of the financial instability hypothesis is that over periods of prolonged prosperity, the economy transits from financial relations that make for a stable system to financial relations that make for an unstable system.
    In particular, over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance.
Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.
    The financial instability hypothesis is a model of a capitalist economy which does not rely upon exogenous shocks to generate business cycles of varying severity. The hypothesis holds that business cycles of history are compounded out of
(i)    the internal dynamics of capitalist economies, and
(ii)   the system of interventions and regulations that are designed to keep the economy operating within reasonable bounds.

References
Fisher, Irving. 1933. "The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions." Econometrica 1: 337-57
Kalecki, Michal 1965. Theory of Economic Dynamics. London: Allen and Unwin Keynes, John Maynard, 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1972. Essays in Persuasion,The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Volume IX. MacMillan, St.Martins Press, for the Royal Economic Society, London and Basingstoke, p 151
Kindleberger, Charles 1978. Manias, Panics and Crashes. New York, Basic Books
Levy S. Jay and David A. 1983. Profits And The Future of American Society. New York, Harper and Row
Minsky, Hyman P. 1975. John Maynard Keynes. Columbia University Press.
Minsky, Hyman P. 1986. Stabilizing An Unstable Economy. Yale University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press
Wolfson, Martin H. 1986. Financial Crises. Armonk New York, M.E.Sharpe Inc.

RELATED READING
"The Plankton Theory Meets Minsky" by Paul McCulley, March 2007
"The Financial Instability Hypothesis" by Hyman P. Minsky, May 1992
Lombard Street, A Description of the Money Market, Walter Bagehot, 1873
Hyman Minsky, Wikipedia

pimco.com 4 January 2001

Capitalism's Beast of Burden

Paul McCulley mcculley@pimco.com

Over the holidays, I reread Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). Three times. That confession will, I’m sure, trigger more than a few e-mails from friends and colleagues, both old and new, urging me to get a life. And they’ll have a point; repeatedly rereading that which has been repeatedly reread could be evidence that the serial re-reader might be half a bubble off plumb.

But there was method in my putative madness: I also reread Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Minsky’s Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (1986), and Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics and Crashes (1978). And there is no way to fully appreciate these latter authors without a recharged keg of Keynes, from whom all their ideas flow. To be sure, Schumpeter would, if he were still alive, no doubt protest any debt to Keynes, as he was a contemporary of Keynes, and it is difficult for contemporaries to give each other credit for anything.

What is more, nobody on Wall Street would be asking Schumpeter to give Keynes any credit. Schumpeter coined the phrase “creative destruction” to describe the nature of entrepreneur-driven capitalism, and the rediscovery of this clever phrase has lifted Schumpeter to the lofty status of Wall Street’s favorite dead economist. Wall Street needed an economic theory to justify paying unsustainable prices for NASDAQ stocks, and found one: Keynes is dead, long live Schumpeter!

What few on Wall Street seem to know is that Schumpeter also believed that capitalism would ultimately morph into socialism, as the prosperity wrought by creative destruction would breed a class of idle intellectuals (yes, Schumpeter’s words!) who would stop it. So, we have the odd happenstance of Wall Street celebrating the work of a scholar forecasting the demise of Wall Street. Just adds credence to my long-held belief that many (most?) on Wall Street quote dead scholars they’ve never actually read!

But enough of that; back to Keynes. And then to Minsky, who openly used Keynes’ work to develop his “Financial Instability Hypothesis,” which provides the best theoretical framework I know for grappling with the current economic and financial markets outlook. As a teaser to get you to continue reading, here’s my conclusion on the current economic outlook: Both Wall Street and Main Street are currently exploding bubbles, and the explosions will self-feed, not self-correct until (1) the Fed eases massively, and/or (2) the federal government proactively reduces the budget surplus. Hope I got your attention.

Three Seminal Ideas From Keynes
When Keynes published the General Theory in 1936, conventional (classical) wisdom held, as he explained, that:
“Investment represents the demand for investible resources and saving represents the supply, whilst the rate of interest is the ‘price’ of investible resources at which the two are equated. Just as the price of a commodity is necessarily fixed at that point where the demand for it is equal to the supply, so the rate of interest necessarily comes to rest under the play of market forces at the point where the amount of investment at that rate of interest is equal to the amount of saving at that rate.”

Keynes argued that this classical interpretation of the rate of interest was correct if, and only if, one assumed that income was constant. Which, of course, he maintained was nonsense, if one wanted to understand the dynamic nature of the capitalist economy. The fact that at any point savings must equal investment at some interest rate implied nothing about whether such “equilibrium” was either sustainable or desirable from a macroeconomic perspective. Again, in Keynes’ words:

“The traditional analysis is faulty because it has failed to isolate correctly independent variables of the system. Saving and Investment are the determinates of the system, not the determinants. They are the twin results of the system’s determinants, namely, the propensity to consume, the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital and the rate of interest. These determinants are, indeed themselves complex and each is capable of being affected by prospective changes in the others. But they remain independent in the sense that their values cannot be inferred from one another. The traditional analysis has been aware that saving depends on incomes but it has overlooked the fact that income depends on investment, in such fashion that, when investment changes, income must necessarily change in just that degree which is necessary to make the change in saving equal to the change in investment.”

This insight from Keynes was essentially the birth of macroeconomics, undermining the microeconomic-driven notion that savings drives investment. Quite to the contrary, Keynes argued: Investment drives income, and income drives savings. Thus, increased investment will beget increased income, which will, in the fullness of time, beget the necessary savings to pay for the increased investment! Powerful, powerful stuff, especially when Keynes was writing in the 1930s; investment and savings equaled each other, as they surely must as a static accounting matter, but they equaled each other at a level of national income consistent with twenty-five percent unemployment.

Keynes’ breaking of the analytical tyranny of the Saving = Investment tautology was the basis for his advocacy of increased government investment, if private investment was insufficient to increase employment. And, in fact, that’s what most of today’s investment community knows about Keynes – that man that legitimized illicit, intimate relations with budget deficits! What Keynes actually did was legitimize clear thinking about macroeconomics, as distinct from microeconomics, demonstrating that what holds for the individual need not hold for an economic system. While it can be rational for the individual to increase his/her propensity to save when facing hard times, the collective effect of all individuals trying to do so at the same time will be to ensure hard times!

Yes, Keynes did give savings a bad name, I suppose, but for a good reason. Capitalism, as Keynes’ contemporary Schumpeter intoned, is about entrepreneur-inspired investment. More specifically, capitalism flourishes where there is a will for investment. Which brings us to Keynes’ second seminal contribution to macroeconomic thought: both the will and the wallet of capitalism are subject to the whims of the human spirit. First, on the matter of will, Keynes noted:

“There is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than on a mathematical expectation, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as a result of animal spirits – of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. Enterprise only pretends to itself to be mainly actuated by the statements in its own prospectus, however candid and sincere. Only a little more than an expedition to the South Pole, is it based on an exact calculation of benefits to come. Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters, leaving us to depend on nothing but mathematical expectations, enterprise will fade and die; though fears of loss may have a basis no more reasonable than profits had before.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! Armed with the macroeconomic insight that the capitalist causal chain runs from investment to income to savings, not the other way ‘round, Keynes enriched his analysis by observing that entrepreneurs are human beings, not a bunch of Adam Smithian invisible hands. Not exactly profound, you say, and you’re right. But it is important to understand the straightjacket of the putative macroeconomics of the time, which was really nothing more than classical microeconomics in drag. After all, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon’s advice in 1931 to President Herbert Hoover had been to:

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

Keynes was simply observing the consequences of Mellon’s advice: entrepreneurs who are being liquidated do not have the animal-spirited will to invest! Keynes also observed that they did not have the wallet to invest. Which became the basis of what I consider to be Keynes’ third seminal contribution to macroeconomics: public capital markets, notably public equity markets, are both a boon and a bane to the capitalist process. Again, Keynes in his own words:

“With the separation between ownership and management which prevails today and with the development of organized investment markets, a new factor of greater importance has entered in, which sometimes facilitates investment but sometimes adds greatly to the instability of the system. In the absence of security markets, there is no object in frequently attempting to revalue an investment to which we are committed. But the Stock Exchange revalues many investments every day and the revaluations give a frequent opportunity to the individual (though not to the community as a whole) to revise his commitments. It is as though a farmer, having tapped his barometer after breakfast, could decide to remove his capital from the farming business between 10 and 11 in the morning and reconsider whether he should return to it later in the week.
But the daily revaluations of the Stock Exchange, though they are primarily made to facilitate transfers of old investments between one individual and another, inevitably exert a decisive influence on the rate of current investment. For there is no sense in building up a new enterprise at a cost greater than that at which a similar existing enterprise can be purchased; whilst there is an inducement to spend on a new project an extravagant sum, if it can be floated off on the Stock Exchange at an immediate profit.”

Now you know where Tobin found his Q! Investment is not only subject to vagaries in the state of the entrepreneurs’ human spirit, but also to vagaries in the state of Wall Street equity speculators’ courage. Yes, speculator, as Keynes declared in no uncertain terms:

“If I may be allowed to appropriate the term speculation for the activity of forecasting the psychology of the market, and the term enterprise for the activity of forecasting the prospective yield of assets over the whole life, it is by no means always the case that speculation predominates over enterprise. As the organization of investment markets improves, however, the risk of the predominance of speculation does, however, increase. It is rare, one is told, for an American to invest ‘for income;’ and he will not readily purchase an investment except in the hope of capital appreciation. This is just another way of saying that, when he purchases an investment, the American is attaching his hopes, not so much to its prospective yield, as to a favorable change in the conventional basis of valuation, i.e. that he is, in the above sense, a speculator. Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.”

Smart man, that Keynes. He effectively invented the field of macroeconomics, which is founded on the proposition that what holds for the individual does not necessarily for a collection of individuals operating as an economic system. This principle is sometimes called the “fallacy of composition,” and sometimes called the “paradox of aggregation.” But we need not resort to fancy labels to define the common sense of macroeconomics. Anybody who’s ever been a spectator at a crowded ball game has witnessed the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics: from a micro perspective, it is rational for each individual to stand up to get a better view; but from a macro perspective, each individual acting rationally will produce the irrational outcome of everybody standing up, but nobody having a better view.

Minsky Takes Keynes To The Next Level
Hyman Minsky is not a household name on Wall Street. I predict, however, that within the next year, his name will be rolling off tongues like Schumpeter does now. Well maybe not, because Minsky’s insight doesn’t roll off the tongue like “creative destruction.” Rather, his huge contribution to macroeconomics comes under the label of the “Financial Instability Hypothesis.” Minsky openly declared that his Hypothesis was “an interpretation of Keynes’ General Theory.” Minsky’s key addendum to Keynes’ work was really quite simple: providing a framework for distinguishing between stabilizing and destabilizing capitalist debt structures. Here’s a concise summary of Minsky’s work, written by his own hand in 1992:

    "Three distinct income-debt relations for economic units, which are labeled as hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance, can be identified. Hedge financing units are those which can fulfill all of their contractual payment obligations by their cash flows: the greater the weight of equity financing in the liability structure, the greater the likelihood that the unit is a hedge financing unit. Speculative finance units are units that can meet their payment commitments on ‘income account’ on their liabilities, even as they cannot repay the principle out of income cash flows. Such units need to ‘roll over’ their liabilities – issue new debt to meet commitments on maturing debt. For Ponzi units, the cash flows from operations are not sufficient to fill either the repayment of principle or the interest on outstanding debts by their cash flows from operations. Such units can sell assets or borrow. Borrowing to pay interest or selling assets to pay interest (and even dividends) on common stocks lowers the equity of a unit, even as it increase liabilities and the prior commitment of future incomes.
    It can be shown that if hedge financing dominates, then the economy my well be an equilibrium-seeking and containing system. In contrast, the greater the weight of speculative and Ponzi finance, the greater the likelihood that the economy is a deviation-amplifying system. The first theorem of the financial instability hypothesis is that the economy has financing regimes under which it is stable, and financing regimes in which it is unstable. The second theorem of the financial instability hypothesis is that the over periods of prolonged prosperity, the economy transits from financial relations that make for a stable system to financial relations that make for an unstable system.
    In particular, over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move to a financial structure in which there is a large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise infla-tion by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make positions by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.”

Smart man, that Minsky. And also exceedingly prescient. He passed away in 1996, as financing patterns of the New Economy were following precisely his script, moving progressively toward Ponzi units. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve did indeed declare the economy to be in an inflationary state (even if it wasn’t!), and attempted to exorcise the (nonexistent!) inflation with monetary constraint. And, lo and behold, the Ponzi finance units have evaporated over the last year, and speculative finance units have morphed into Ponzi units. Risk asset prices have collapsed and, now, the economy faces the risk of a more generalized collapse of asset values.

Message to Washington: Print And/Or Give Back Twenties
Yesterday’s 50 basis-point Fed funds rate cut was a very positive signal that Fed policy makers grasp that we’re facing a debt-deflation Minsky Moment. But that was all it was. The state of both business and household balance sheets is rotten, and the mere promise of monetary reflation will not fix things; monetary reflation itself is needed. Put more bluntly, the Fed must turn cash into trash — real short rates must come down a lot, and stay down! And if the dollar goes south along the way, so be it. The objective of monetary policy must be to ease until capitalists regain their animal-spirited urge to act like capitalists, fleeing liquidity for the hope of capital gains. Sustainable higher stocks prices and sustainable tighter credit spreads will be the appropriate gauges for determining when enough Fed easing is enough.

And if the Fed delays, or refuses, to explicitly pursue monetary reflation, fiscal policy authorities will have very sound macroeconomic grounds for taking up the charge. Indeed, in the midst of a Minsky Moment, the restorative power of monetary reflation is by definition truncated, so some degree of fiscal stimulus is presently warranted, even if the Fed does vigorously pump the monetary keg. And make no mistake, if fiscal stimulus can be “justified,” it will be pursued. As my Washington savvy colleague Bill Powers wisely reminds me, it is actually quite easy to envision a bipartisan competition to see which side can give away more goodies, circa the summer of 1981 (for those of us old enough to remember!).

Debt deflation is a beast of burden that capitalism cannot bear alone. It ain’t rich enough, it ain’t tough enough. Capitalism’s prosperity is hostage to the hope that policy makers are not simply too blind to see.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission.

DIE NEUE ORDNUNG Dezember 2003

Islamische Ökonomie und Christliche Wirtschaftsethik
Perspektiven eines interkulturellen Dialogs
Dieter Weiss

I. Die Wiederentdeckung der Wirtschaftsethik

Das Thema Wirtschaftsethik hat eine bedrängende Aktualität gewonnen. Millio-nen von Kleinaktionären sehen ihre Alterssicherung durch Firmenpleiten in Fra-ge gestellt. Das Jahr 2002 brachte die größten Firmenkonkurse in der Wirt-schaftsgeschichte der USA und des Westens überhaupt. Bilanzfälschungen und hemmungslose Selbstbereicherung der Firmenleitungen machten Schlagzeilen. Auf den Titelseiten renommierter Wirtschaftszeitungen sah man Vorstände in Handschellen. Ist der westliche Kapitalismus ethisch am Ende? So fragten selbst konservative Schweizer Blätter. Wo blieb das protestantische Leistungsethos, das Max Weber herausgestellt hatte, wo – mit Luther – die Leitvorstellung des Berufs als Berufung? Als religiös verankerte, freudig-diszipliniert erfüllte Pflicht gemäß preußischem Beamtenethos? Calvin wertet gar den hart erarbeiteten wirt-schaftlichen Erfolg als Gottesgnadenerweis: Reichtum als sichtbares Zeichen schon zu Lebzeiten, daß sein Erwerber nicht zur ewigen Verdammnis verurteilt sei. Ohne diese – heute weithin unbewußte – religiöse Triebfeder wäre der Sie-geszug des Kapitalismus gar nicht erklärbar. Inzwischen beherrscht er die globa-lisierte Weltwirtschaft. Die Globalisierungsgewinner sehen wir überwiegend nur im Westen, seine Verlierer weitgehend in der Dritten Welt, so auch im islami-schen Orient.1 Dieser ist seit 14 Jahrhunderten Partner, Rivale und zeitweilig auch Gegner des christlich geprägten Europas.

II. Verunsicherungen der islamischen Welt

Über 700 Jahre standen die Muslime in Spanien. Jahrhunderte lang kontrollierten sie das südliche und östliche Mittelmeer. Der Koran hatte ihnen, von Gott wört-lich offenbart, die führende Stellung in der Welt verheißen. Der triumphale Sie-geszug von Spanien bis nach Indien schien die göttliche Prophezeiung zu bestä-tigen. Der allmähliche Verfall mußte die Furcht hervorrufen, daß der Ablauf der Geschichte gestört sei. Unvorstellbar für die Gläubigen, daß der Koran irren könnte. Also mußte man die enttäuschende Wirklichkeit verdrängen. Die Ant-wort vieler Muslime auf die unbewältigte Moderne heißt: Rückkehr zur Reinheit des Glaubens, strikte Befolgung der religiösen Gebote, Wiedergewinnung des rechten Weges, Besinnung auf die islamischen Regeln für Wirtschaft und Gesell-schaft.2 Auch im Westen erleben wir die Wiedereinforderung ethischer Grund-sätze vorrangig auch in der Wirtschaft. Sollen Gewinnmaximierung und share-holder value einzige Richtschnur der Unternehmensführung sein? Christliche Ordensgeistliche beraten deutsche Vorstände als Ethik-Consultants. Gleichzeitig wachen islamische Rechtsgelehrte als Berater Islamischer Banken über die Ein-haltung religiöser Gebote.

Vieles im Orient ist dabei handfestes Interessenkalkül, Marketing-Instrument für fromme Kundengruppen wie ehemalige ägyptische oder pakistanische Gastarbei-ter in Saudi Arabien. Dort waren sie dem strengen saudischen Islam ausgesetzt. Als Rückkehrer wollen sie ihre Ersparnisse ertragreich, aber unter Beachtung des islamischen Zinsverbotes anlegen. Sie suchen deshalb Möglichkeiten einer isla-misch korrekten Form der Gewinn- und Verlustbeteiligung an ethisch orientier-ten Unternehmen. Islamische Investmentgesellschaften nutzten die Marktlücke. Der Zusatz „islamisch“ dient ihnen oft als Aushängeschild, als Firmen-Image, im modernen betriebswirtschaftlichen Jargon: als corporate identity.3 Tiefgreifender ist die Verunsicherung der islamischen Welt angesichts globaler Umbrüche und unabsehbarer Risiken wie der Bedrohung durch Wasserknappheit, Ausbreitung der Wüsten, militärische Konflikte, technologische Revolutionen, globalisierte Märkte, auf denen die eigenen Industrieprodukte nicht wettbewerbsfähig sind, auch nicht in der Konkurrenz mit den Entwicklungsländern Süd- und Ostasiens.

Deshalb die Suche nach Rückversicherung im Glauben, deshalb die strikt ortho-doxen Interpretationen der religiösen Schriften – etwa bezüglich der beschränk-ten Rolle der Frau, des archaischen Strafrechts etc. So hofft man, die den Musli-men von der Offenbarung des Koran zugewiesene Führungsrolle in der Welt wiederzugewinnen. Die islamische Geschichte kennt ja keine europäische Auf-klärung, keine Trennung von Staat und Kirche, keine textkritische Theologie, keine – mit Immanuel Kant – „Befreiung von der selbstverschuldeten Unmün-digkeit“. Das Heil wird in der buchstabengenauen Befolgung der überlieferten religiösen Gebote gesucht. Richtschnur ist auch die beispielhafte Lebens- und Regierungspraxis des Propheten Mohammed als religiöser und politischer Führer der Stadtgemeinde Medina seit 622 n.Chr. Doch wie soll die strikte Befolgung von Vorschriften des 7. Jahrhunderts Lösungen für die Probleme des 21. Jahr-hunderts liefern, fragt man im Westen. „Der Islam ist die Lösung“, schallt es aus dem Orient zurück. „Gute Musliminnen sein wird uns von allen Problemen be-freien“, versichern verschleierte Studentinnen an den Universitäten.

III. Elemente einer islamischen Wirtschaftsordnung

Eine Reihe von Regierungen haben die Islamisierung der Wirtschaft zum politi-schen Programm erhoben: Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi-Arabien, und dies viel-fach zur Legitimierung ihrer Herrschaft gegenüber den eigenen Bevölkerungen, die zu 30 bis 50 % immer noch Analphabeten sind. Dabei geht es auch um die Einbettung menschlichen Handelns in ethische Grenzen. Schrankenloser Kapita-lismus erscheint ebenso wenig annehmbar wie totalitäre Ordnungen, die die menschliche Freiheit leugnen. Kapitalismus wie Sozialismus vernachlässigen aus islamischer Sicht die spirituelle Dimension zugunsten materieller Befriedigung.

Solche Vorstellungen sind ja auch den christlichen Kirchen nicht fremd. Glei-ches gilt für eine Reihe weiterer islamischer Prinzipien:

Allah ist alleiniger Eigentümer aller Dinge. Der Mensch ist immer nur ihr Treu-händer auf Zeit. Diese Sicht legt eine gelassenere Einstellung zur Anhäufung materieller Güter nahe.

Gleiche Grundrechte für alle: Recht auf Leben, auf Freiheit, auf menschenwür-dige Behandlung, auf Besitz, wenn er auf ethisch einwandfreie Art erworben wurde, d. h. durch eigene Arbeit, Erbschaft oder Almosen. Andrerseits verleiht Allah den Menschen unterschiedliche Begabungen und soziale Positionen, und diese sind zu respektieren.

Bescheidenheit im Lebenswandel. Im Gegensatz zur christlichen Wertschätzung der Armut als „kürzestem Weg ins Himmelreich“ ist im Islam ein angemessener Lebensstandard erwünscht. Verboten ist Luxus. Er würde nur die menschliche Gier steigern und wäre dem spirituellen Heil abträglich. So gilt der extrem auf-wendige Lebensstil der Herrscher in den Erdölstaaten als schamlos und anstößig. Nicht von ungefähr stammen viele Al-Qaida-Kämpfer aus Saudi-Arabien, und das Königshaus hat Anlaß, sie zu fürchten, und ihre Aktivitäten großzügig in anderen Ländern zu finanzieren.

Solidarität und Brüderlichkeit. Jeder einzelne ist verantwortlich für das Wohler-gehen seiner Nachbarn. Wohlhabende müssen die Bedürftigen unterstützen und ihre Würde respektieren. Wesentliches Instrument dafür ist die Almosenabgabe Zakat mit rund 2,5 Prozent des Vermögens an die Armen. Die Massenarmut im heutigen Orient dürfte es nach dem islamischen Gesellschaftsbild also gar nicht geben. Sie trägt deshalb zur Identitätskrise der Muslime bei.

Soziale Gerechtigkeit ist Grundprinzip allen Handelns, auch in der Wirtschaft. Auch davon kann in der modernen islamischen Welt keine Rede sein, weder innerhalb einzelner Länder noch bei der Verteilung des Erdölreichtums an arme Nachbarländer.

Eine Fülle von Geboten und Verboten regelt das wirtschaftliche Handeln im einzelnen. Die wesentlichen Leitlinien sind auch aus christlicher Sicht nachvoll-ziehbar: Der Lebensunterhalt muß durch eigene, sorgfältige Arbeit erworben werden. Familienmitglieder, Nachbarn und Waisen sind angemessen und re-spektvoll zu versorgen. Die Almosenabgabe Zakat dient nicht nur der Unterstüt-zung der Armen, sondern auch der Verhinderung einer Anhäufung von Reichtum in den Händen weniger. Horten, Luxuskonsum, Spekulation, Zins und Wucher sind verboten. Sparen wird empfohlen. Verträge bedürfen der Schriftform und sind einzuhalten. Gesundheitsschädigende Produkte wie Schweinefleisch und Alkohol sind verboten. Wir sehen also das Leitbild einer Wirtschaft auf der Grundlage sozialer Gerechtigkeit, ökonomischer Selbständigkeit, Selbstverant-wortung und Leistungsfähigkeit. Mit Sorgfalt getane Arbeit sorgt für die Befrie-digung der materiellen und spirituellen Bedürfnisse. Betont werden emotionale und soziale Ausgewogenheit und das Verbot, durch unkontrollierte Gier Schaden in der sozialen Umwelt anzurichten. Die Ressourcen dürfen nicht unproduktiv und ethisch fragwürdig mißbraucht werden. Denn ihr alleiniger Eigentümer bleibt ja Allah, der sie dem Menschen nur treuhänderisch für eine begrenzte Lebensspanne überläßt. Solche Vorstellungen unterscheiden sich offensichtlich kaum von christlichen Normen. Sie stimmen weithin überein mit wirtschaftsethi-schen Aussagen der Kirchenväter wie Augustinus bis hin zu zeitgenössischen Forderungen der katholischen Soziallehre.

IV. Wiedergewinnung von Interpretationsspielräumen

Es ist immer wieder bewegend, welche Verständigungsmöglichkeiten sich im Dialog mit Muslimen eröffnen, wenn man ein grundlegendes Einverständnis über elementare ethische Grundlagen zu erkennen gibt, so wie auch über die Unausweichlichkeit einer Umorientierung – im Orient wie im Okzident – vor allem angesichts der sichtbar gewordenen ökologischen Grenzen unserer Indust-riegesellschaften und der Erfahrung zunehmender Klimakatastrophen.

Das Problem besteht darin, daß sich aus elementaren ethischen Aussagen ganz unterschiedliche Wirtschafts- und Sozialordnungen ableiten lassen. Wie gestaltet man konkrete Politiken für das 21. Jahrhundert? Die Regierungspraxis des Pro-pheten Mohammed im Stadtstaat Medina des 7. Jahrhunderts bietet da wenig an Anleitungen. Entsprechend vielfältig stellt sich die Islamisierung der Wirtschaft in der Praxis dar. Die Islamische Republik Iran hat ihr ganz eigenes System von Institutionen aufgebaut – von der herausgehobenen religiös-politischen Führer-rolle des Staatspräsidenten bis zu den Befugnissen des Parlaments und des Wächterrats der Verfassung, der jedes Gesetz auf seine Islamverträglichkeit überprüft. Ganz anders stellen sich Militärregime wie Pakistan und der Sudan dar. Die Monarchie Saudi-Arabien, Hüter der Heiligen Stätten des Islam, hat wiederum ihre eigenen Vorstellungen von einer islamischen Gesellschaft und der Machtsicherung des Herrscherhauses. Die religiöse Überlieferung betont die Bedeutung der Almosenabgabe, der sog. Zakat. In manchen Ländern erhebt man heute 2,5 Prozent auf das Vermögen für den Staatshaushalt. In alter Zeit ging es um direkte Unterstützung der Bedürftigen, mit unterschiedlichen Abgabesätzen auf Viehherden und andere Vermögenswerte. Zur Zeit des Propheten reichte dies offenbar aus, um die Armen und Bedürftigen zu versorgen.

In Pakistan unter Präsident Zia ul Haq aber war das Mißverständnis total. Er verkündete die Islamisierung der Wirtschaft, um politische Unterstützung der Massen zu gewinnen, strich einfach alle bisherigen Steuern als angeblich unis-lamisch und ersetzte sie durch die Almosensteuer Zakat mit 2,5 Prozent auf das Vermögen. Während die Wohlhabenden steuerlich massiv entlastet wurden, brach der Staatshaushalt mangels hinreichender Einnahmen zusammen. Statt vom Buchstaben der heiligen Texte hätte man ja auch von ihrem geistigen Kern ausgehen können. Die Grundgedanken islamischer Brüderlichkeit, Solidarität, Gleichheit vor Gott, sozialer Gerechtigkeit wären umzusetzen in Problemlösun-gen für die Gegenwart, statt sich an historisch überholten Regelungen des 7. Jahrhunderts festzuhalten. So wäre von der Forderung nach sozialer Gerechtig-keit ausgehend ein modernes Steuersystem zu entwerfen, welches islamischen Gesellschaftsbildern entspricht. Wie versteht sich die Gemeinschaft der Gläubi-gen, die sog. islamische Umma, als Teil der Weltgemeinschaft und ihrer unter-schiedlichen Kulturen und Religionen? Es kann doch nicht mehr ernstlich von einer islamischen Führungsrolle die Rede sein, wie sie der Koran den Muslimen zuweist. Bedarf es einer modernen Interpretation des Koran? Geht es bei der Modernisierung der Wirtschaft mit islamischem Vorzeichen nicht um weit mehr als um Zinsverbot und Almosen? Provokativ gefragt: Sind die in Mitteleuropa üblichen progressiven Einkommensteuern mit ihrer steigenden Belastung höhe-rer Einkommen in der Größenordnung von 30 bis 50 Prozent dem Geiste nach „islamischer“ als die Wiedereinführung einer Zakat-Abgabe von 2,5 Prozent auf Vermögensgegenstände? Stehen wir dem Prinzip sozialer Gerechtigkeit, Brüder-lichkeit und Solidarität näher als beispielsweise Pakistan, das seit Jahrzehnten von einer Militärclique regiert und traditionell von 20 mächtigen Familien be-herrscht wird?

Pakistan gehört zu den unterentwickeltsten Ländern der Erde, gemessen an Pro-Kopf-Einkommen, Analphabetenrate, Einschulungsquote von Mädchen, Lebens-erwartung, Säuglingssterblichkeit und Erschöpfung natürlicher Ressourcen. Die Anliegen der frühen islamischen Reformer schon seit Anfang des 19. Jahrhun-derts wurden also gründlich verfälscht, so auch im Sudan und in Afghanistan unter den Taliban. Die Diskussionen werden von orthodoxen Rechtsgelehrten beherrscht. Sie lehnen eine moderne Interpretation der religiösen Texte ab, weil es sich um das göttlich offenbarte Wort handele. Fachlich aber sind sie gar nicht in der Lage, den ethischen Kern der religiösen Botschaft – etwa denjenigen der islamischen Brüderlichkeit – in modernen Kategorien zu formulieren und in konkrete Politiken für die Gegenwart umzusetzen. Es fehlt ihnen dafür das mo-derne fachliche Handwerkszeug.

Diese Problematik hat eine lange Geschichte. Interpretationsspielräume für die Umsetzung der göttlichen Offenbarung erschienen den Rechtsgelehrten während der islamischen Expansion der frühen Jahrhunderte und angesichts der wachsen-den Machtausdehnung sinnvoll und geboten. Man nannte diese Deutungsfreiheit „Ijtihad“, das Tor der freien Urteilskraft. Von Spanien bis nach Indien funktio-nierte das. Es entstand ein blühender Wirtschafts- und Kulturraum. Doch dann setzte sich fatalerweise ab dem 9. Jahrhundert die Auffassung durch, daß alle wichtigen Streitfragen nunmehr hinreichend diskutiert und abschließend verbind-lich entschieden seien. Das Tor der intelligenten Urteilskraft Ijtihad wurde ge-schlossen. Der dynamische Anpassungsprozeß des islamischen Rechts an die jeweils neuen Anforderungen der Realität wich dogmatischer Erstarrung. Der Niedergang setzte ein, von dem sich die islamische Welt bis heute nicht erholt hat. Kritische islamische Denker forderten immer wieder, das Tor erneut zu öffnen. Vergeblich. Oft wurden ihre Bücher verbrannt. Manche traf das Todesur-teil wegen Abfalls vom Glauben.

V. Islamisches und christliches Zinsverbot und seine Umgehungen

Ein zweites Diskussionsthema neben der Almosensteuer Zakat stellt das islami-sche Zinsverbot dar. Wie organisiert man ein Bankwesen ohne Zins, also ohne einen Preis für Kapital? Auch im christlichen Abendland gab es massive Vorbe-halte gegen den Zins. Vielfach wurde er mit Wucher gleichgesetzt, der die ver-schuldeten Armen ausbeute. Dies führte schon vom 1. bis 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. zu einem strikten kirchlichen Zinsverbot. So entschied das Konzil von Elvira in Spanien im Jahre 360: Wer Zins nimmt, wird exkommuniziert. Nach einer Phase der Abschwächung des Zinsverbots wurde dieses von der römisch-katholischen Kirche vom 8. bis 14. Jahrhundert erneut strikt verkündet. Ab dem 14. Jahrhun-dert kam es zu einer Lockerung, sofern es sich nicht um Konsumkredite handel-te. Für die immer wichtiger werdenden produktiven Investitionen, die zuneh-mend mit Fremdkapital finanziert werden mußten, galten Ausnahmen vom Zins-verbot, wenn eine der folgenden vier Bedingungen erfüllt war.4

Eine erste Ausnahme war gerechtfertigt im Falle eines „damnum emergens“, d. h. eines dem Gläubiger durch die Kredithergabe entstehenden finanziellen Scha-dens. Eine zweite Ausnahme galt für den Fall des „lucrum cessans“, d. h. eines durch die Kredithergabe vereitelten anderweitig möglichen Gewinns des Gläubi-gers. Die dritte Ausnahme wurde gewährt bei „periculum sortis“, d. h. wenn der gewährte Kredit einem hohen Ausfallrisiko unterlag, z. B. im Seehandel durch Schiffbruch oder Piraterie. Die vierte Ausnahme galt für „titulus morae“, d. h. für die verspätete Rückzahlung.

Viele Päpste machten das Zinsverbot zu ihrem Thema, von Pius V (1566-1572) bis zu Gregor XVI (1831-1846). Auch der aufkommende Protestantismus schloß sich dem Zinsverbot an. Luther war ein strikter Zinsgegner, Zwingli ein noch radikalerer. Calvin wollte den Zins ebenfalls zurückdrängen, sah aber widerstre-bend ein, daß die immer komplexer werdende Wirtschaft ohne Kapitalmärkte und den Steuerungsmechanismus des Zinses nicht funktionieren würde. So alt wie das Zinsverbot sind denn auch dessen Umgehungen, in der christlichen wie in der islamischen Welt. Verweilen wir noch in der christlichen.

Eine erste Umgehung: Statt des Zinses erhält der Gläubiger vom Kreditnehmer ein Geldgeschenk als Dank – den verdeckten Zins. Eine zweite, massivere Form: Der Kreditnehmer stellt einen Schuldschein über einen höheren Betrag als die tatsächliche Kreditsumme aus, oft in der Größenordnung von über 100 Prozent. So finanzierten sich nicht nur viele weltliche Herrscher bei ihren Bankiers, son-dern auch Kirchenfürsten und selbst Päpste, was gelegentlich beide Seiten finan-ziell ruinierte. So zerbrach das Augsburger Handelshaus der Fugger schließlich an seinen Geldgeschäften mit der nicht mehr zahlungsfähigen spanischen Krone. Eine dritte Form der Umgehung des Zinsverbots: Man vereinbart einen extrem kurzen Rückzahlungstermin, der nicht einhaltbar ist und auch gar nicht eingehal-ten werden soll. Sinn des Arrangements ist die ebenfalls vereinbarte Geldbuße für die von vornherein geplante Terminüberschreitung, also wiederum eine Spielart des verdeckten Zinses. Viertens: Der Kreditnehmer verkauft dem Gläu-biger zum Schein eine Ware und erhält den gewünschten Geldbetrag. Unmittel-bar danach verkauft der Gläubiger die gleiche Ware an den Kreditnehmer zu-rück, aber mit einem Preisaufschlag (dem verdeckten Zins) und zahlbar später.5

Auf genau die gleiche Idee verfielen die Muslime: zwei Scheinverträge, Kauf und Rückkauf, mit einem Preisaufschlag für die Kreditüberlassung, ersetzen den Kreditvertrag. Die Preisdifferenz entspricht der Zinsbelastung des Schuldners. Denn, so die islamischen Rechtsgelehrten: Der Prophet Mohammed hat zwar den Zins verboten, den Handel aber erlaubt. Auch wenn der Handel, wie oben ge-zeigt, nur vorgetäuscht ist. Die islamischen Rechtsgelehrten störte das so wenig wie die römischen Kirchenjuristen. Zu ergänzen ist fünftens eine Zinsumgehung, wiederum identisch in ihrer christlichen und der islamischen Form, durch eine Kapitalbeteiligung des Gläubigers an einem Unternehmen oder durch die Finan-zierung einer einzelnen, zeitlich begrenzten Geschäftstransaktion des Kredit-nehmers, beispielsweise die Ausrüstung einer Fernhandelskarawane.

In der islamischen Variante der langfristigen Unternehmensbeteiligung ist der Gläubiger an Gewinn und Verlust beteiligt. Der Anteil am Nettoertrag tritt an die Stelle des Zinses. Für den Kreditgeber, etwa eine zinsfrei arbeitende Bank im heutigen Pakistan, die sich an einem Unternehmen beteiligt, beinhaltet dies das Risiko, vom Kreditnehmer über die wirkliche interne Ertragslage des Unterneh-mens getäuscht zu werden. Deshalb fallen wesentlich höhere Kosten der Kredit-würdigkeitsprüfung an als beim üblichen Bankkredit mit dinglicher Sicherung wie der Beleihung eines Grundstückes.

Im zweiten Fall des Karawanenführers ist dieser als Kreditnehmer nur am Ge-winn, nicht am Verlust beteiligt. Er bringt statt dessen ja sein Know-how der gefährlichen Karawanenstraßen ein, setzt Leib und Leben bei Sandstürmen oder bei Raubüberfällen aufs Spiel. Deshalb erscheint es fair, das Verlustrisiko beim Kreditgeber zu belassen. Ähnliche Formen kannten auch die christlichen Kauf-leute und Seefahrer. Der Kreditgeber erhält statt eines Zinses seinen vereinbarten Anteil am Nettoertrag.

Die eben geschilderten beiden Beteiligungsformen entsprechen der eigentlichen islamischen Zielsetzung fairer partnerschaftlicher Beteiligungsverträge. Sehr zum Unwillen der islamischen Rechtsgelehrten weichen die Banken in allen Ländern mit islamisiertem zinsfreien Bankwesen aber vorzugsweise auf die eben beschriebene Form der zwei fingierten Kaufverträge aus, die in Pakistan bei-spielsweise 85 Prozent aller Bankgeschäfte ausmachen. So vermeiden die Ban-ken die erheblichen Risiken und Überwachungskosten einer finanziellen Beteili-gung.

VI. Wiedereinbettung der Ökonomie in übergreifende Wertefelder

Die Form der Gewinn- und Verlustbeteiligung ist auch im Westen geläufig, z. B. im Rahmen einer sogenannten Holdinggesellschaft, welche Kapitalbeteiligungen an anderen Unternehmen hält. Und dies nicht in Erwartung von Zinserträgen, sondern mit Blick auf die langfristigen Ertrags- und Risikopotentiale.

Islamische Gesprächspartner sind oft verblüfft von solchen Vergleichen, zumal dann, wenn man verdeutlicht, daß man das islamische Reformanliegen ernst nimmt wie auch die Unumgänglichkeit einer grundlegenden Reform des westli-chen Industriemodells angesichts der planetaren Grenzen, die uns die Umwelt setzt. Hier könnte ein aufgeschlossener, befruchtender interkultureller Dialog ansetzen. Er wäre auch für den Westen höchst anregend und herausfordernd. Der große Anthropologe Karl Polanyi hat in seinem berühmten Buch „The Great Transformation“6 die große Umwandlung verdeutlicht, die in den vergangenen Jahrhunderten in Europa stattgefunden hat. Die sozialen Netze gegenseitiger Solidarität und Reziprozität, also das faire Geflecht von Gabe und Gegengabe wurden zurückgedrängt. An die Stelle nachbarschaftlicher Hilfe und wechselsei-tiger sozialer Beziehungen und moralischer Verpflichtungen zwischen Verwand-ten, Freunden und Nachbarn trat immer stärker die Geldwirtschaft. Geld- und Marktbeziehungen verwandelten alles und jedes zu einer käuflichen Ware.7

Die Wirtschaftssphäre entzog sich ihrer früheren Einbettung in das soziale Gefü-ge und dessen gesellschaftliche Normen. Sie verselbständigte sich vom Rest der Gesellschaft, und nahm ihrerseits immer stärker Einfluß auf die Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaft entzog sich ihrer dienenden, vormals sozial eingebetteten Funktion. So rühmten sich Vorstandsvorsitzende deutscher Weltunternehmen öffentlich, keine Steuern mehr am Standort ihrer Heimatkommunen zu zahlen. Die Gewinnerzielung privater Fernsehstationen hat wie selbstverständlich Vorrang vor den schädigenden psycho-sozialen Folgewirkungen der Sendungen auf die Kinder vor den Bildschirmen. Waffenexporte werden mit Arbeitsplatzeffekten gerecht-fertigt.

Die Wiedereinbettung der Wirtschaft in einen Kanon übergreifender kultureller Werte und ethischer Normen scheint geboten. Ein interkultureller Dialog eröffnet Chancen einer Wiederannäherung von Orient und Okzident und der Rückbesin-nung auf die gemeinsamen Wurzeln der drei großen Religionen des Judentums, des Christentums und des Islams und ihr Menschenbild, die alle ihre Wiege im Orient haben.

Anmerkungen
1)     Dieter Weiss, Entwicklung als Wettbewerb der Kulturen, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 29, 1995, S. 6f. Ders., Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit islamischen Ländern, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 12, 1996, S. 12f.
2)     Dieter Weiss, Die arabische Welt vor einer neuen wissenschaftlich-technologischen Kommunikationskrise? In: Orient 27, 1986, 3, S. 377f. Ders., Kultur und Entwicklung, in: Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit 39, 1998, 2, S. 40-41.
3)     Steffen Wippel, Islamische Wirtschafts- und Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen in Ägypten zwischen Markt und Moral, Münster 1997, S. 245f.
4)     Nikolaus Monzel, Die katholische Kirche in der Sozialgeschichte, München, Wien 1980, S. 98-102.
5)     Monzel, a. a. O., S. 102-103.
6)     Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Wien 1978, S. 19f.
7)     Ders., Ökonomie und Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/Main 1979, S. 131f.

Prof. Dr. Dieter Weiss war bis 2001 Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Volkswirtschaft des Vorderen Orients an der Freien Universität Berlin.

A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity
of Paper Currency
by Ben Franklin, 1729 (reproduced with introduction by Steve Consilvio, 2005)

    Money cannot solve the problem, money is the problem. Violence just makes the issues harder to solve.
    At the end of the essay, Franklin is saying that it is the desire of the King or some "unknowns" to impoverish the colonies. That is basic scapegoating. At the opening of the essay, however, he is talking about the money SYSTEM itself. He doesn't see the connection that it is not the people in charge that are the problem, but the system of currency which he was discussing earlier. The habit of money is an idea, and he was observing behaviors and the desire for Interest gains. I would describe his summary as doublethink, and since he was only 23 at the time, it would be even more likely. The opening observations of the essay are not connected to the conclusion. This essay was written 1729, well before The Great Awakening, the French & Indian War, and any of the events that led to rebellion. Franklin at the time of the American Revolution was an elder, the rebellion was carried out by people young enough to be his grandchildren.
    By advocating "plentiful currency" he is basically advocating Keynsian economics. The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is a long-winded version of the same ideas contained here, and that was published in 1775. The addition of violence accomplished nothing.
    With the formation of the Constitution, Franklin got to see the creation of a "Plentiful Currency" of paper. As we now know, it has changed only some things, as the system still "discourages and impoverishes" and the nation is 8 Trillion in debt. Interest is the common denominator within all Empires, and that is where the problem lies. A central bank creates a species of some sort, be it gold or paper. But there has never been a central bank that didn't also use Interest and inflation as leverage.

There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one's Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and there fore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho' it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.

Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity o/ a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.

To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.

This leads us to the following general Considerations.

First, A great Want of Money in any Trading Country, occasions Interest to be at a very high Rate. And here it may be observed, that it is impossible by any Laws to restrain Men from giving and receiving exhorbitant In terest, where Money is suitably scarce: For he that wants Money will find out Ways to give 10 per cent when he cannot have it for less, altho' the Law forbids to take more than 6 per cent. Now the Interest of Money being high is prejudicial to a Country several Ways: It makes Land bear a low Price, because few Men will lay out their Money in Land, when they can make a much greater Profit by lending it out upon Interest: And much less will Men be inclined to venture their Money at Sea, when they can, without Risque or Hazard, have a great and certain Profit by keeping it at home; thus Trade is discouraged. And if in two Neighbouring Countries the Traders of one, by Reason of a greater Plenty of Money, can borrow it to trade with at a lower Rate than the Traders of the other, they will infallibly have the Advantage, and get the great est Part of that Trade into their own Hands; For he that trades with Money he hath borrowed at 8 or io per cent cannot hold Market with him that borrows his Money at 6 or 4. On the contrary, A plentiful Currency will occasion Interest to be low: And this will be an Inducement to many to lay out their Money in Lands, rather than put it out to Use, by which means Land will begin to rise in Value and bear a better Price: And at the same Time it will tend to enliven Trade exceedingly, because People will find more Profit in employing their Money that Way than in Usury; and many that understand Business very well, but have not a Stock sufficient of their own, will be encouraged to borrow Money; to trade with, when they can have it at a moderate Interest.

Secondly, Want of Money in a Country reduces the Price of that Part of its Produce which is used in Trade: Because Trade being discouraged by it as above, there is a much less Demand for that Produce. And this is another Reason why Land in such a Case will be low, especially where the Staple Commodity of the Country is the immediate Produce of the Land, because that Produce being low, fewer People find an Advantage in Husbandry, or the Improvement of Land. On the contrary, A Plentiful Currency will occasion the Trading Produce to bear a good Price. . .

As we have already experienced how much the Increase of our Currency by what Paper Money has been made, has encouraged our Trade; particularly to instance only in one Article, Shi~Building; it may not be amiss to observe under this Head, what a great Advantage it musl he to us as a Trading Country, that has Workmen and all the Materials proper for that Business within itself, to have Ship~Building as much as possible advanced: For every Ship that is built here for the English Merchants, gains the Province her clear Value in Gold and Silver, which must otherwise have been sent Home for Returns in her Stead; and likewise, every Ship built in and belong ing to the Province, not only saves the Province her first Cost, but all the Freight, Wages and Provisions she ever makes or requires as long as she lasts. . . . Now as Trade in general will decline where there is not a plentiful Currency, so Ship~Bwlding must certainly of Consequence decline where Trade is declining.

Thirdly, Want of Money in a Country discourages Lab0uring and Handicrafts Men (which are the chief Strength and Support of a People) from coming to settle in it, and induces many that were settled to leave the Country, and seek Entertainment and Employment in other Places, where they can be better paid. For what can be m9re disheartning to an industrious labouring Man, than this, that after he hath earned his Bread with the Sweat of his Brows, he must spend as much Time, and have near as much Fatigue in getting it, as he had to earn it. And nothing makes more bad Paymasters than a general Scarcity of Money. And here again is a Third Reason for Land's bearing a low Price in such a Country, because Land always increases in Value in Proportion with the Increase of the People settling on it' there being so many more Buyers; and its Value will infallibly be diminished, if the Number of its Inhabitants diminish. On the contrary, A Plentiful Currency will encourage great Numbers of Labouring and Handicrafts Men to come and Settle in the Country, by the same Reason that a Want of it will discourage and drive them out. Now the more In habitants, the greater Demand for Land (as is said above) upon which it must necssarily rise in Value, and bear a better Price. . . . Now the Value of HouseRent rising, and Interest becoming low, many that in a Scarcity of Money practiced Usury, will probably be more inclined to Building; which will likewise sensibly enliven Business in any Place; it being an Advantage not only to Brickmakers, Bricklayers, Masons, Carpenters, Joiners, Glaziers, and several other Trades immediately employed by Building, but likewise to Farmers, Brewers, Bakers, Taylors, Shoemakers, Shopkeepers, and in short to every one that they lay their Money out with.

Fourthly, Want of Money in such a Country as ours, occasions a greater Consumption of English and European Goods, in Proportion to the Number of the People, than there would otherwise be. Because Merchants and Tradeers by whom abundance of Artificers and labouring Men are employed, finding their other Affairs require what Money they can get into their hands, oblige those who work for them to take one half, or perhaps two thirds Goods in Pay. By this Means a greater Quantity of Goods are disposed of, and to a greater Value. . . .

As A plentiful Currency will occasion a less Consumption of European Goods, in Proportion to the Number of the People, so it will be a means of making the Balance of our Trade more equal than it now is, if it does not give it in our Favour because our own Produce will be encouraged at the same Time. And it is to be observed, that tho' less Foreign Commodities are consumed in Proportion to the Number of People, yet this will be no Disadvantage to the Merchant, because the Number of People increasing, will occasion an increasing Demand of more Foreign Goods in the Whole.

Thus we have seen some of the many heavy Disadvantages a Country (especially such a Country as ours) must labour under, when it has not a sufficient Stock of running Cash to manage its Trade currently. And we have likewise seen some of the Advantages which accrue from having Money sufficient, or a Plentiful Currency.

The foregoing Paragraphs being well considered, we shall naturally be led to draw the following Condusions with Regard to what Persons will probably be for or against Emitting a large Additional Sum of Paper Bills in this Province.

Since Men will always be powerfully influenced in their Opinions and Actions by what appears to be their particular Interest:
   Therefore all those, who wanting Courage to venture in Trade, now practise Lending Money on Security for exhorbitant Interest, which in a Scarcity of Money will be done notwithstanding the Law, I say all such will probably be against a large Addition to our present Stock of PaperMoney; because a plentiful Currency will lower Interest, and make it common to lend on less Security.
    All those who are Possessors of large Sums of Money, and are disposed to purchase Land, which is attended with a great and sure Advantage in a growing Country as this is; I say, the Interest of all such Men will encline them to oppose a large Addition to our Money. Because their Wealth is now continually increasing by the large Interest they receive, which will enable them (if they can keep Land from rising) to purchase More some time hence than they can at present; and in the mean time all Trade being discouraged, not only those who borrow of them, but the Common People in general will be impoverished, and consequently obliged to sell More Land for less Money than they will do at present. And yet, after such Men are possessed of as much Land as they can purchase, it will then be their Interest to have Money made Plentiful, because that will immediately make Land rise in Value in their Hands. Now it ought not to be wondered at, if People from the Knowledge of a Man's Interest do sometimes make a true Guess at his Designs; for, Interest, they say, will not Lie.
    Lawyers, and others concerned in Court Business, will probably many of them be against a plentiful Currency; because People in that Case will have less Occasion to run in Debt, and consequently less Occasion to go to Law and Sue one another for their Debts. Tho' I know some even among these Gentlemen, that regard the Publick Good before their own apparent private Interest.
    All those who are any way Dependants on such Persons as are above mentioned, whether as holding Offices, as Tenants, or as Debtors, must at least appear to be against a large Addition; because if they do not, they must sensibly feel their present Interest hurt. And besides these, there are, doubtless, many wellmeaning Gentlemen and Others, who, without any immediate private Interest of their own in View, are against making such an Addition, thro' an Opinion they may have of the Honesty and sound Judgment of some of their Friends that oppose it (perhaps for the Ends aforesaid), without having given it any thorough Consideration themselves. And thus it is no Wonder if there is a powerful Party on that Side.
    On the other Hand, Those who are Lovers of Trade, and delight to see Manufactures encouraged, will be for having a large Addition to our Currency: For they very well know, that People will have little Heart to advance Money in Trade, when what they can get is scarce sufficient to purchase Necessaries, and supply their Families with Provision. Much less will they lay it out in advancing new Manufactures; nor is it possible new Manufactures Should turn to any Account, where there is not Money to pay the Workmen, who are discouraged by being paid in Goods, because it is a great Disadvantage to them. . . .

And since a Plentiful Currency will be so great a Cause of advancing this Province in Trade and Riches, and increasing the Number of its People; which, tho' it will not sensibly lessen the Inhabitants of Great Britain, will occasion a much greater Vent and Demand for their Commodities here; and allowing that the Crown is the more powerful for its Subjects increasing in Wealth and Number, I cannot think it the Interest of England to oppose' us in making as great a Su1n of Paper Money here, as we, who are the best Judges of our own Necessities, find convenient. And if I were not sensible that the Gentlemen of Trade in England, to whom we have already parted with our Silver and Gold, are misinformed of our Circumstances, and therefore endeavour to have our Currency stinted to what it now is, I should think the Government at Home had some Reasons for discouraging and impoverishing this Province, which we are not acquainted with. . . .

Publik-Forum 9/2005

Theologische Stellungnahmen zur Problematik
von Geld, Zins und Bodeneigentum

in chronologischer Reihenfolge: Friedrich Naumann | Christoph Blumhardt | Johannes Ude | Karl Barth | Leonhard Ragaz | Kurt Scharf | Ulrich Duchrow | Wilhelm Haller | Pinchas Lapide | Jürgen Moltmann | Christoph Körner | Eugen Drewermann | Hans Kessler | Carl Amery | Thomas Ruster

||| Friedrich Naumann

„Es ist bekannt, welche große Rolle im ganzen Mittelalter das auf Lukas 6.35 gegründete Zinsverbot gehabt hat. Die mittelalterliche Auslegung der betreffenden Bibelstelle war irrig, wie sie denn auch Luther in seinen ‚Sermonen vom Wucher’ aufgibt; auch die religiös-gesetzliche Art des Zinsverbots ist für alle Zeit überwunden. Aber wir zweifeln nicht daran, dass eine Zeit kommen wird, wo sich eine christliche Bewegung wieder gegen den Zins erheben wird im Sinne evangelischer Freiheit nach dem Wort Luthers: ‚Es gebührt Christenmenschen nichts anderes, denn Geben und Leihen umsonst.’ Es ist nicht anzunehmen, dass Christi Worte über das Leihen in der evangelischen Christenheit dauernd ein toter Wortbestand bleiben sollten. Erst wenn der Geist der christlichen Liebe sich an die Frage der Kapitalausnutzung heranwagt, wird das Christentum in der modernen Welt seine Hauptprobe bestehen.“

Das soziale Programm der Evangelischen Kirche, Erlangen und Leipzig 1891, S. 165-166.

||| Christoph Blumhardt

„Das Kapital ist der Tyrann der heutigen Menschen. Es spielt erst seit etwa 100 Jahren diese Rolle, dass der Mensch ohne Geld absolut gar nichts ist. Land und Wald waren früher nicht ein Kapital. In unserer Zeit wird alles zu Geld, alles wird danach geschätzt. Der Teufel des Kapitals, die Spekulation, kommt überall hin. Und zuletzt kommen wir in Verschuldung. Das ist die Herrschaft des Kapitals. Christus will nichts von dieser Kapitalwirtschaft wissen. In Christi Reich muss das Geld auch eine Rolle spielen, aber keine größere als das Leben. Das Geld dem Leben und nicht das Leben dem Geld! … In unserem zukünftigen Reich wird nicht mehr das Geld benützt werden können zur Unterdrückung der anderen.“

aus: Johannes Harder, Christoph Blumhardt – Ansprachen, Predigten, Reden, Briefe
Band 2 (1896-1906), Neukirchen 1978, S. 194-195.

||| Prof. Dr. Johannes Ude

„Wer also für die ausbeutungsfreie Wirtschaft einsteht, und dafür soll doch jeder Christ einstehen, der kommt nach unserer Überzeugung um das Freigeld nicht herum. … Die Freiwirtschaftslehre ist also gesellschaftlich, wirtschaftlich und kulturell von geradezu grundlegender Bedeutung.“

Das Geld – Sein Einfluss auf Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur,
Gams/Schweiz 1935, S. 172 und 242.

||| Prof. Dr. Karl Barth

“Die Christengemeinde muss - frei von aller falschen Unparteilichkeit - auch im politischen Raum vor allem nach unten blicken. Es sind die nach ihrer gesellschaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Stellung Schwachen, es sind die Armen, für die sie sich immer vorzugsweise einsetzen, für die sie die Bürgergemeinde besonders verantwortlich machen wird. Dass sie ihnen im Rahmen ihrer eigenen Aufgabe (in Form ihrer ‚Diakonie’) Liebe zuwendet, ist Eines, und zwar ihr Erstes, über dem sie aber - nun im Rahmen ihrer politischen Verantwortung - das Andere nicht versäumen kann: den Einsatz für eine solche Gestaltung des Rechts, die es ausschließt, dass seine Gleichheit für alle zum Deckmantel werde, unter dem es für Starke und Schwache, selbständig und unselbständig Erwerbende, Reiche und Arme, Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer faktisch doch ungleiche Begrenzung und ungleiche Bewahrung bedeutet. Die Christengemeinde steht im politischen Raum notwendig im Einsatz und Kampf für die soziale Gerechtigkeit. Und sie wird in der Wahl zwischen den verschiedenen sozialistischen Möglichkeiten (Liberal-Sozialismus? Genossenschaftswesen? Syndikalismus? Freigeldwirtschaft? Gemäßigter – Radikaler Marxismus?) auf alle Fälle die Wahl treffen, von der sie jeweils das Höchstmaß von sozialer Gerechtigkeit erwarten zu sollen glaubt.“

Christengemeinde und Bürgergemeinde, Stuttgart 1946, S. 34-35.

„Wo nicht der Mensch, sondern das zinstragende Kapital der Gegenstand ist, dessen Erhaltung und Mehrung der Sinn und das Ziel der politischen Ordnung ist, da ist der Automatismus schon im Gang, der eines Tages die Menschen zum Töten und Getötetwerden auf die Jagd schicken wird.“

Die kirchliche Dogmatik Band III/4, Zürich 1951, S. 525.

||| Prof. Dr. Leonhard Ragaz

„Das Verbot des Zinses ist nicht bloß eine einzelne wirtschaftlich-soziale Maßregel, sondern ein gewaltiges Prinzip: die Verhinderung der Geldherrschaft. In diesem Sinne geht das Zinsverbot durch die christliche Kultur. … Es gilt in der ganzen altchristlichen Zeit und im Mittelalter. Zinsnehmen bleibt Wucher. Erst die kirchliche Reformation und die weltliche Renaissance heben das Zinsverbot auf und öffnen damit jener Entwicklung zum Kapitalismus die Bahn, welche die Geldherrschaft zuletzt auf den Gipfel bringt, Gott und den Menschen durch den Mammon verdrängend.
Es ist ein Erwachen der Revolution des Mose, wenn die Freigeldbewegung wieder das Zinsproblem im Sinne der Beseitigung des Zinses auf den Leuchter gestellt hat. In diesem Sinne darf man das Buch von Silvio Gesell „Die Natürliche Wirtschaftsordnung“ neben „Das Kapital“, „Fortschritt und Armut“ und „Das Ur-Eigentum“ stellen.“

Die Bibel - eine Deutung Band 2, Zürich 1947, S. 133-134.

||| Dr. Kurt Scharf

„Die Thesen der Bodenreform und des Freilandes richteten sich gegen die Bodenspekulation, gegen die unverdienten Gewinne von Besitzern günstig gelegener Grundstücke und die Verarmung breiter, vom Grundbesitz ausgeschlossener, arbeitender Bevölkerungsgruppen. Die Thesen des Freigeldes von Silvio Gesell richteten sich gegen den Kreditkapitalismus. In der Wirtschaftskrise nach dem ersten Weltkrieg wurden die Thesen beider in den Parteien und an den Universitäten leidenschaftlich diskutiert. Wir jungen Studenten, gerade auch wir Theologiestudenten, drängten auf ihre Verwirklichung. … Gottes Angebote durchbrechen neu und immer wieder die Selbstsucht der Besitzenden und die Mutlosigkeit breiter Mehrheiten. Im letzten Jahrhundert rechne ich zu den Flutwellen, die von biblisch-prophetischer Lehre ausgelöst worden sind, die Bewegungen des religiösen und humanen Sozialismus und auch die Vorschläge zur Bodenreform Damaschkes und zu dem Freiland und Freigeld Gesells.“

in: Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag (Hg.), Dokumente des Kirchentags
in Düsseldorf 1985, S. 133-134 und 139.

||| Prof. Dr. Ulrich Duchrow

„Haben wir es beim gegenwärtigen Weltwirtschaftssystem mit einer besonderen Bekenntnisfrage wie im Fall des Nationalsozialismus und der Apartheid zu tun? Müssen wir uns in diesem Sinn zu einer eindeutig bekennenden Kirche entwickeln? … Dies ist eine Lebensfrage der Kirche, deren Langzeitwirkung ähnlich wie die ihres Versagens vor der Arbeiterfrage im 19. Jahrhundert sein wird. … Hier müssten sich Kirchen und Theologie ins Detail der multinationalen Wirtschaft hineinbegeben. Es handelt sich um die Frage des Glaubensgehorsams, wenn es um die Frage Mammon geht. … Heute hat die Geldwirtschaft eine fast totale Macht. … Die Völker der Erde müssen sich gemeinsam auf die Suche nach Alternativen für das Leben der Menschen und der Erde machen. Freilich, im Blick auf die Weltwirtschaft drängt die Zeit. Die Menschen sterben zu Millionen und das Kirchesein der Kirche verdunkelt sich immer mehr, solange sie den ‚Massenmord unserer Tage’ stillschweigend oder nur mit Lippenbekenntnissen hinnimmt.“

Weltwirtschaft heute - Ein Feld für Bekennende Kirche?
München 1986, S. 17, 86, 143, 223 und 226.

||| Wilhelm Haller

„Wie der Krankheitsherd der internationalen Schuldenkrise jedem Einsichtigen deutlich macht, muss auch die Frage nach der Berechtigung des Anspruchs auf Geldvermehrung durch Zins und Zinseszins gestellt werden. … Das Prinzip von Zins und Zinseszins, das die Grundlage unseres ganzen Geld-, Kapital- und Finanzsystems liefert, führt immer dann zu exponenziellem Wachstum von Geldvermögen einerseits und Schulden andererseits, wenn einerseits die Besitzer von Geldvermögen mehr Zinsen einnehmen als sie verbrauchen, so dass auch der Zins wieder zinsbringend angelegt werden kann und muss, und andererseits die Schuldner mehr Zinsen zahlen müssen als sie trotz Einschränkung des Lebensstandards aufzubringen imstande sind, so dass die nicht bezahlten Zinsen den Schulden zugeschlagen und damit selbst zinspflichtig werden. Angesichts dieser zwingenden Gesetzmäßigkeit muss man sich wundern, wie die Zinsfrage mit ihren tödlichen Konsequenzen solange in unserer Gesellschaft tabuisiert werden konnte.“

in: Die heilsame Alternative - Jesuanische Ethik in Wirtschaft und Politik,
Wuppertal 1989, S. 84 ff.

||| Weltkonvokation des ÖRK zum Konziliaren Prozess in Seoul/Korea 1990

„Affirmation VIII: Wir bekräftigen, dass die Erde Gott gehört. Das Land und die Gewässer bedeuten Leben für die Menschen. Doch Millionen sind ihres Landes beraubt und leiden unter der Verschmutzung des Wassers; ihre Kultur, ihre Spiritualität und ihr Leben werden zerstört. … Sie warten auf die Erfüllung der Verheißung, dass die Armen das Land bekommen werden.
Wir bekräftigen deshalb, dass das Land Gott gehört. … Wir werden jeder Politik widerstehen, die Land als bloße Ware behandelt, die Spekulation auf Kosten der Armen erlaubt, die Giftmüll auf das Land und ins Wasser entlädt, die Ausbeutung, ungleiche Verteilung und Verseuchung des Landes und seiner Erzeugnisse fördert und die jenen, die unmittelbar von der Nutzung des Landes leben, die Verfügungsgewalt darüber vorenthält.
Wir verpflichten uns zur Solidarität mit Urvölkern, die um ihre Kultur, ihre Spiritualität und ihre Rechte auf Grund und Boden sowie auf Gewässer kämpfen, und mit Landarbeitern und mit armen Bauern, die sich für eine Bodenreform einsetzen.“

Evangelischer Pressedienst Nr. 16/1990, S. 16-17.

||| Prof. Dr. Pinchas Lapide

„Wie war das Verhältnis Jesu von Nazareth zum Geld? Es herrscht die Auffassung vor, dass er dem Mammon total abhold war und alle Finanzgeschäfte ganz unzweideutig und rigoros verdammt habe. Weit gefehlt!! … Gegen einen gerechten Umgang mit Geld und Mitwirkung im Wirtschaftsleben hatten Jesus und die Pharisäer (der ja einer der ihren war) nichts einzuwenden - unter der Bedingung allerdings, dass die Fürsorge für die Randsiedler der Gesellschaft dabei nie zu kurz kommen dürfe. … Wogegen alle Rabbinen vehement zu Felde zogen, war finanzielle Korruption, Habgier, Geiz und Neid.
Eine in weiten christlichen Kreisen missverstandene Aussage Jesu ist seine angebliche Empfehlung, sorglos zu sein wie die Vögel des Himmels und in den Tag hinein zu leben wie die Lilien des Feldes. (Mt 6) … Aus all seinen Gleichnissen spricht eine große Liebe für die Schöpfung und genaue Kenntnis der Natur. Er wusste so gut wie wir alle, dass die Vögel sehr eifrig und emsig für den morgigen Tag sorgen, indem sie beispielsweise ihre Nester mühselig Halm um Halm vorbereiten und bauen. Was meinte Jesus also mit diesem Bilde? ‚Nestbauen’ schon, aber keine Zweit- und Dritt-Nester! Von einem In-den-Tag-Hineinleben kann keine Rede sein; aber auch nicht vom gierigen ‚Hamstern’.
Ähnlich verhält es sich mit Jesu ‚Blumengleichnis’. Wie fleißig ist doch unsere Lilie, wenn man es genauer betrachtet, wie sie ihr Wasser und den benötigten Stickstoff aus dem Erdreich heraufsaugt und mit Hilfe eines genialen Prozesses der Fotosynthese das Sonnenlicht verwertet. Also äußerst kreativ ist sie sogar und unermüdlich noch dazu. ‚Hamstern’ aber tut auch sie nicht - und harrt, offensichtlich voll Gottvertrauen, dem nächsten Tag entgegen.“

Jesus, das Geld und der Weltfrieden, Gütersloh 1991, S. 17-18.

||| Prof. Dr. Jürgen Moltmann

„Die Welt als Schöpfung Gottes zu verstehen, bedeutet gerade nicht, sie als Welt des Menschen anzusehen und in Besitz zu nehmen. Ist die Welt Gottes Schöpfung, dann bleibt sie sein Eigentum und kann von Menschen nicht in Besitz genommen werden, sondern nur als Leihgabe empfangen und treuhänderisch verwaltet werden. Sie ist nach den Maßstäben der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit zu behandeln, nicht nach den Wertvorstellungen menschlicher Machtentfaltung.“

Gott in der Schöpfung – Ökologische Schöpfungslehre, Gütersloh 4. Aufl. 1993, S. 45.

||| Dr. Christoph Körner

„Von Seiten der Theologie ist zu fragen, ob die Religion der Wirtschaft nicht eine Anti-Religion zur biblischen ist und ihre Lebensfeindlichkeit verdeutlicht werden muss. … Indem der (pseudo)sakramentale Charakter der modernen Wirtschaft erkannt und benannt wird, besteht auch die Möglichkeit, die Wirtschaft wieder zu entsakramentalisieren. Dies könnte geschehen, indem durch eine neue Wirtschaftsordnung ein ‚neutrales Geld’ geschaffen wird, das seine magische Kraft verliert, indem es von der Funktion des Schatzmittels befreit und allein auf seinen Gebrauch als Tauschmittel und Wertmesser beschränkt wird. Freilich müsste die Geldreform mit einer Boden- und Steuerreform gekoppelt werden, die uns zu einem anderen Umgang mit den Gütern der Natur bewegt. Die biblische Weisheit, dass die Erde Gott gehört und ebenso die Bodenschätze und Geschöpfe, die auf der Erde wohnen (Ps. 24.1), sollte wieder beherzigt werden.
Begann die Sakramentalisierung der Wirtschaft gerade im 16. Jahrhundert mit der Säkularisierung des christlichen Geschichtsdenkens und der Entsakramentalisierung (Entheiligung) der Natur durch die jüdisch-christliche Welttranszendenz, so kann heute die biblische Sicht von der Heiligkeit der Schöpfung zur notwendigen Entsakramentalisierung der Wirtschaft führen. Indem die Wirtschaft entsakramentalisiert und das Geld seiner Fetischrolle beraubt wird, wird das Leben selbst wieder als die heilige Gabe erfahren und der Mensch kann sich in dem Leben als Ebenbild Gottes wieder finden.“

Zur metaphysischen Rolle des Geldes in der modernen Wirtschaft,
in: Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie 102./103. Folge (1994), S. 10-11.

||| Prof. Dr. Eugen Drewermann

„Geld und Zins ‚arbeiten’ gemeinsam zugunsten der Besitzenden. … es kommt jetzt darauf an, das Geld zu sich selbst zu erlösen, ihm seine menschenversklavende, dämonische Kraft zu nehmen man … es entschieden auf das reduziert, als was es ausgegeben wird: ein gesetzlich festgelegtes öffentliches Zahlungsmittel zu sein, in dem sich die unterschiedlichen Werte von Waren gegeneinander verrechnen lassen. …
Geld könnte ein neutrales Zahlungsmittel nur sein, wenn man auf die Ausnutzung seines ‚Joker-Vorteils’ verzichten würde, und zwar nicht nur auf der Ebene der individuellen Praxis, sondern in der objektiv vorgegebenen Form der Geldwirtschaft selbst. … Statt das Geld mit dem Mittel des Zinses aus der Reserve zu holen, müsste man ihm umgekehrt ‚Beine machen’: statt den Geldbesitzer förmlich dafür zu belohnen, dass er sein Geld wie seinen Privatbesitz zurückhält, um damit gegebenenfalls auf dem Geldmarkt zur Vermehrung seines privaten Besitzes spekulative Geschäfte zu treiben, könnte eine Liquiditätsabgabe oder ‚Nutzungsgebühr’ den Zins als Umlaufsicherung ersetzen. Das Zurückhalten des Geldes würde mit Kosten verbunden, die nur dann entfallen, wenn das Geld ausgegeben oder auf einem Sparkonto angelegt wird.
Die Tatsache liegt offen zutage: es sind die Staaten des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystems selber, die allein schon aufgrund ihrer horrenden Überschuldung das Zinssystem nicht mehr tragen können, von dem sie selbst zu profitieren glaubten. Mit anderen Worten: es gibt selbst unter rein ökonomischer Perspektive 2000 Jahre nach der Bergpredigt zu der Botschaft Jesu um Umgang mit Geld, es gibt zu den Worten aus Lukas 6.34-35 (‚Leihet, auf dass ihr nichts dafür erhoffet.’) keine Alternative mehr.“

in: Jesus von Nazareth – Befreier zum Frieden, Band 2: Glauben in Freiheit,
Zürich und Düsseldorf 1996, S. 474-475 und 498-500.

||| Prof. Dr. Hans Kessler

„Der heutige reale Weltmarkt wird vom Kapital beherrscht. Marktwirtschaft und kapitalistische Marktwirtschaft sind nicht dasselbe. Und wer letztere kritisiert, ist damit nicht antimarktwirtschaftlich. Das Marktprinzip lässt sich bei vernünftiger Regulierung mit Gerechtigkeit und Erhaltung der Umwelt versöhnen, der Kapitalismus kaum. … Ein entscheidender Knackpunkt in dem ganzen Problemknäuel von Wirtschaft – Umwelt – Umverteilung ist das System von zins und Zinseszins. Es setzt die Wirtschaft unter einen ständigen Druck zu endloser Expansion und Profitmaximierung. …
Die Wurzel des geschilderten Übels liegt in der Fehlstruktur unseres Geldsystems und – im unkritischen Glauben an die Fehlerlosigkeit des Zinses. … Mit einem sicheren Gespür für Gerechtigkeit und das Wohl des Ganzen verbietet die Bibel das Zinsnehmen, die große christliche Tradition folgt ihr darin (ähnlich der Koran). Erst seit dem 16. Jahrhundert gibt es zunehmende Aufweichungen. … Dieses Abrücken der Kirchen vom Zinsverbot hat den Aufstieg des modernen Kapitalismus entscheidend begünstigt. Es wird höchste Zeit, dass Kirchen und Sozialethiker umkehren und der Öffentlichkeit wieder den Sinn des Zinsverbots ins Bewusstsein zu bringen, um Gegenkräfte gegen eine aus den Fugen geratene internationale Finanzwelt aufzubauen und Wege zu fördern, die zum Ziel einer umweltverträglicheren (zinsfreien) Marktwirtschaft führen.“

in: Umwelt, Markt, Ethik und Religion Wege zu einem globalen Umweltethos,
in: Gerd Iben (Hg.), Demokratie und Ethik wohin? – Antworten auf die Globalisierung,
Münster 1998, S. 93-97 und 123.

||| Carl Amery

„Es gilt, das Geld von seinem Status als Absolutum, als Sakrament zu befreien, es wieder zu einem nüchternen Werkzeug zu machen. … Das globale Finanzwesen ist nach einem ebenso alten wie ruchlosen Prinzip organisiert: dem Prinzip des Zinseszinses. Jeder Hauptschüler mit Taschenrechner kann sofort feststellen, dass dieses Prinzip weltmörderisch ist. Seine Aggressivität ist sozusagen eingebaut. … Dieses Geldsystem wird als selbstverständlich betrachtet. Aber das ist es keineswegs. Es gibt bargeldlose Tauschsysteme; es gibt Rabattsysteme. Es gibt Notgeld wie die Creditos im krisengeschüttelten Argentinien. Und es gibt darüber hinaus theoretische, ja sogar praktisch erprobte Ansätze, die auf einer gänzlich anderen Perspektive beruhen: Alterndes Geld würde sich abnützen und an Wert verlieren. Es war der Deutschargentinier Silvio Gesell, der diese Theorie systematisch durchdachte. Die krisengeschüttelte Zwischenkriegszeit zwischen 1920 und 1930 sah dann zwei praktische Erprobungen. Beide haben sich durchaus bewährt. … Wörgls Freigeld wurde von der Wiener Staatsbank zu Fall gebracht - Mammon lässt seiner nicht spotten.“

Global Exit – Die Kirchen und der Totale Markt, München 2002, S. 214 und 219-200.

||| Prof. Dr. Thomas Ruster

„Ist der Kapitalismus eine Religion, so wäre ihr Gott das Geld. … Geld ist allgegenwärtig und allmächtig, und es lässt die, die ausreichend über es verfügen, an diesen göttlichen Attributen teilhaben. Es gibt nichts, was von der Macht des Geldes unabhängig wäre. Alles ist für Geld zu haben. … Auf das Geld richten sich die Haltungen, die sonst Gott galten: Vertrauen, Treue, Sicherheit, Geborgenheit, Mut zur Zukunft, Liebe, Hoffnung, unersättliches Begehren. Wo es aber fehlt, herrschen Verzweiflung und Hoffnungslosigkeit. Geld ist, in den Begriffen der Theologie gesprochen, zum ‚Sakrament der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft’ geworden: das sichtbare Zeichen der unsichtbaren Gnade. Die Verteilung der Lebenschancen, Gerechtigkeit und Ungerechtigkeit, Reichtum und Armut, Glück und Unglück, gelingendes oder gescheitertes Leben werden vom Geld bestimmt wie früher von der göttlichen Vorsehung. Es vermittelt, wie einstmals die kirchlichen Sakramente, zwischen Immanenz und Transzendenz. Es ist in allem … und es ist über allem als das Absolute, das alles beherrscht und selbst nicht beherrscht werden kann. Geld ist die schlechthin alles bestimmende Wirklichkeit. …
Geld kann nicht in der Weise Gott sein, wie auf dem Boden der abendländischen Religionsgeschichte gesprochen worden ist. Es ist nicht personal; man kann kein Gebet an es richten. Ihm wird keine ausdrückliche kultische Verehrung zuteil, wie immer man auch die sakral anmutende Architektur der Bank- und Versicherungsgebäude werten mag. … Es gilt also den Kapitalismus zu enträtseln, um die Macht des Geldes und damit auch seine religiöse Valenz zu verstehen.“

Der verwechselbare Gott - Theologie nach der Entflechtung von
Christentum und Religion. Freiburg 5. Aufl. 2002, S. 142-144.

„Dieser Religion des Kapitalismus gegenüber ist nur eine entschiedene christliche Gegnerschaft möglich. Die Wirtschaft ist heute das Instrument, dessen der Tod sich bedient, um seine Herrschaft auszuüben; um des lebendigen und Leben schaffenden Gottes willen ist ihr der Kampf anzusagen. Dieser Kampf kann geführt werden durch ein Leben nach den Geboten Gottes, jenen Geboten, von denen es heißt, dass durch sie leben wird, wer sie tut (Lev 18,5). Die Rückwendung zur biblischen Leitunterscheidung Gott/Götter bedeutet zugleich eine Wiederentdeckung der Tora als dem Gesetz des Lebens. Exemplarisch kann man auf die Bedeutung des Zinsverbots als Mittel gegen den mörderischen Wachstumszwang der Wirtschaft verweisen.“

Der verwechselbare Gott. Einführung zu: Felix Senn (Hg.), Welcher Gott? –
Eine Disputation mit Thomas Ruster. Luzern 2004, S. 23.

„Das kapitalistische Wirtschaftssystem hat versagt. … Der Gegensatz zum Kapitalismus ist nicht der Sozialismus, sondern eine Wirtschaft, die nicht zu beständigem Wachstum gezwungen ist. …
Man muss den Blindflug in die Selbstvernichtung nicht einfach mitmachen. Man muss den quasireligiösen Fatalismus überwinden, der dieses Wirtschaftssystem für alternativlos hält, dann kann sich etwas ändern. Man muss zeigen, dass es anders geht. … Ich halte es für durchführbar, ein sekundäres kirchliches Währungssystem nach dem Modell der Alternativwährungen einzuführen, die es ja da und dort schon gibt. Bei einem Kirchentag werden Bons verkauft, die auch nachher noch als Zahlungsmittel dienen. Nach der Theorie des Alternativökonomen Silvio Gesell sind sie umlaufgesichert, d.h. sie verlieren im Laufe der Zeit einen gewissen Teil ihres Werts, so dass sie sich nicht als Geldanlage eignen. Dieses zinslose Geld würde rasch ausgegeben: für Klosterprodukte, Weine aus bischöflichen Gütern, kirchliche Dienstleistungen aller Art. Ein Teil der Gehälter der Kirchenangestellten könnte in dieser Währung ausbezahlt werden. Je nachdem, wie weit man hier die Kreise ökumenisch oder weltkirchlich zieht, ergäbe das schon eine stattliche Sekundärökonomie mit erheblichem Irritationseffekt.“

in: Publik-Forum Nr. 9/2005, S. 19-20.

International Herald Tribune April 5, 2006

The €1000 Generation
Italy (sh!) has a problem
By Elisabetta Povoledo

MILAN Since he graduated with an architecture degree in 2000, Antonio Incorvaia has held a dizzying number of jobs: graphic designer, television writer, Web editor and journalist for trade and pop culture magazines. At 31, he describes himself as a "serial trainee."

Like many people of his generation, Incorvaia has had to struggle between the job-for-life mentality of postwar Italy and the realities of a labor market that no longer offers such guarantees. Many of his overqualified 30-something friends, he said, are in the same boat, flitting from one short-term contract to another without ever being offered full-time employment. Adding insult to injury, he added, "Prospective employers ask you why you've changed jobs so often."

Last December, Incorvaia and a friend, Alessandro Rimassa, made their frustrations public and wrote a novel, "The €1,000 Generation," which is available, partly free, on the Internet at www.generazione1000.com. The semi- autobiographical book about a group of young Italians living hand-to-mouth on a fluctuating income struck a chord: 24,000 downloads later, Incorvaia has a publishing contract and has sold the film rights. The idea, Incorvaia said in an interview, was "to highlight a situation that isn't talked about - it involves millions of people, but no one takes notice."

In Italy's heated electoral campaign, politicians have not taken much notice either. With Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his main challenger, Romano Prodi, lobbing insults and defending their records, the uncertainty of the labor market for Italians entering the work force has not been a key issue.

Despite the impact of job uncertainty on the lives of young Italians, and notwithstanding protests in France over labor reforms affecting youth, politicians in Italy have focused more on the country's aging electorate. They are promising higher pensions and better health care, rather than taking positions on first-time employment or education.

"From the electoral point of view, older people are more interesting in a country with a low birthrate," said Alessandro Cavalli, a professor of sociology at the University of Pavia. "But in the long term, of course," he said, young people "are very important for the country." Population figures made public this week show that of Italy's 58.4 million residents, more than half - 30.7 million - are older than 40.

The graying of Italy, said Tito Boeri, an economist at Milan's Bocconi University, has the potential to create an "intergenerational conflict" in which young people are bound to lose. "But an economy that doesn't invest in young people," he said, "is bound to decline." Boeri pointed to issues affecting young people that candidates have glossed over during the campaign, like the question of Italy's high public debt, which will translate into higher taxes for future generations. At the same time, he said, the government's labor laws have created a parallel labor market of entrance-level workers who move from contract to contract with little protection and intervening spells on unemployment. Poverty is increasing among these young workers, he said.

With no serious progress on pension reform for the last 10 years, Boeri argues, young Italians will have to pay higher taxes to receive lower pensions when they retire. "They're twice hurt," Boeri said.

At the same time, Italy is attempting to reduce government expenditure by discouraging workers from taking early retirement, which means that younger workers must further postpone their entry into the workplace. Job instability, experts agree, is a big reason why Italian young people are staying home longer and getting married and having children later than before. "The pension crisis is slowing he process of generational renewal and there's a real contradiction," said Cavalli, who pointed out that in a country that "rewards seniority," the average age of the political class was also high, making it difficult for young politicians to emerge. "At the same time no political group wants to assail the pension system in a country of pensioners."

Berlusconi's main campaign tactic has been to defend his government's record. In a glossy publication sent to millions of Italian families this month, the prime minister cites labor reform as his government's main achievement.

Experts say that the reform, which introduced greater flexibility, had the merit of opening up a stagnant labor market. But in Italy's zero-growth economic climate, some worry that various innovative elements, like temporary contracts, are becoming permanent. "You can't eliminate these jobs, but lawmakers and unions should work together to ensure that these temporary jobs don't go on forever," said Carlo Dell'Aringa, a professor of political economy at Milan's Catholic University. "If they stretch out, they turn into insecurity about the future." One corrective proposed by the center-left during the campaign would be to make it more onerous for employers to hire workers on temporary contract - an incentive to hire workers full time.

Simone Baldelli, who heads the youth movement of Berlusconi's Forza Italia, is also running for Parliament in the Marches region. In a telephone interview, he dismissed fears about job instability as "leftist propaganda and pessimism" and defended Berlusconi's labor reforms as "opening new opportunities in Italy." He blamed past governments for today's problems. "We're still paying the price of the promises made by the generation that came out of 1968 - promises of secure, well-paid and creative employment - that cannot be maintained," Baldelli said. "That's an unrealistic dream machine. The truth is that people want concrete proposals."

In the rush before the elections April 9, both coalitions seem to be reaching out to young voters, at least on the streets. Last weekend, the National Alliance, the second-largest party in Berlusconi's coalition, held a rally, complete with rock bands, in the center of Milan, and mocked Prodi's plan to require a six-month civil service stint for all young Italians. On Sunday evening, Prodi made a headline appearance at one of Milan's best-known discothèques where about 400 people, mostly an under-25 crowd, had come to hear him talk about laws supporting Italy's music industry and fighting piracy. Sitting on a fake leather sofa, hobnobbing with a handful of top Italian pop stars, Prodi turned down a free compact disc he had been offered. "No, you have to pay for a CD," he said. The crowd cheered.

Eric Sylvers contributed reporting for this article.

Financial Times October 27 2006

Summers issues warning to leaders on stability
By Andrew Hill in New York

Complacency about global prosperity, world political stability and the business benefits of globalisation could lead to the same public policy misjudgments that pitched the world into war in 1914, Larry Summers has warned.

Speaking only days before the US congressional elections, the former US Treasury secretary called on US and world politicians not to take stability for granted, as their predecessors did between 1910 and the start of the first world war.

“The decisions that will be made in the US by government officials through public policy will determine to a very great extent whether these [economic] imbalances lead to financial crisis, whether the world maintains a broad geopolitical stability and whether capitalism develops in a progressive tradition - in ways that ensure that it benefits everybody,” he told an audience of business and media executives at a New York gala dinner for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award. The £30,000 award was presented to China Shakes the World, an analysis of the rapid rise of China by James Kynge.

Mr Summers, who was Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, said the growth of China and India was bringing about a “change unlike any change the world has ever seen”. This was likely to pose challenges in the short-term because of unbalanced capital flows from China and other emerging economies to the US and developed world.

Mr Summers also drew attention to the rift between the US and the developing world that last month’s summit of non-aligned nations in Havana exposed. He said that as a result, the US was having to pay court to China in its effort to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and to Russia in respect of Iran. “Whether this world is to be brought under control isn’t certain and it will depend very much on choices being made here in the US,” Mr Summers said.

In an interview on Friday, Mr Kynge, a former FT bureau chief in Beijing, said he agreed with Mr Summers that the onus was on the politicians to make sure that rapid growth in China and elsewhere is managed but he described the position of policymakers in the west as “unenviable”.

Mr Summers warned that while globalisation was “the most fantastic thing” for executives, “there’s a vast world of people in Dusseldorf, in Detroit ... who fear the prospect of competing with New York on smarts [intelligence] and competing with India and China on cost”.

Financial Times October 29 2006

The global middle cries out for reassurance
By Lawrence Summers

Against all odds, we are living in a time of plenty. Neither the after-effects of September 11 2001 nor a tripling in oil prices has prevented the world’s economy from growing faster in the past five years than in any five-year period in recorded economic history.

Given this recent performance and the pricing-in by world markets of an optimistic outlook, one might have expected this to be a moment of particularly great enthusiasm for the market system and for global integration.

Yet in many corners of the globe there is growing disillusionment. From the failure to complete the Doha trade round to pervasive Wal-Mart-bashing, from massive renationalisation in Russia to the success of populists in Latin America and eastern Europe, we see a degree of anxiety about the market system that is unmatched since the fall of the Berlin Wall and probably well before.

Why is there such disillusionment? Some anti-globalisation sentiment can be seen as a manifestation of resistance to the US arising from the Bush administration’s foreign policy misadventures. But there is a much more troubling source: the growing recognition that the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth – and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking.

Two groups have found themselves in the right place at the right time to benefit from globalisation and technological change. First, those in low-income countries, principally in Asia and especially in China, who are able to plug into the global system. The combination of low wages, diffusible technology and the ability to access global product and financial markets has fuelled an economic explosion.

It is important to remember that the period between the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Britain and continental Europe was called the Industrial Revolution for a reason. For the first time in human history, the standard of living of one generation was demonstrably better than the one before: in a single lifespan, real per capita incomes doubled and then doubled again. If one looks at the growth rate of China during the past 30 years, living standards are increasing at a rate that will lead to a hundred-fold improvement over a single human lifespan. The impact cannot be overstated.

Second, it has been a golden age for those who already own valuable assets. Owners of scarce commodities have seen their returns rise prodigiously. People running businesses that can take advantage of globalisation to source labour less expensively and sell to larger markets have seen their incomes rise far faster than incomes generally. Certainly those in the financial sector in a position to benefit from the asset revaluations associated with globalisation have prospered.

Everyone else has not fared nearly as well. As the great corporate engines of efficiency succeed by using cutting-edge technology with low-cost labour, ordinary, middle-class workers and their employers – whether they live in the American midwest, the Ruhr valley, Latin America or eastern Europe – are left out. This is the essential reason why median family incomes lag far behind productivity growth in the US, why average family incomes in Mexico have barely grown in the 13 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed, and why middle-income countries without natural resources struggle to define an area of comparative advantage.

It is this vast group that lacks the capital to benefit from globalisation and is desperately seeking either reassurance or a change in course. Yet without its support it is very doubtful that the existing global economic order can be maintained.

Let us be frank. What the anxious global middle is told often feels like pretty thin gruel. The twin arguments that globalisation is inevitable and protectionism is counterproductive have the great virtue of being correct, but do not provide much consolation for the losers. Nor can they rally support for policies that maintain, let alone promote, international integration.

Economists rightly emphasise that trade, like other forms of progress, makes everyone richer by enabling them to buy goods at lower prices. But this offers small solace to those who fear their jobs will vanish.

Education is central to any economic strategy, but there is a limit to what it can do for workers in their 40s and beyond. Nor can education be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month.

John Kenneth Galbraith was right when he observed: “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.” Meeting the needs of the anxious global middle is the economic challenge of our time.

In the US, the political pendulum is swinging left. The best parts of the progressive tradition do not oppose the market system; they improve on the outcomes it naturally produces. That is what we need today.

There are no easy answers. The economic logic of free, globalised, technologically sophisticated capitalism may well be to shift more wealth to the very richest and some of the very poorest in the world, while squeezing people in the middle.

Just as the Federal Housing Administration’s effort to make owner-occupied housing more available after the second world war was a crucial part of the policy approach that permitted the Marshall Plan to go forward, so also our success in advancing international integration will depend on what can be done for the great global middle.

Our response will affect not just the livelihoods of millions of our fellow citizens but also the prospects for continuing global integration, with all the prosperity and stability it has the potential to bring.

The writer is former US Treasury secretary

San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE October 31, 2006

How business can spread morality
First of two columns about the business stewardship ethic [second]
Richard Louv

Last week, Newsweek published a bizarre quote by a Republican candidate for Oklahoma state superintendent of schools. He proposed that students, when confronted by school shooters, use thick textbooks “until police get there.” He also suggested that school book manufacturers consider covering books with Kevlar. "People might think it's kind of weird – crazy,” he added.

Well, yeah, but in the current culture, a Kevlar book jacket seems almost plausible. Technological prophylactics – metal detectors, surveillance cameras, body armor – along with more laws, regulations and prisons, reflect society's standard-issue responses to repeated violence and scandal.

But such approaches just aren't working. The central problem is not technological, but ethical; our society struggles to find a workable balance between the benefits of tolerance and absolute moral values. So says Daniel Yankelovich, one of San Diego's resident wise men and an international expert on the shaping of public opinion. “The rise of social tolerance, which is good, has gone hand in hand with business corruption, crude violence in pop culture, public rudeness and worse,” he argues. Ethically, we're in no-man's land.

“We live in a culture in which people unblushingly announce, 'I didn't break the law so I didn't do anything wrong.' In past decades, such a statement would have been met with incredulity,” says Yankelovich. Today, it's every man, woman and child for himself or herself. Kevlar might help.

Given the fix we're in, Yankelovich offers an unexpected proposal: that the most immediate and potentially effective way to reclaim our moral compass is through the business culture.

To many people the idea that the corporate world could lead us to safe ethical ground is as strange as proposing Kevlar book covers.

But Yankelovich may be on to something.

In June, Yale University Press published his new book, “Profit with Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism.” Yale Press offers its authors – even ones as well known as Yankelovich – no publicity, so the book has had to surface on its own. Fortunately, the ideas in the slim volume are catching on, in such places as the Harvard University Business School.

Business scandals constitute just one symptom of national ethical confusion. He refers to countless others – “the troubles of the Catholic Church, the blind spots of the Congress in budget making, the corruptions of state and city government, the muddled priorities of the American Red Cross, even baseball's steroid scandals.”

Let's not forget ethics as a moving target in a current war, or recent rationalizations for torture – based on so-called new realities – made by some of the same people who have railed in the past against moral relativism.

Experts decry our moral slippage, and recommend more technology, laws and prisons. Or they condemn parents while calling for a revival of traditional religious values. Fine. But, as far as can be told, such talk hasn't produced much except political polarization. In red states and blue, the beat goes on.

Yankelovich's thesis is this: Following a series of devastating scandals, from Enron to WorldCom, business is well positioned not only to put its own house in order, but to turn the scandals of recent years to good use – to help establish new ethical norms in the wider culture. He chooses to focus on ethnical confusion in business for one primary reason. Practicality. He believes the chances for success are far better in the business world than in other spheres of American life, “and that a high standard of ethical clarity in the business sector will help to dispel moral confusion in the culture at large.”

But wait. Yankelovich wants to establish order in the chicken coop by giving the fox civics lessons? Not exactly. He is, in fact, one of the foxes. He has served on the boards of numerous corporations, including CBS, Loral Space & Communications, U.S. West, and Diversified Energies. As chairman of Viewpoint Learning and of DYG, Inc., Yankelovich is all for profit.

He is, as he puts it, “in the game.”

Impatient with those who demand “corporate responsibility” but show no understanding that a business must survive in order to be responsible, he argues for a radically different approach.

“If we rely primarily on regulatory and legal mechanisms to repair the damage, we will not get very far,” he argues. “We will force the gamesters of the system to be more ingenious and more careful. But we will not transform the ethical climate.” He's right about this: the usual fixes and the usual suspects are failing to cure corporate corruption, stop youth violence, or reroute road rage.

What will? The infusion of what Yankelovich calls a new “stewardship ethic” first in business and then in the society.

Idealistic? Sure. Profitable? You bet. Details in the next memo.

San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE November 7, 2006

A prescription for business sanity
Second of two columns about the business stewardship ethic [first]
Richard Louv

Not long ago, on an airplane, I sat next to a businessman who was insane, at least by one measure. The owner of a San Diego technology company, he said he considered dominant business practices hilarious. “Look at 'em,” he said. “They think they're so smart.” He broke into mocking laughter.

This guy expressed the most peculiar ideas about how to run a business: He said he offers every employee, including the custodial staff, the same health coverage that he receives and it's the best plan his money can buy. No special parking spaces, or other exclusive perks, for anyone. His company informs every employee about the salary level of every other employee. He makes his own salary known, too. “You want your employees quitting, well, you do the opposite,” he said. “You want your highly paid people to perform at their best? Make sure other employees know how much they make.”

His stockholders, if he has any, should send a medical team to cart him away. Or maybe he's the sanest American I've met in a while.

Daniel Yankelovich, a San Diego sage and one of the nation's leading public opinion experts, would likely agree with the second analysis. In his new book, “Profit with Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism,” Yankelovich argues that the deepest tradition of American business – the ethnic of enlightened self-interest – has morphed into unenlightened self-interest: a commitment to immediate profitability even if it means long-term loss of market share. This “I win-You lose” ethic infects companies and culture, and it's not doing us any favors.

“The smooth functioning of the market depends on trust. And the surest way to undermine our market economy is by letting mistrust run amok,” says Yankelovich.

DYG, a trend-tracking service for corporate clients, reports that a majority of the nation's employees no longer believe their jobs will be secure even if they perform well. Employees no longer believe in employer loyalty and concern; they have lost confidence that they will be rewarded for learning and expanding their skills. They are increasingly skeptical about the corporate emphasis on quality. (Quality is usually equated with fewer, not more, employees, resulting in devaluation of employees.) And most employees find little pleasure or meaning in their jobs, beyond the money they earn. As a result, the business culture is in for a rough ride.

Since the early 21st century, three major waves of distrust for business have occurred. The Depression produced the first wave of distrust. The second wave bracketed Vietnam and Watergate. Public trust in business fell from 70 percent in 1968 to 29 percent in 1980. A third wave of distrust began to build in 2002, with a string of major corporate scandals. This current wave may prove to be the most difficult to undo, says Yankelovich, because baby boomer consciousness was formed during the second wave.

“When inclinations of mistrust take hold in people's formative years, these are readily re-awakened and reinforced, making the new layer of mistrust more difficult to penetrate,” he says.

So what's the alternative? “Stewardship ethics,” suggests Yankelovich. For each business act, two questions should be asked: a) Does it improve the company's long-term profitability? b.) Does it advance the broader public good?

Toyota is a leading example of stewardship ethics in practice. The company took a big risk when it invested heavily in its Earth-friendly hybrid technology. The investment may yet reap major, direct rewards. But the company (which unofficially plans to introduce an all-hybrid line by 2010) dominates the auto market. Meanwhile, Detroit, motivated by what Yankelovich would consider anti-stewardship ethics, pushes gas-guzzlers with high profit margins “irrespective of long-term consequences, even the future well-being of the company.”

Similarly, Procter and Gamble is betting on its 20-year plan to introduce its water purification technology to the 40 countries with the highest rates of infant mortality. Yankelovich predicts that plenty of investors will line up for such an effort.

As for the work force, Starbucks now spends more on health insurance for its employees – including part-time workers – than it does on coffee; the company realizes that treating its employees well means that they, in turn, will be hospitable to customers. The philosophy seems to be working.

The blank spot in Yankelovich's theory is lack of research. Describing a few exceptional companies does not prove that stewardship ethics lead to long-term profitability by most companies that practice them. He admits the gap. “We're just beginning to ask those kinds of questions,” he says. But he predicts that companies that invest in improving everyone's long-term sustainability will be the companies that prosper long term; and that smart executives will learn that their status will become more secure when they stop worrying about their own status, and start treating their employees as equals.

Nuts? Naive? So was the Prius. The Hummer, of course, was sensible.

Bloomberg, in Daily Telegraph 8 November 2006

Revenue, Bonuses & Salaries 5 US Investment Banks

Financial Times 8 December 2006

Carlyle founder predicts $100bn buy-out deal
By James Politi in New York

    David Rubenstein, the co-founder of Carlyle, the US private equity group, has predicted that a leveraged buy-out worth a staggering $100bn coulcl be agreed within the next two years as he dismissed the notion of a bubble in the industry.
    In an interview with FT.com's View from the Top, Mr Rubenstein predicted a $100bn private equity deal would be signed by 2008 and a $50bn buy-out could come as early as next year.
    His comments highlight the growing ambitions of the world's largest private investors, whom he dubbed the new "face of American capitalism" in place of traditional industry titans such as IBM and General Motors.
    Last month, Blackstone, a rival private equity group, agreed to buy Equity Office Properties, a commercial real estate company, for $36bn including debt in the biggest buy-out deal in history.
    But there have been signs that this record could be broken.
Vivendi, the French media giant, was recently approached with a €50bn ($66bn) bid from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and last week Home Depot was forced to deny market speculation that it was involved in $l00bn buy-out talks.
    Talk of deals on such a scale have led many observers to believe that private equity firms have created a bubble that could burst painfully in a string of bankruptcies. But Mr Rubenstein insisted that these concerns were overblown.
    "There's no doubt there's a lot of money going into private equity - there's no doubt people are paying high prices on certain deals, but I don't think it's a bubble," he said. "What's happening now is people are beginning to use a different investment technique and this adds real value to the economy and real value to the companies that [private equity] works with."
    As private equity groups have emerged as some of the most powerful forces on Wall Street, there has been considerable speculation that senior executives may choose to monetise their success through initial public offerings.
    Mr Rubenstein said Carlyle was "not working on" a stock market listing but suggested that the recent IPO plans unveiled by Fortress, a private equity group and hedge fund, were being closely scrutinised by his peers.

Financial Times December 11, 2006

Only fairness will assuage the anxious middle
LAWRENCE SUMMERS

A recent meeting with the incoming freshmen of the 110th House of Representatives made clear to me some of the forces that will shape American economic policy in the next few years. Coming from very different parts of the country and very different political perspectives, the new members of Congress have in common that they have all heard from the anxious middle class. They feel under enormous pressure to respond not just to the economic insecurity that middle-class voters feel, but also to voters’ resentment at what they see as disproportionately prospering corporate elites. If the new Congress sees itself as having a mandate for anything in the economic area, it is for policies that “stand up” for ordinary Americans against the threat they perceive from corporate and moneyed interests.

These populist impulses have roots much deeper than campaign rhetoric. In the past, real wages and corporate profitability have moved together – increasing during economic expansions and when the US became more competitive, declining in recessions and when it encountered significant competitive threats. The unique feature of the current expansion is the divergence between the fortunes of capital and the fortunes of labour. While workers normally receive about three-quarters of corporate income, with the remainder going to profits and interest, the Economic Policy Institute has calculated that, since 2001, labour has received only about one-quarter of the increase in corporate income, as real wages have failed to keep pace with productivity growth.

Indeed, for most groups of workers, wages have not kept pace with inflation over the past several years. College graduates have been particularly hard hit, with their wages struggling to keep pace with inflation over the past five years. At the same time, profits per share for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index have increased at an annual rate of more than 10 per cent, even after taking into account inflation over the past four years.

This is not a trend that can be blamed on companies’ earning more abroad: the US national income accounts, which include only profits earned at home, reveal that corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product are at their highest level in two generations and still rising.

With this kind of cleavage between the economic fortunes of companies and their workers, it should not be surprising that ordinary American families do not feel they are in the same boat as US corporations and their chief executives. Charles Wilson, Eisenhower’s defence secretary, famously observed: “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors and vice versa.” Today, an increasing fraction of Americans see corporate leaders as part of Davos’s team rather than America’s.

These economic and political trends are and should be of great concern to the business community as well as to policymakers. They have led to populist policy proposals that cut against the grain of the market system by, for example, limiting free trade agreements, restricting outsourcing or limiting the ability of successful companies to expand.

The track record of such populist proposals is dismal. They rarely achieve their objectives and come with huge collateral costs. Policymakers forget at their peril that it is globalisation that has enabled the US economy to enjoy the favourable combination of low unemployment and low inflation of recent years – and that without open markets, product prices would be rising much faster, further attenuating living standards for middle-class families.

Yet it would not be a sufficient response for business or government simply to explain why populist policies would be counterproductive and to suggest – to borrow a term from a different debate – a “stay the course” strategy, perhaps with increased attention to the displaced. If the anxious middle’s concerns about fairness are this serious when the unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent, they will be far greater whenever the economy next turns down.

This puts a premium on finding measures that go with the grain of the market system while also responding to concerns about fairness. The place to start is by restoring the progressivity of the tax system – an area where much can be accomplished before considering changes to the rate structure.

It is neither fair nor efficient to audit disproportionately the tax returns of those in the bottom half of the income distribution at a time when most of the $500bn tax gap comes from those with high incomes. There is no policy justification for allowing the erosion of corporate income tax through pervasive use of corporate tax shelters and manipulation of transfer price rules. Not only does this cost the government revenue, it also puts undue competitive pressure on companies that want to meet obligations to their workers.

Much more can done in a range of areas, from disclosure of executive compensation, to ensuring that the government leverages the volume of its purchases, to making financing of education at every level more equitable, to making sure that businesses continue to take responsibility for their workers’ healthcare costs.

When, as now, concerns become sufficiently serious, those with bad ideas always win out over those with no ideas.

John Kennedy famously challenged Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” In the years ahead, this question will be put with increasing force to US corporations. A great deal depends on the vigour with which it is answered.

The writer is Charles W. Eliot university professer at Harvard

CASH 14.Dezember 2006

REKORD-BONI 2006 wird für die Banken ein Rekordjahr.
Allein CS und UBS schütten über 20 Milliarden Franken an Boni aus.
Banker lassen es krachen

    Für die Banker dominiert in der Vorweihnachtszeit ein Thema: der Bonus. Seit Wochen sind die Bankangestellten bestrebt, ihren Chefs zu gefallen. Schließlich geht es um viel Geld: Dieses Jahr werden die Boni höher ausfallen als 2005, und zwar um 10 bis 15 Prozent, wie Klaus Biermann vom Personalberater Smith & Jessen Schweiz schätzt.
    Möglich machen den Geldsegen die Gewinne, die dieses Jahr bei den beiden Grossbanken UBS und CS erneut klar über jenen des Vorjahres liegen. Am meisten profitieren werden einmal mehr die Investinentbanker im Ausland.
    Sehr gut abschliessen wird dieses Jahr auch das Private Banking, das Geschäft mit vermögenden Privatkunden. «In der Regel werden 15 Prozent des Nettogewinns als Bonus ausbezahlt», sagt ein hochrangiger Banker. Wenig bis fast nichts fällt dagegen im Klein- und Kreditkundengeschäft ab.
    Die Kehrseite der Medaille: Breite Bevölkerungskreise verstehen angesichts dieser Zahlen die Welt nicht mehr. Zum Neid kommt der Ärger über immer höhere Gebühren und tiefe Sparzinsen. Banker gelten als Schmarotzer - auch bei Experten: «Für den Gewinn der Banken müssen alle Nichtbanken bezahlen», ist der Luzerner Wirtschaftsprofessor Maurice Pedergnana überzeugt.

Grossbanken schütten Rekordboni aus
Vor allem die Investmentbanker bei der UBS und der CS
können sich die Hände reiben: Sie erhalten 2006 die höchsten Boni.
Am wenigsten bekommen jene Banker, die sich um das
Kredit- und Kleinkundengeschäft in der Schweiz kümmern.
VON ZOE BACHES

Bonizahlungen Finanzplätze (2005, 2006)
Schätzungen in Mrd CHF
New York            28,0    31,2
London                 18,5    22,1
Tokio                    13,0    15,6
Schweiz                16,6    20,0
(nur UBS & CS) Ein Grossteil der Bonizahlungen der UBS und der CS fliesst
nach New York und London, wo die meisten Investmentbanker ansässig sind.

Bei UBS und CreditSuisse (CS) finden jeweils im November und im Dezember die Jahresendgespräche statt. In Einzelunterredungen sprechen die Mitarbeiter mit ihren Vorgesetzten über das abgelaufene Jahr und darüber, ob die gesetzten Ziele erreicht wurden oder nicht. «Nach diesem Gespräch weiss ich, wie meine Leistung eingeschätzt wird, und kann ziemlich genau abschätzen, welchen Bonus ich erwarten kann», sagt ein UBS-Kadennann zu CASH. Denn über die genaue Höhe der Bonus-Zahlung, der leistungsabhängigen Vergütuug, die zusätzlich zum Fixgehalt ausbezahlt wird, wird in einem Zusatzgespräch separat informiert. In knapp sechs Wochen beginnen denn auch die für jeden Bänker wichtigsten Treffen des Jahres: die Bonusgespräche. «Wir hatten ein tolles Jahr. Natürlich gehe ich von einem wesentlich höheren Bonus als im Vorjahr aus», so ein CS-Kadermann.
Mit seiner Hoffnung steht der Kadermann nicht alleine da. Viele Banker rechnen damit, dass ihr Bonusgespräch für dieses Jahr ausgesprochen erfreulich verläuft. Schliesslich haben die ersten drei Quartale gezeigt, dass ein weiteres Rekordjahr bevorsteht. Analysten rechnen für die UBS im Schnitt mit einem Gewinn von 10,6 Milliarden Franken (nach operativen 9,9 Milliarden im 2005), für die CS wird ein Gewinn zwischen 7,9 und 8,9 Milliarden Franken geschätzt (5,9 Millionen im Vorjahr) - noch ist der Buchwert der Winterthur-Versicherung offen, die Ende Jahr an die Axa verkauft wird (siehe auch Seite 13). CASH schätzt, dass die Boni-Gesamtsumme von UBS und CS zusammengezählt mindestens 20 Milliarden Franken beträgt. Das wären 20 Prozent mehr als die 16,6 Milliarden Franken, die sie für 2005 ausbezahlt haben dürften. Beide Banken geben die Höhe der Bonuszahlungen nicht an. Für 2006 dürfte die UBS rund 12,6 Milliarden Franken ausschütten, die CS gut 7,8 Milliarden Franken. Für die Schätzung waren die Ertragsentwicklung und Analystenannahmen zum Personalaufwand für 2006 ausschlaggebend. In dieser Position sind alle Lohn- und Bonuszahlungen (Cash, Aktien und Optionen) enthalten.

Rund 600 Millionen Franken Boni für das Private Banking der Credit Suisse
Wie wird der Bonuspool verteilt? LetztesJahr wurden bei CS und UBS weniger als 2 Prozent an den Verwaltungsrat und die Konzernleitung verteilt. Dann folgt die Verteilung auf die einzelnen Sparten. Klaus Biermann, Chef des Personalberaters Smith & Jessen Schweiz, schätzt, dass die Boni für die einzelnen Bankmitarbeiter insgesamt 10 bis 15 Prozent höher als im Vorjahr sein werden. Bei beiden Banken erhielten über 90 Prozent der Mitarbeiter im letzten Jahr einen Bonus.
    Wegen der wachsenden Bedeutung der individuellen Leistung falle die Verteilung allerdings sehr unterschiedlich aus. So fliesse der Hauptharst der Boni einmal mehr ins Investmentbanking, und damit bei beiden Banken ins Ausland. «Teams in den Bereichen Derivate, strukturierte Produkte, Corporate Finance und Fusionen und Übernahmen, die sehr gut performt haben, werden weit mehr als 15 Prozent Bonussteigerung erhalten», schätzt Biermann. Deudich weniger falle dagegen für die Banker im Klein- und Kreditkundengeschäft (Retailbanking) ab.
    Sehr gut abschliessen wird dieses Jahr das Private Banking, das Geschäft mit vermögenden Privatkunden. Am Beispiel der CS erklärt ein hochrangiger Manager, wie die Boni verteilt werden: «In der Regel werden 15 Prozent des Reingewinns als Bonus ausbezahlt.» Von den schätzungsweise 4 Milliarden Franken, die das Private Banking für 2006 als Gewinn ausweisen dürfte, würden demnach 600 Millionen als Boni eingesetzt werden.
    «Davon gehen normalerweise 10 Prozent an den inneren Managerzirkel», so der Banker. Waller Berchtold, Chef Private Banking bei der CS, dürfte zwischen 10 und 15 Millionen Franken kassieren, dann gehe es im Pyramidensystem abgestuft nach unten. Berchtold direkt Unterstellte wie «der Chef Asien oder der Chef USA dürften zu ihrem Basissalär von etwa 400000 Franken einen Bonus von 3 bis 4 Millionen Franken kassieren». Eine Kaderstufe weiter unten seien es bei einem Fixlohn von bis 350000 Franken noch 2 Millionen Franken Bonus. Noch eine Kaderstufe weiter unten, bei einem festen Salär von bis 250000, würden wohl l bis 1,25 Millionen Franken Boni bezahlt, so der Banker.
    Bei der UBS dürften sich die Zahlungen in ähnlichem Rahmen bewegen. Allerdings «bezahlt UBS etwas weniger hohe Boni als CS», meint ein Kadermann, da die UBS «meist die Institution stärker als die einzelne Person gewichtet". Für die am höchsten dotierten Mitarbeiter, erfolgreiche Händler, die etwa Hedgefonds betreuen, bezahlen allerdings beide Häuser Fantasiepreise. «30 bis 50 Millionen Bonus liegen für Top-Performer durchaus drin», bestätigt ein hochrangiger Banker.

An der Wall Street herrscht Jubelstimmung
PETER HOSSLI

    Bei Manhattan Motorcars gehen gelbe Lamborghini und silberne Porsche 911 weg wie warme Semmeln. Börsianer bescheren dem Amohändler ein Rekordjahr, denn die Boni fallen hoch aus wie nie. Zwar rapportiert die Revisionsstelle in New York die offiziellen Zahlen erst im Januar. Zwei private Studien gehen von einem Geldsegen aus, der das Internetblasenjahr 2000 übersteigt.
    Zwischen 10 und 15 Prozent mehr als im Vorjahr kriegen Banker und Aktienhändler, berechneten die Beraterfirmen Options Group und Alan Johnson Associates. Total dürften es 24 Milliarden Dollar werden, sagt Eric Moskowitz von der Options Group. Vor einem Jahr gab es 21,5 Milliarden Dollar, 2000 waren es 19,5 Milliarden.
     Mit einem «markanten Anstieg bei Gewinn und Umsatz» begründet Moskowitz die Bescherung. Die real höchsten Boni zahlen Goldman Sachs und Morgan Stanley. Am meisten kriegen Hedge-Funds-Manager und die Händler von Derivaten und strukturierten Finanzproduklen. Den grössten Sprung verzeichnen mit 20 bis 25 Prozent die Investmentbanker. Die Boni der Händler von festverzinslichen Wertschriften stagnieren, gar weniger erhalten Devisenhändler.
    Laut Options Group kriegt ein Chef einer weltweit operierenden amerikanischen Investmentbank diesesjahr 10 bis 12 Millionen Dollar. Ein Generaldirektor erhält zwischen 2,2 und 3,8 Millionen. Der Grundlohn beträgt rund 200000 Dollar. Wer ein erstes Jahr an der Wall Street abgestrampelt hat, kriegt zwischen 130000 und 150000 Dollar. Am anderen Ende stehen Börsenhändler, die 5 oder 10 Prozent dessen kassieren, was sie für ihre Firma verdienen: Erwirtschaftet jemand 500 Millionen Dollar, kriegt er 50 Millionen. Das ist möglich, weil Finanzhäuser nicht mehr nur das Geld der Klientel verwalten, sondern die Händler anhaken, das Firmenkapital gewinnbringend anzulegen.
    Noch gibts in New York die grössten Boni. Doch wachsen sie im Schnitt in Europa (plus 15 bis 20 Prozent) oder in Asien (plus 20 bis 25 Prozent) kräftiger. Ein Trend, der anhält. Der Bedarf nach Finanzdienstleistungen in Lateinamerika, Osteuropa oder Asien steigt rasanter als in den USA.

Die Devise lautet: «Cover your ass»
Ohnmacht, Neid, Wut, Schadenfreude: Das Verhältnis zum Banker ist gestört.
Er protzt mit Geld, Autos und Zigarren, während sich der Bankkunde
über immer höhere Gebühren und tiefe Sparzinsen nervt
VON RENE SOLLBERGER

    Am Vorabend des Casual Friday gehört die Onyx. Bar im Zürcher Hotel Park Hyatt jeweils den Bankern. Nach Büroschluss gellt hier donnerstags die Post ab. An dieser Bar haben sich auch schon Mick Jagger und Robbie Williams vergnügt. Und was den Stars recht ist, kann den Bankern nur billig sein. Vor allem Leute ab 30 sind hier anzutreffen. Die Jüngeren tummeln sich - jeweils am Dienstag - lieber in der Carlton Bar. Da wie dort ist das Thema nicht der Advent von Christus, sondern der vom Bonus. «Reicht es diesmal für einen sechsstelligen Betrag?», fragt sieb ein junger Investmentbanker. Sein älterer Kollege liebäugelt mit einer Million - das Doppelte seines Jahresgehalts.
    Die Weihnachtszeit ist die Zeit der Duckmäuser. «Cover your ass», sich ja keine Blösse geben, lautet die Devise. Und man nickt und schluckt alles, was von oben kommt.
    Die Carlton Bar ist um 19 Uhr gerammelt voll. Ab jetzt bezahlt man für die After-Work-Party 10 Franken Eintritt. Vorher gab es den Fünl-nach-sechs-Stempel «5N6» gratis - und die Drinks zum halben Preis. «Ob ich den Job in London annehmen soll?», fragt einer. Und der andere - er hat den Laptop dabei - will nach Hause: «Sonst sehe ich den Kleinen nicht mehr. Wenn er schläft, kann ich dann wieder in Ruhe arbeiten.»

Am Zürcher Paradeplatz werden aus den Vorurteilen Urteile
In der Onyx Bar fliesst der Alkohol. Die Drinks sind relativ billig, dafür gehen die handgedrehten Zigarren ins Geld. Aber wie sonst will man den ganzen Mammon ausgeben? Zahlen bitte! 47 Franken. Von 100 gibt es kommentarlos, als wäre das Aufrunden selbstverständlich, 50 zurück. Wer hier an Kleingeld denkt, ist im falschen Film. Wer sich am Zürcher Paradeplatz umsieht, versteht den Neid des Nichtbankers. Sämtliche Klischees werden bedient. Vorurteile werden zu Urteilen. Bei manch einem Nichtbanker geht der 13. Monatslohn voll für die Steuerrechnung drauf. Von einem Bonus in der Höhe eines - sonst schon hohen - Jahressalärs kann er nur träumen. Der Neid paart sich mit der Wut über die tiefen Sparzinsen und die hohen Gebühren: «Theater spielen, abzocken, die Mitarbeiter auspressen - das können sie, die Banker», schreibt CASH-Leser Jürg Seidel. Er nervt sich über die hohen Kosten für Transaktionen. Unternehmer Bruno Huwyler ist beim Blick in die Zeitung der Kragen geplatzt. «Ich muss kotzen wegen der Arschkriecherei fürs Geld, wegen der Bankfuzzis und der raffgierigen Aktienverlierer», schreibt er.
Keine Frage, die Volksseele kocht. Die sprichwörtlichen Gnomen von Zürich, 1964 vom britischen Aussenminister George Brown aus Ärger über einen Schwächeanfall des britischen Pfunds in die "Welt gesetzt, sind zu neuem Leben erwacht. Wen wundert es da noch, dass Neid und Wut in Schadenfreude gipfeln, wenn ein Ebner alles verliert oder ein Ackermann als Angeklagter vor Gericht stellt?
Sogar Banker haben Verständnis dafür, dass ihre Spezies in weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung als Feindbild gilt. «Das entsteht aus einem Ohnrnachtsgefühl», sagt Claudia Nielsen, Ökonomin und Venvaltungsratspräsidentin der Alternativen Bank Schweiz. Aber: «Man kann ja die Bank wechseln, wenn man als UBS-Kunde mit dem hohen Lohn von Marcel Ospel nicht einverstanden ist» Und Raiffeisen-Chef Pierin Vincenz sagte jüngst in der Radiosendung «Doppelpunkt»: «Gewisse Banken wollen einfach den Gewinn maximieren, andere haben andere Werte, die sie dem Kunden gegenüber vertreten.» Wichtig für eine gute Zusammenarbeit sei Vertrauen: «Wenn dies nicht zustande kommt, dann bleibt nur, die Bankbeziehung zu wechseln.»

«You & Us», aber bitte nicht in der Kommunikation
Auch Maurice Pedergnana, Professor für Bank- und Finanzwesen, warf einen kritischen Blick auf die Branche: «Für den Gewinn der Banken müssen am Ende alle Nichtbanken bezahlen.» In der gleichen Sendung war der Unmut der Zuhörer deutlich zu spüren. Der Tenor: Wer so viel Gewinn macht, muss das Geld sonst irgendwo wegnehmen. Viele Fragen waren an die Grossbanken gerichtet. Vergeblich, denn UBS und CS blieben dem Forum fern. Von wegen «You & Us».

Le Monde 14 décembre 2006

Un grand patron français gagne en moyenne 300 smics
Cécile Ducourtieux

En 2005, pour la deuxième année consécutive, les rémunérations des présidents des 120 premières entreprises cotées en France (dans l'indice SBF 120) ont baissé de 2,94 % par rapport à 2004, à 3 millions d'euros en moyenne. Celles des présidents des sociétés de l'indice CAC 40 (les quarante plus grosses capitalisations françaises) ont reculé de 14,07 %, à 4,86 millions d'euros en moyenne. C'est le constat que fait Proxinvest, spécialiste de l'analyse des résolutions soumises aux assemblées générales, dans un rapport (le huitième) rendu public mercredi 13 décembre.

CLASSEMENT
Les 10 plus fortes rémunérations des dirigeants du SBF 120 en 2005, en millions d'euros*.
1. BUSINESS OBJECTS.    John Schwarz (directeur général, DG) : 26,38.
2. L'ORÉAL.    Lindsay Owen-Jones (PDG) : 24,97.
3. LVMH.    Bernard Arnault (PDG) : 12,98.
4. VINCI.    Antoine Zacharias (ancien PDG) : 11,77.
5. DASSAULT SYSTÈMES.    Bernard Charlès (DG) : 11,71.
6. AXA.     Henri de Castries (président du directoire) : 10,13.
7. LAGARDÈRE SCA.     Arnaud Lagardère (gérant) : 9,81.
8. VIVENDI.    Jean-Bernard Lévy (président du directoire) : 6,04.
9. SANOFI-AVENTIS.     Jean-François Dehecq (PDG) : 5,86.
10. MICHELIN.    René Zingraff (ancien gérant) : 5,75.
*Sont compris les salaires, les avantages en nature, les jetons de présence, et la valorisation des stock-options et des actions gratuites attribuées, en données brutes. Source: Proxinvest.

La baisse des rémunérations est en grande partie due à la diminution de la part liée aux stock-options. Ces dernières, attribuées gratuitement, permettent d'acheter des actions de son entreprise à bas prix. Les dirigeants en sont les premiers bénéficiaires. En 2005, la rémunération en stock-options n'a pesé "que" 38 % de la rémunération globale des présidents de l'indice SBF 120 contre 61 % en 2002. La part liée aux salaires (fixe et bonus) progresse, elle, de 5,65 %.

CRAINTE DE L'OPINION PUBLIQUE
Le passage en 2005 aux normes comptables IFRS pour les entreprises cotées explique en partie la diminution des plans de stock-options attribués aux dirigeants. " Ces normes imposent en effet d'inscrire ces produits financiers dans les comptes comme des charges de personnel, ayant un impact négatif sur les résultats" explique Pierre-Henri Leroy, gérant de Proxinvest.

La crainte de l'opinion publique jouerait aussi. La loi sur les nouvelles régulations économiques de 2001 impose la publication de la rémunération des mandataires sociaux des sociétés anonymes. Du coup, les comités de rémunération au sein des conseils d'administration seraient plus attentifs aux abus et ne valideraient les rémunérations qu'après avoir multiplié les comparaisons avec d'autres entreprises.

M. Leroy continue à réclamer un plafonnement des émoluments à 240 fois le montant du SMIC (8,27 euros brut par heure de travail jusqu'au 1er juillet 2007). " En 2005, la rémunération globale des présidents du CAC 40 était de 298 fois le SMIC en moyenne. C'est complètement hors de proportion : aucun d'entre eux n'est suffisamment génial ou héroïque pour mériter autant" proteste M. Leroy. Et d'ajouter : " L'inflation salariale des patrons américains, souvent avancée par les dirigeants français, n'est pas un argument valable."

Par comparaison, le salaire net moyen des patrons de PME s'élevait à 3 973 euros par mois en 2004, selon une enquête de l'Insee publiée mercredi dans La Tribune. Et si on considère la population française dans son ensemble (sans les DOM-TOM), la moitié d'entre elle vit avec moins de 1 972 euros par mois (pour des couples) et 1 315 euros par mois (pour une personne seule)...

Proxinvest dénonce par ailleurs le manque de transparence des entreprises concernant les rémunérations "différées" de leurs dirigeants (les régimes additifs de retraite, les clauses d'indemnités de départ, les actions gratuites...). Pourtant, la loi Breton de 2005 les y oblige. Le cabinet pointe par ailleurs les procédés " occultes", qui consistent à faire profiter les dirigeants de systèmes de couvertures annulant le risque lié à la détention de leurs plans de stock-options.

M. Leroy note enfin que malgré la relative modération observée en 2005, les excès persistent. Et de citer le cas d'Antoine Zacharias, PDG de Vinci contraint au départ ce printemps pour s'être montré trop gourmand (les plus-values potentielles de ses stock-options se montaient, début mai, à 173 millions d'euros).

L'outil de rémunération "stock-options" pose aussi problème. A la suite des soupçons de délits d'initié chez EADS, un amendement proposé par le député UMP du 15e arrondissement de Paris, Edouard Balladur, a été intégré au projet de loi sur la participation salariale. Il préconise que le conseil de surveillance "soit décide que les options ne peuvent être levées par les intéressés (les dirigeants) avant la cession de leurs fonctions, soit fixe la quantité des actions issues de levées d'options qu'ils sont tenus de conserver" jusqu'à cession de leurs fonctions. " Ce texte est inutile. Pour empêcher les opérations d'initiés, il aurait fallu obliger les dirigeants à exercer leurs options à des dates fixes", regrette M. Leroy.

Tribune de Genève décembre 2006

Records Gérants de fonds, analystes, traders, conseillers en tous genres:
les employés les plus rentables pourront toucher 1 à 2 millions.
ELISABETH ECKERT

On savait l'année boursière 2006 excellente. On redécouvrait également toute la vigueur d'une économie mondiale où les fusions et les acquisitions sont chose courante. Dès lors, les chiffres - à ce stade encore estimatifs - ont commencé à tomber. Ainsi, les grandes banques d'affaires domiciliées à Londres distribueront plus de 20 milliards de francs en bonus à leurs courtiers, gestionnaires ou banquiers d'affaires, soit une croissance de quelque 25% par rapport à 2005, qui fut déjà une année florissante. Outre-Atlantique, à Wall Street, la progression est encore plus forte, puisque selon l'agence financière Bloomberg, les primes liées aux bénéfices des quatre «majors» de la banque d'affaires - Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merill Lynch et Lehman Brothers - devraient bondir de 30%, pour atteindre 45,1 milliards de francs, soit, en moyenne, plus de 250 000 francs par emplpoyé ...

Concurrence à Wall Street
Extrêmement présentes sur ces places.financières, l'UBS et le Crédit Suisse ne pouvaient dès lors rester en retrait. Selon les estimations - souvent très justes - de la société d'investissements suisse Millenium Associates, spécialisée dans le secteur bancaire, les deux grandes banques vont octroyer des primes records cette année, lesquelles, au total, tourneront autour des... 20 milliards de francs. Et pour cause, explique le fondateur de Millenium, Ray Soudan, dans une interview octroyée au site Internet de Cash, «l'UBS et le Crédit Suisse, comme les grandes banques d'affaires, vont réaliser en 2006 des bénéfices absolument records. Elles sont dès lors obligées de distribuer des primes exceptionnelles, afin de conserver leurs spécialistes.» Ce seront donc les traders, les gérants de fonds ou les conséillers en fusions-acquisitions sis à Londres ou à NewYork qui, au sein des deux grandes banques suisses, vont le plus bénéficier de cette manne vertigineuse. Et pour cause: il y règne là-bas une concurrence féroce pour s'arracher les meilleurs. '«Vous devez payer ce qu'il faut pour attirer les talents, confirme ainsi Sandy Weill, l'ex-président de Citigroup, la plus grande banque universelle américaine. Sinon, ils iront voir ailleurs.» L'UBS et le Credit Suisse, qui ont de puissantes divisions d'investment banking, s'alignent dès lors simplement sur leurs concurrentes anglo-saxonnes où un courtier performant, par exemple, touchera à Londres entre 1 et 2 millions de bonus, une somme qui peut carrément décupler à Wall Street. L'an dernier, un gérant de hedge funds de l'UBS a ainsi déjà touché ... 100 millions de bonus, c'est-à-dire cinq fois plus que son président, Marcel Ospel.

Salariés suisses frustrés
Pendant ce temps, l'Association suisse des employés de banques (ASEB) fait grise mine face à la réévaluation linéaire pour 2006, accordée aux salariés suisses de 2,5%: «Au vu des records que les banques multiplient, déclare ainsi sa secrétaire centrale Marie-France Goy, une augmentation de 3% de la masse salariale ne relèverait pas de l'ivresse des sommets.» Cette dernière fustige également l'énorme disproportion et le manque absolu de transparence dans l'attribution de ces bonus: «Cette politique est source d'insatisfaction au sein du personnel.»

December 15, 2006

Mack’s $40 Million Bonus Sets Record, For Now

Morgan Stanley gave its chief executive, John J. Mack, $40 million in stock and options for 2006, the largest bonus ever awarded to a Wall Street chief. But the record may be short-lived as press reports and analysts are predicting even bigger rewards for the C.E.O.s of rival investment banks.

The Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified sources, writes that Goldman Sachs’s chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, is in line for compensation exceeding $50 million, and analysts told the newspaper that that some other chief executives, such as James Cayne of Bear Stearns and E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, could get $40 million to $50 million, or higher.

Mr. Mack received his entire bonus in stock and options. He was granted shares valued at $36.2 million as of Dec. 12, and about $4 million in options to buy Morgan Stanley shares. The firm also granted more than $57 million in bonuses for seven other top executives.

Shares of Morgan Stanley have climbed 40 percent this year, its best performance since 2003, according to Bloomberg News.

Go to Article from Bloomberg News »
Go to Article from Reuters »

107 comments so far...

1.December 15th, 2006 8:19 am No wonder the McDonald’s of Brokerage houses charges such extraordinary fees. They have to generate that cash to pay this slob. Herewith is all the example I need in explaining why I am my own Mutual Fund.
— Posted by Carl La Fong

2.December 15th, 2006 8:25 am With the continuing disparity in executive compensation with their employees, it is only a matter of time before the backlash against these large companies is felt in the form of political and legal maneuvering. Seriously, did these CEO’s really “earn” 50 million dollars?!
— Posted by Bradford Sullivan

3.December 15th, 2006 8:48 am A good year for Mack….the SEC in his pocket dismisses Aguirre and the SEC IG finds things just dandy, and now a big bonus.
A good year indeed.
— Posted by RJCogburn

4.December 15th, 2006 8:53 am That’s great! Now he can go out and buy shoes for the maintenance workers’ children. CEO’s should not make more than 10 times the lowest paid worker in their firm!
And we wonder why ten million young muslim men are angry?
— Posted by jb

5.December 15th, 2006 9:31 am What a pig. CEO compensation isout of control. I’ll be the first in line with my pitchfork.
— Posted by Patrick

6.December 15th, 2006 10:09 am In a nation where millions will remain hungry - I mean, “food insecure” - this Christmas, CEO compensation of this level is obscene.
In a country where hundreds-of-thousands have lost jobs, benefits, homes, careers - I mean, “been downsized” - as a consequence of greedy mergers and outsourcing, bonuses like this are a travesty.
In an America where the disparity between average workers’ salaries and the incomes of “top executives” has become mind-boggling, these figures are simply criminal.
I’ve always known that I was destined in my career to rise no higher than middle management, and that the ambitious individuals who head corporations would, quite naturally, be rewarded more handsomely than myself. But this is something else. This is something beyond the pale.
America has become a feudal society, a culture of viceroys and vassals. Information like that contained in this report will only fuel a righteous anger among those spending this Holiday season without insurance, without pensions, holding down two jobs merely to make ends meet. Many of us are already willing to join Patrick with torches and pitchforks at the ready.
— Posted by Bob Portune

7.December 15th, 2006 10:13 am If you thought about it, shareholders and investors rather pay CEO huge bonuses rather than distribute excess profits in the form of dividends to employees whom enable soaring profits. Obliviously, it’s in the best interest of a CEO to ensure their company performs well from the standpoint of compensation. And investors rather pay a bargain of a few millions of dollars to one person, or selected “few” rather than distribute a nominal rate to the majority of their employees.
Classic example of capitalism! That’s America for you!
— Posted by JAC

8.December 15th, 2006 10:20 am Instead of casting cynicism towards someone I am pretty sure no one has ever talked to, lets stop and admire Bill Gates and Warren Buffett(financier); these are of course two people who have given a sizable portion of their largesse towards noble causes.
— Posted by Kyle

9.December 15th, 2006 10:29 am I’m willing to bet that all of you complaining about exec compensation, maintenance workers footware, angry muslims, and whatever else you want to throw on the heap aren’t actual shareholders and most likely don’t even work in the private sector.
Most of you are probably municipal employees who sound as if you would be happier in pre-1990 Soviet Union.
hugs and kisses!
— Posted by dash3456

10.December 15th, 2006 11:08 am A pig indeed. Investment bankers are the scum of the earth. They charge for corporate takeovers. Then many employees are let go. I do admire someone like Bill Gates who have given money to causes, I don’t admire investment bankers who bring nothing to the economy. They are the scum of the earth.
— Posted by al

11.December 15th, 2006 11:24 am I’ve talked to Mack in the elevator. He seems like a nice enough guy. I say let him keep the cash.
— Posted by IA

12.December 15th, 2006 11:35 am It is true that I don’t know this person, but I am fairly certain that in order to get to the top, he spent a lot more time selling himself, managing upward, winning power struggles, and shirking blame than he ever did actually running the company. I’m sure that he treats the majority of his employees like cattle, especially the armies of 22 year olds working 100 hour weeks that these companies hire. There is no way to reach such a height otherwise. Fact is, he’s not worth that much money, but his pay inspires hundreds (thousands) to sell their souls and early twenties to the get rich quick dream, so that Merrill can take advantage of them. Some become millionaires, but more than half end up with sixty grand and two years away from anything resembling a normal life.
— Posted by Kevin

    13.December 15th, 2006 11:37 am And to think, if Morgan Stanley had spent just a fraction of that money in creating proper compliance procedures teh investing public may not have been so taken by teh firm.
A partial list of the fines Morgan has recieved recently for supervisory type violations.
    #1    Morgan Stanley has agreed to pay $19 million to settle charges by the New York Stock Exchange of supervisory and operational failings and to meet claims against former broker Carlos Soto.
Soto, who was based in Puerto Rico, is alleged to have stolen $56 million in customer funds.
    #2   Morgan Stanley has offered to pay $15 million to settle an ongoing regulatory investigation into its failure to retain e-mail records.
In a regulatory filing posted Monday, the US investment bank said it had reached agreement in principle with the SEC to resolve the probe into its e-mail archiving lapses.
Morgan Stanley’s shoddy record keeping practices were central to the imposition of a massive $1.58 billion fine by the US courts last year in a dispute with billionaire financier Robert Perelman.
    #3    NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - Morgan Stanley and Brown Brothers Harriman were among seven firms fined by the New York Stock Exchange’s regulatory arm in November 2006, the Big Board said Wednesday.
Morgan Stanley was fined $200,000 for improper order handling by NYSE Regulation Inc. An NYSE hearing panel determined that between October 2000 and November 2002, Morgan Stanley used a third-party floor broker so it could hold positions on both sides of the market, a violation of exchange rules.
Morgan Stanley also failed to record its instructions to floor brokers and comply with “know your customer” rules, the NYSE said.
    #4    By Aaron Seward November 22, 2006
Morgan Stanley was ordered to pay a hefty fine by the NYSE last month for failing to report on any of its short positions and for not having any supervisory procedures to catch the problem. The firm paid the highest fine this month as the NYSE released its monthly list of violations.
The firm consented to a censure and $500,000 fine. An NYSE hearing officer found that for an unknown, but significant, number of years the firm failed to report many of its short-interest positions to the NYSE, NASD, and AMEX. The officer also found that the firm’s supervisory controls were lacking in this regard. Morgan Stanley agreed to pay the fine in equal thirds to the NYSE, NASD, and AMEX.
    #5    Morgan Stanley Pays $50 Million To Settle SEC Action
Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the institution and simultaneous settlement of an enforcement action against Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (Morgan Stanley) for failing to provide customers important information relating to their purchases of mutual fund shares. As part of the settlement, Morgan Stanley will pay $50 million in disgorgement and penalties, all of which will be placed in a Fair Fund for distribution to certain Morgan Stanley customers.
    #6    NASD Fines Morgan Stanley Firms $2.9 Million for Widespread Violations of NASD Rules
Number and Scope of Violations Indicate Extensive Reporting Problems at Both Firms
Washington, D.C. - NASD announced today that it has imposed fines totaling $2.9 million against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (MSCO) and Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (MSDW) for extensive violations dealing with reporting obligations, best execution, short sales, and a range of other NASD, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules.
    #7    NASD fines four firms for supervisory failures
Edward Jones, RBC Dain Rauscher, Royal Alliance, and Morgan Stanley to pay US$43.8 million
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
By James Langton
— Posted by Dave

14.December 15th, 2006 11:48 am I think all of you are jealous. His bonus, while extreme, also came at the hands of a 40% increase in profits from last year. Last time I checked, a 40% increase from the year before is more than 40 million in stock options. Last year, he made only 755K and this year the company made hundreds of millions more and he was justly rewarded. An it is absolutely right for the head of a company to make 10 times what the lowest paid employee makes — its called a pay scale for a reason. What you are saying is we should pay the janitors 100K a year and the CEO’s 1 million? and then those same ceo’s would leave, the janitor would become the number one profession, and the company would go bankrupt.
— Posted by bw

15.December 15th, 2006 11:57 am Wow, how greedy will these CEO’s get before they bankrupt America? How many yauchts, homes, resorts, airplanes, girl friends, do these execs. need to prove their manhood? Who cares that impoverished families are increasing their debts and suffering? Who cares about our elderly living in isolation and subnormal living conditions? Who cares that our teachers, our most important laborers, are poorly paid? Who cares that our health care/sick care costs are increasing beyond most family budgets?
This is really sickening to those of us who do care. And, I’m sure that most of these big bonuses are shared with lobbyists and our greedy Congress and other politicians to keep the status quo
— Posted by Jerry

16.December 15th, 2006 12:47 pm What reward did the compensation committee reap by giving this guy 40 mil? I’m sure at the same time the folks that did the grunt work of ensuring the 40% stock increase were told that the bonuses would be small to nonexistent this year. That is the way it seems to work. What happens if the stock plummets the day after he sells his options? That is what seems to happens with these money grubbing corporate weasels.
— Posted by Craig

17.December 15th, 2006 12:48 pm How finanically irresponsibile. It’s becoming more and more clear to me that America’s business leaders are no business leaders. They are only fools.
— Posted by Silver Owl

18.December 15th, 2006 12:49 pm I am reminded of the day 10 years ago when the Texas Rangers signed A Rod for $250 million and I thought ‘wow that’s what the new hospital cost, 550 beds, a million patients a year, how is any baseball player worth that? My conclusion, excessive compensation contaminates the talent, coursens the genius and far overshadows any positive result. If you succeed at your game do you really want the story to be about ‘the largest compensation ever?’
— Posted by gopindrag

19.December 15th, 2006 12:51 pm True, there are many worthy sorts out there that seem grossly underpaid (teachers, for example). And there is a huge income gap in the U.S. Still, these ideas seem to have little, if anything, to do with Mack’s compensation, which is based on performance. The logic I’ve seen in many of these postings is sloppy. Post again when you have an intelligent critcism of this man’s earnings.
— Posted by Noah McCallum

20.December 15th, 2006 1:01 pm and one more thing, I remember reading when first elected in 2,000 that Cheney said to Bush, ‘this is our due.’ That seems to be the prevailing sentiment in corporate America today, as when United Health Cares #1 got $1.4 BILLION this year.
What I’d like to know is what does that guy say to his grandchildren? Bill Gates has already weighed with his opinion on what is an appropriate inheritance, but what about the rest of the obscenely wealthy.
— Posted by gopindrag

21.December 15th, 2006 1:04 pm People like Bob and Patrick who make these insidious comments about compensation should consider moving to a communist country. If they choose to live in a capitalist society, they should be ready to accept the good with the bad.
— Posted by Capitalist

22.December 15th, 2006 1:09 pm What is the big deal about CEO comp? I mean look at the amount of responsibilities they normally shoulder. A wrong move by them can put thousands out of jobs - Enron and MCI are a case in point. Moreover, they didn’t reach where they are overnight. It was years of effort and dedication. So, please work on the “sour grapes” syndrome instead of questioning someone’s pay package.
— Posted by Slam Dunk

23.December 15th, 2006 1:17 pm He’s a notch below the common street thug holding up a corner market.
— Posted by muirgeo

24.December 15th, 2006 1:39 pm $40 million dollars for Mr. Mack… Interesting… Mr. Mack, this note is for you and your organization.
The price tag for our educational systems music and art program is not nearly $40 million dollars a year. The cost for adding educational and after school programs are even less.
In the passing years I have noticed the diminishing support for such programs like the Boys and Girls Club. The Boys and Girls Club kept me from being a menace to society.
With that said how about redirecting the focus on individual compensation, and translate those funds as well as the resources that come up with such outrageous bonus packages into strengthening the educational system.
Note: I am sure I made grammatical errors. Please excuse them I am a product of the public school educational system.
— Posted by Orlando Malave

25.December 15th, 2006 1:41 pm How can you all criticize what a CEO of a bank makes? This man earned every penny he’s made along with the legion of investment bankers and traders. If you have a problem with banking payrolls, you should have thought about it while you were in college doing keg stands. These folks worked hard to be where they are today. They keep our capital markets running smoothly while you folks complain about your tiny paychecks…
— Posted by cjs

26.December 15th, 2006 1:49 pm Doesn’t matter. He still can’t dance.
— Posted by Mrs. Mack

27.December 15th, 2006 1:59 pm Ever increasing CEO compensation and enormous bonuses are kind of interesting. Not only is it rather unfair to those actually producing results for those companies, but it really sends a pithy message to the shareholders… screw you and any ideas of dividends.
— Posted by Alpine

28.December 15th, 2006 2:04 pm Mack is small potatoes. Hedge fund guys like Eddie Lampert and T. Boone Pickens make $40 million every couple weeks.
— Posted by Yawn

29.December 15th, 2006 2:05 pm Wonder how many Americans got their pensions raided, stocks naked shorted, insider trading tips dismissed and covered up by the SEC. Wonder who’s on his Christmas list. Amazing that American’s trust our markets. Sham and scam, smoke and mirrors. I’ll never put another penny into this system.
— Posted by Junie

30.December 15th, 2006 2:10 pm How can all of you make these accusations? If you were in his position you would do the same exact thing. He has done nothing wrong by accepting this compensation. 40% increase in profits for one of the largest banks is an insane amount of money. Additionally, this is the man who turned down excessive compensation last year because he felt that he didn’t deserve it. Educate yourselves before you start throwing ridiculous accusations out.
— Posted by Tom

31.December 15th, 2006 2:33 pm There’s a difference between the founders of a company like google making billions and the CEO of a company making billions.
The google founders deserve every penny they have. That company is fantastic and amazing.
However, what exactly does the CEO of a company like Merrill DO?? what do these investment bankers do?? these guys are not heart surgeons.
— Posted by mm

32.December 15th, 2006 2:35 pm Actually, to Junie’s point, think about all the enforcement cases that have taken place as of late in which Morgan Stanley was found guilty (without admitting or denying) of having lax compliance and supervision.
Isn’t that a decision a CEO makes? Pay the cost of overhead to comply or don’t and increase the bottom line via fraud and a savings in overhead.
I would think that the investing public would be better served if the board members held CEO’s more accountable for compliance matters thus, the bottom line growth will be representative of real growth and not revenues based on ill-gotten gains. Then maybe compensation for performance can be better discussed.
— Posted by Dave

33.December 15th, 2006 2:41 pm It is sad to see so many people don’t have any understanding of how compensation works on Wall Street.
Why are you guys complaining? No one seems to be talking about the money Mack rejected when he came to MS, now that he has turned around the company and stopped the brain drain, all of you twats are on his case.
It is easy to throw stones and talk BS about others, but look at yourselves in the mirror and ask would we have rejected this money? I can guarantee the answer is no.
So stop taking the moral high ground and get a life.
— Posted by Yaser Anwar

34.December 15th, 2006 2:48 pm Two words: spilt milk. Folks, look around you. We are citizens of a democracy. Managing global enterprises is a complex, nuanced, bone-crishing effort. One done sucessfully, I might add, that preserves oceans of classic New Jersey, neo-nuclear families made-good. Mack is a phoenix from the ashes. Hold back your jealousy, moralizing, and churlish refusal to acknowledge the simple fact: we are citizens of a “survival of the fattest” world. Granted, Mack redefines gross obesity. Show me a better system, though. Really, show me.
— Posted by Zeus McFreddy

35.December 15th, 2006 3:22 pm I’m not moralizing. Money is always good. The more the better. Like I said, I understand how the founders of google are billionaires.
But investment bankers? what the heck do these guys do that so “revolutionary”?
— Posted by mm

36.December 15th, 2006 3:46 pm Zeus, Your wrong about managing a global enterprise. It’s managing a global criminal enterprise. I think you should check out some history of these big wall street banks. Then figure out just where all this money comes from. Good ole boy white collar criminal system. Legal mafia.
— Posted by Junie

37.December 15th, 2006 3:48 pm The issue is not who would or would not accept such absurd largesse. The issue is whether or not any individual could conceivably do anything worth that level of compensation. Were the employees below the executive ranks doing nothing to make things work at Morgan Stanley? Whose interests do the Bd of Directors have at heart when they dilute the value of a company by squandering it’s assets in this manner?
— Posted by Jack Spiegelman

38.December 15th, 2006 4:19 pm For those who are trying to justify an 800k to a $40 million dollar increase in bonuses should read the NYTimes article, What’s Wrong with Profit? By Stephanie Strom.
Zues actually said that Mack is a phoenix from the ashes…
There has to be a cap on bonus packages. If he is that good and it’s viewed as a good position for the organization in being so generous, why don’t he then just get 50/50 on all the money he brings in. Why doesn’t he just get the entire bonus fund held by the organization? It’s obvious that the organization is sending a message that he is the one that did it ALL in bringing in those profits… There should be a cap, and everyone, I mean everyone should reap the benefits. There shouldn’t be a top dog getting bags of cash like that.
The image and the management of the organizations profitability should be held with discretion. I will bet my measly 10% that Morgan “Money Bag” Stanley will lose business due to this. It’s a distasteful image to see when a organization further chip their shoulder by making such a gesture taking into consideration how many settled regulatory cases, and fines where pinned on Morgan Stanley for 06’.
Make money at all costs is their business model. Even breaking the law “Possibly”, or bending the regulatory rules, “maybe”… Hey, its business right…
Unreal! Let me get back to work before I get the boot and then have to apply at Morgan. Hmm, I will get a bonus there though…
— Posted by Upset Employee

39.December 15th, 2006 4:29 pm B.W. …you need to wake up and smell the collusion. And quit resorting to the “you’re just jealous” playground taunt when thinking people point out the obvious.
Just where do your think those increase in profits have come from for the most part. The American people and many other world citizens are being milked and bilked by a pro-financial institution environment they have little choice but dealing with. We’ve been sold down the river by our politicians to the point where banks can now take our homes and futures due to even medical bills, and after a year and a half cancer battle my husband lost, I can tell you how our “FOR-PROFIT” health care system is failing us. When I could hold $1000 in pills in one hand, pills that would fight his nausea for 5 days only, I wanted to scream.
Grow up and grab a paddle. I’m trading mine in for a pitchfork.
— Posted by linda hoover

40.December 15th, 2006 5:37 pm Greed is killing the country. Nobody is greater than the society. If society, includes 50 percent population at large are poor, is unhealthy then that money needs to be used for betterment of that society.
Nobody is worth that kind of money if other 95% of the population makes under $80,000 annually. That country(it’s lawmakers) is evil which allows that to happen. Read current issue in Rolling Stone’s Paul Krugman article on “How Super Rich is Screwing America”. It talks about how from Reagan era, middle class has been systematically driven out of america using union mongering corporations and their friendly lawmakers. Now, largest employer, Wal-Mart has no unions. Their employees are paid minimum wage, whereas Walton family have 4 most richest people in the world out of top 10. It’s the responsibility of your lawmakers to keep that balance. They are sold to the super rich.
It is shame for a society that only 0.5 percent of population(super rich)have more than 5 million in assets.
What does it say about a society ? That it is a society run and manipulated by only the greedy elites. Rest of the talks are all b.s. And the elites are all screwed up in head to take care of a society and maintain the balance.
Arun Hamilton, Canada
Be ethical. Start the change.
— Posted by Arun Chatterjee

41.December 15th, 2006 5:37 pm I don’t think it is just communists who believe paying someone $40 million dollars a year for anything makes sense. That is not capitalism. It is a broken market.
— Posted by Dave

42.December 15th, 2006 6:18 pm Quit Playa Hatin’. He’s the Mack!
— Posted by Yo Mama

43.December 15th, 2006 7:26 pm The CEO compensations in this country grow obscene by day. One wonders when this obscenity and the sinister collusion of ‘big money’ and ‘big government’ will end?
Short of social revolution Hugo Chavez style, one assured way to rein in the obscenity is to raise progressive taxation on ‘bonuses of 40 million’ to 90% income tax.
— Posted by David Gurarie

44.December 16th, 2006 9:28 am Every CEO should be equitably compensated. To those on “the Street” get a grip on reality! You are what’s fundamentally wrong with America! You demand growth; it’s called acquisition and mergers. The result:downsizing You demand profitability; it’s called outsourcing. The people cry for more jobs; its called taxcuts. Whatever happened to re-investing in you childrens and grandchildrens future? I think that’s how this country was built.
On top of your bonuses, you want a “golden parachute!” How about $5.1MM/annum for life after you’re forced to step-down for back-dating stock, raising the premiums on your clients and then reimbursing healthcare providers less than what the Medicare Allowable Rates are. (William McGuire departing CEO United Healthcare) Now you can fully understand how your companies grow at 40%.
Do you ever listen to yourselves at a cocktail party? All you talk about is your vacations, your cars, your clothes, what club you belong to, what private schools your kids go, how much or how little you pay in taxes.
Have you recently asked what your kid’s teacher earns? (My kids are smart) Do you care what your garabage man makes? (My streets are clean, Do you know how much a nurse makes? (I want the best care for my mother) Where is the value-proposition in what you do compared to what they do?
— Posted by John Nieradka

45.December 16th, 2006 10:56 am Why don’t you jealous ingrates stop maligning the wrong problem? At least this man’s work will nearly single-handedly revitalize sectors of the economy that have been struggling, not to mention benefit millions around the world.
Perhaps you guys should refocus your moaning towards the sports arena. Ask the New York Yankees what they accomplished this year and how much they got paid. And oh yeah, it was guaranteed.
— Posted by Andrew

46.December 16th, 2006 12:10 pm Laissez-faire my friends… laissez-faire
— Posted by Wharton Undergrad

47.December 16th, 2006 2:26 pm mm - Investment bankers do a lot. Unfortunately, in a lot of ways it is like brain surgery. To understand what they do, you have to go through years of school and experience, learning advanced statistics, analytics, financial deals, and so forth.
But anyway people, here is the idea to end all conversation on this topic: quit your job and try to become CEO of an Investment Bank. I’m warning you it will be damn near hard as winning the lottery, and if all of you try pay will drop below $40M a year. But if you want to get that amount of money, you have to take significant risks and make significant sacrifices. This Mr. Mack guy probably took big risks for decades and had to sacrifice family, friends, etc., to get where he is today. The price of that for him was a shot at a payday like $40M. If you want it so bad, go take those risks, go make those sacrifices, but guess what: its not guaranteed and you’re probably going to fail. Such is life. Get over it.
— Posted by JJ

48.December 16th, 2006 3:50 pm Respectfully, I repeat my earlier unanswered question. Show me a better system. Outline it for me. Top dog of an investment bank is the keystone. Pull out the keystone, the arch falls. The arch falls and all those cosy neo-nuclear New Jersey hot shot families with lacrosse kids revert to their middle class origins. This cannot happen. There will be improvised exposive devices going off on the tidy streets of Short Hills. Wake up, America. Don’t like the products of the system? Show me a better system. No playground taunts. Just show me.
— Posted by Zeus McFreddy

49.December 17th, 2006 1:46 am Good god… The quality of comments on this page is quite low, and I am not even speaking about the person who refers to Morgan Stanley as “Merrill.” A few people asked: “What is it that the investment bankers do?” Great question. Now why don’t you try to find an answer to it before you start bashing the man who in the last few years revived Morgan Stanley? The investment bankers are the grease that makes the economy function, and in a free market, they are getting paid exactly how much they are worth. They have nothing to do with most of the problems that some posters here have brought up. If you do not like your country’s health insurance policies, you should go to the polls more regularly and vote for a government that is actually going to listen to your concerns. If you don’t believe there are any candidates out there worthy of your attention, go on the streets and start protesting. But for god’s sake, stop pouring hate upon an industry of which you know nothing.
— Posted by Inno

50.December 17th, 2006 8:47 am I work for one of the major investment banks and can say, from first hand knowledge, how extremely hard top executives work, how long their days and nights are running the businesses, and how complex and far-reaching their decisions can be. Whether they are worth $10m or $100m, you and I can debate but not decide; the market for talent decides that. If you attempt to control payscale in public companies as many here propose should be done, then, alas, nitwits will be in charge much like they are in politics. No one worth their salt will want to run a public company; he or she will go to private companies that are not regulated by some populous-pleasing mandate to control pay. However, if you are determined to live in an economy regulated by populous-mandated rules, move to France where workers are told to work 35 hours or less a week. Doesn’t that sound great! Oh, by the way, France enjoys a stagnant economy (1.9% GDP growth and 10% unemployment) and riots in the street. Oops, that one didn’t work too well, did it. Ce la vie. — No thanks, I’ll take excessive over inane any day.
— Posted by me

51.December 17th, 2006 1:29 pm Don’t single out Mack or any other CEO of tremendously profitable entity without digging out the roots of his or her success. Our culture worships the accumulation of excessive wealth.
Unless you’re Amish, you’re probably as guilty as I am.
Until you’re ready to vote with your feet, you could be mistaken for a crybaby.
— Posted by George

52.December 17th, 2006 10:52 pm Why is it so difficult to understand that a CEO makes much, much more than the lowest paid position in the firm? Sure, everyone working there contributes their special something, but it is the task of the CEO to manage these many tendrils effectively; he must understand the nature and function of every other position and how each is best used to further the company’s objectives. Most people can’t balance their own checkbooks or delegate household chores to their families very well–are we certain that “anybody” could do John J. Mack’s job? Do you think you could convince someone with the ability to do the job to stress themselves out that way only to be hit with a %90 income tax? Certainly, our teachers are paid far less, but let’s be real: who went to public school and can think of more than 2 teachers who deserve more than the average 30k they earn? I can think of about 3, the rest are well-represented by the level of intelligence to be found in any university school of education.
— Posted by Kevin Jones

53.December 18th, 2006 6:05 am Can we all get a break here? If the man has $50m on his bonuses, it means he has earned it. Mergers and Acquisitions, whatever, he has a job to do, did it and is getting paid for it. Whats wrong? Honestly if everyone was getting that bonus money in the world, will they scoff at it and say no? NEVER! so why be hypocrites? As for charitable giving, do we know i the man has given his money to charity or not? NO! so why say he must do this and that. Why judge a person when we dont even know him? It’s his money and let him do what he likes with it. For heaven’s sakes get a life ya’ll!!
— Posted by Research Analyst

54.December 18th, 2006 7:19 am Sheesh, 40 million, is that all? No wonder Wall Street can’t wait for Social Security to go down the crapper. I wonder how much of our Bush_style retirement accounts would wind up in the pockets of these Corporatists? I’m guessing at least 30%.
Merry %^&*%^&* Christmas, Corporatists.
— Posted by ChiffonBreath

55.December 19th, 2006 1:11 am Ok, children, I have read your postings. Most of them are quite insightful and interesting. You all have tremondous potential and will go far. Here is your homework for the holidays:
Group A: Those of you who don’t know what investment bankers do, read a couple of books on Wall St. I recommend “House of Morgans” by Ron Chernow for starters (it will provide an historical perspective on the development of Wall Street).
Group B: Those of you who think that there is no better system than US, may I recommend you to read books and articles about (a) New Orleans, (b) death penalty, (c) health care, and (d) Iraqi occupation.
And please everyone read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.
Happy Holidays
— Posted by Jatram

56.December 19th, 2006 1:57 am Here is something for everyone to think about while discussing this $40 million bonus. Around September of 2006, Morgan Stanley implemented a new money market option for their client’s IRAs. The previous money market, called ILAF, was replaced by an “in-house” money market fund operated by Morgan Stanley. At first glance, this sounds just fine because Morgan Stanley has that capability. However, in the letter that went out to all clients, they stated in small print that the new money market would have a smaller yield than the old money market. How does this make sense? They create an “in-house” money market that is actually less profitable for the client and then send a one page letter that no one reads detailing this yield decline. Of course, you can argue that people should read all the mail, but I disagree, because a firm’s first job, above making profits, is to act in the best interest of their clients. For those clients that did read the letter and objected to the new money market, they were asked to close their account. This new money market wasn’t a choice, it was mandatory. I’m willing to guess conservatively that 80% of clients aren’t aware they are receiving this lower money market yield in their retirement accounts, yes, their RETIREMENT accounts. They also increased their fees on regular brokerage accounts by 20%. I’m willing to bet this increased fee revenue, which the vast majority of clients don’t even know occurred, is more than the $40 million John Mack “earned” in bonuses. I’m not concerned about the amount he made, that’s fine, but I’m concerned about how that was generated. Sounds like legal stealing. The original foundation the company was built on during the days of Dean Witter of client appreciation have long since past.
— Posted by Anon Y Mous

57.December 19th, 2006 3:33 am Personally, I’d not trade $40 million (or 40 billion $) for 40 years of uninteresting work. But, the “business types” on this forum have it right: Laissez-faire, etc. The only way to prevent this (if you want to) is to quit feeding the beast. Don’t max out the credit card, don’t trade up to a bigger house, don’t buy useless junk, don’t follow the ridiculous advertising carrots on your nightly TV, don’t flip the latest hot stock daily, etc. Prevent a 42% rise in morgan stanley stock and you’ll prevent million dollar bonuses.
— Posted by R

58.December 19th, 2006 9:29 am On one hand I think that $40,000,000 is an awful lot of money (and probably seems excssive) for this guy’s payday….
But I have to say all this talk about comparing his compensation to angry Muslims, famlies without food, ‘underpaid’ average workers, etc. is specious. All these other people are not poorer because he took their money. All these other people do not find them themselves in a situation with little education, food, or an appropriate place to live because he personally took these things away from them. That is not his responsibility. It is each person’s responsibility to be responsible for themself and their family if they have chosen to have one. Where is the personal responsibility in all of this instead of all the whining that because someone makes a load of money, there MUST be something wrong/bad/evil/illegal about them? Their situation is their situation, and his situation is his.
And the logic behind, ‘his company does investment banking, and therefore some of these people lose their jobs in mergers and acquisitions’ is also specious - for all the people whose situation becomes worse, others have become better. But of course because someone has MADE money, well, they’re just bad! Is it his fault that XYZ’s corporate heads did a bad job running the company and left it in a position for a takeover? Is it his fault that the chairman of XYZ decided to sell or blow out XYZ company? Should Mack NOT have his company (whose job it is to make money for HIS employees and HIS investors) not have his employees do a good job?
You can compare that $40 million is equal to this amount of national spending, or that amount funding or whatever. But so what? If the people in this country don’t want to support this national program, or the education of there own children, or arts in the schools, or sports programs, or better health care, or whatever, why should he? If you want art in your schools, or better education, then get people together, and lobby for it! Elect officials whose views are congruent with your own. Work for change. Get off your butt and DO something! It has NOTHING TO DO with what this guy is making. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF!! Don’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed, clothe, and educate them! Don’t buy stuff if you can’t afford it! Don’t blame other people you don’t know or even understand what they really do for your own failures or frustrations!
— Posted by mj

59.December 19th, 2006 9:49 am Top paid NBA stars are making nearly this much - and I bet their season and hours worked is a lot shorter than Mr Mack’s…
— Posted by Eliot

60.December 19th, 2006 10:19 am Idiots, Being a janitor is a noble occupation…inherent dignity of work, etc. But let’s be serious–John Mack gets paid what he does because he is an exceptional talent. Not everyone could do what he does.
Finally, those that complain and agitate for socialism or communism should remember that it doesn’t work particularly well. There is corruption and excessive bureaucracy in both. While John Mack has a ton of money, he can’t order you out of your house and have you executed for treason like they could in the good ole USSR.
If you want to get mad about something, be upset about a President that lied to take your country to a war that only serves to distract it from the true challenges facing it. John Mack’s money wasn’t ever ours.
— Posted by Rollo

61.December 19th, 2006 10:43 am Hey, I’m just jealous.
— Posted by cmd

62.December 19th, 2006 11:15 am Perhaps what needs to be remembered through all this is the Biblical injunction that to those whom much is given, much is required. Much like in the mold of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I’m sure there are many notable causes in New York City that needs the noblesse oblige of the cities corporate zillionaires.
— Posted by Bruce

63.December 19th, 2006 12:46 pm With the amount of poverty and the amazing discrepancy in wealth, it is sad anyone could feel justified in receiving 50 million dollars. There is a diminishing return to money, you can only be in one houses at a time, drive one sport car. That money can help thousands of people. I only hope that a large percentage of the outrageous bonuses go to something beside overpriced apartments and lavish vacations. I will consent that many in the investment industry work exceedingly long hours and sacrifice for their success. Therefore, if giving money away is difficult, created scholarships that rewards other for the same ambition you have.
— Posted by Don Gigamon

64.December 19th, 2006 12:48 pm Wall Street, a place where so much money been made by so many people with so little talent. Once one of these unregulated hedge funds collapses and touches off a financial calamity, let’s hear back from all of you who think these guys are so smart and warrant this kind of pay.
— Posted by Fred F.

65.December 19th, 2006 12:54 pm makes the rest of us losers
— Posted by aabai

66.December 19th, 2006 1:05 pm WOW I can’t believe some of these comments! ONLY in the USA! Excuses! Excuses! Obviously, “Mr. Responsible” hasn’t gone a DAY without food or a roof over his head or he wouldn’t be as callous as to say “it’s the person’s responsibility”, etc. What a bunch of CRAP! We as a RICH nation (just look at Mack) are obligated, yes, I said obligated to take care of our own! Not just take care of the BIG people so they could make more money but the little people as well! NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE is worth that kind of bonus………
I agree with Patrick….people pick up the picthforks!
— Posted by Joyce Smith

67.December 19th, 2006 1:15 pm There’s certainly been a lot of discussion regarding Mr. Mack’s $40 million bonus and all the long hours and hard work he’s put in to deserve it. If you assume he’s worked 50 weeks this year at 5 days a week (250 days), that $40 million breaks out to $160,000/day. And if you further assume he’s working 16 hour days, that comes to $10,000/hour.
I’m not sure Mr. Mack or any of the other fantastically compensated CEOs truly deserve what they’re paid (no matter how many long hours they put in), but it’s nice work if you can get it.
— Posted by Colin

68.December 19th, 2006 1:21 pm Mr. Mack could be the nicest, smartest and most industrious guy on the planet, but the fact of his company’s 40 percent profits increase this year is not the result of his genius, nor is it the result of the exceptionally hard work of his underlings, many of whom toil away for 500 or 1,000 times less money than his bonus cost the company ($80,000 or $40,000 a year).
Rather, his bonus and the larger corporate windfall that inspired it are the result of a coincidence of several massive flaws in our legal system, which the average citizen permits to persist because (1) he doesn’t understand them and (2) he is powerless to choose the platform of the candidates he gets to select from, and thus powerless to change the status quo.
We need major overhauls of our tax system, securities and banking regulations, consumer protection and consumer fraud laws, among a litany of other reforms. Profits of this magnitude to institutions that jostle around with other people’s capital and end up being the most profitable (and powerful) enterprises in our society represent huge deadweight losses to our economy (business school graduates who wish to argue otherwise in the face of all logic be damned). But none of this will change as long as all politics and information is paid for, and the wealthiest bidders get all the voice in both.
— Posted by Tim

69.December 19th, 2006 1:37 pm That’s nothin. Check out the top ten CEO total compensation packages for 2005:
(1) Richard D. Fairbank, Capital One Financial: $249,420,000.
(2) Terry S. Semel, Yahoo: $230,550,000.
(3) Henry R. Silverman, Cendant: $139,960,000.
(4) Bruce Karatz, KB Home: $135,530,000.
(5) Richard S. Fuld, Jr., Lehman Bros Holdings: $122,670,000.
(6) Ray R. Irani, Occidental Petroleum: $80,730,000.
(7) Lawrence J. Ellison, Oracle: $75,330,000.
(8) John W. Thompson, Symantec: $71,840,000.
(9) Edwin M. Crawford, Caremark RX: $69,660,000.
(10) Angelo R. Mozilo, Countrywide Financial: $68,950,000.
* Source for data: Forbes 2006 CEO Compensation Rankings.
— Posted by Michael

70.December 19th, 2006 1:41 pm All this talk about laissez faire. Please. The phrase means that are markets run without government interference. There is both restriction and encouragement of industry by our government. Anybody, on either side of the economic/political spectrum, who thinks that our markets are pure and untouched is fooling themselves.
As to the comments from mj, your argument lumps everyone who finds this compensation disagreeable into a category of ne’er-do wells. Hopefully, that is just bluster and not truly indicative of your perception of those who disagree. I also take issue with your perception of most Americans. I think they do support many of the things you say they don’t. They doesn’t mean they are always adequately funded. Many of us work hard and earn plenty to take of our families. We clothe and feed our children. We do lobby for our cause(s) and become politically active. I don’t blame Mr. Mack, because he is just playing the game according to the rules. Yet I am apprehensive about the future of this country when I see the steadily growing gap between rich and poor. Only time will tell if our country benefits from this celebration of capitalism or is crippled by its inability to address the needs of the majority of its citizens.
— Posted by Lewie

71.December 19th, 2006 1:54 pm It is difficult to moralize on executive pay when a baseball team will spend $50 million just to interview a prospective player.
The money that a family spends in the course of a year to go to “ball-games” would net them greater gains than wasting time at a ball game when the same game could be seen for no charge pn tv.
— Posted by Bertram R. Silver

72.December 19th, 2006 1:58 pm Congratulations to Mr. Mack. He has earned the bonus. So many people complain about Execs being overpaid, but look at all they are responsible for shouldering. In this economy, those who take the risks are rewarded. Pure and simple Economics!!! If Morgan Stanley had declined by 40% people would be screaming for his head.
If you aren’t happy with what you are making, take the necessary steps to educate yourself and your children and maybe we might all be writing about you one day. This is America and everything is possible. It is obsurd to work as a clerk in a store and expect to be paid like a CEO. It is asinine to compare the accomplishments of a CEO and that of a maintenance worker! Don’t blame John Mack for what he is making, I mean who wouldn’t want to receive that type of bonus?
It is easy to form a mob and want to attack corporate America and all who do well, the bottom line is he simply chose a risker profession and is entitled to all that he gets. Stop complaining about the success of others and take steps to change your own fortune.
— Posted by Self Employed

73.December 19th, 2006 2:29 pm i dont know this guy but it is a very competitive unfair and imperfect world…i would say most people would pocket the 40 million for themselves and not blink a eye…selfishness is not a rare trait of us humans
— Posted by leo derosia

74.December 19th, 2006 2:31 pm I am a proud Morgan Stanley employee who is dismayed by the amount of people who had the audacity to publish rubbish in this column. They do not know the company or the charitable contributions and programs that it has for the benefit of mankind. What I think is: they must be confused and misread the article or simply forgot that politicians have far reaching salaries, profits, incentives and a benefits package that outweigh the 40 million anytime and WE pay for it! How much of Mack’s 40M came out of your pocket?, do you know how he spends it? and why so disrespectful in your choice of words?. This is a man that is greatly admired by everyone in the firm and he has earned it because of his respect for others.
Congrats Mr. Mack and thank-you.
— Posted by LIdlO

75.December 19th, 2006 5:01 pm This kind of compensation is totally outrageous.What about those junior staffs who have worked so hard for the company success,this huge disperity will only tell them they are just been used for peanuts.
— Posted by Adelakun deola

76.December 19th, 2006 5:13 pm If John Mack can’t live on $250,000 a year he shouldn’t be running a corporation.
— Posted by Alan Yungclas

77.December 19th, 2006 7:05 pm Hey … Everyone. Haven’t you heard? GREED IS GOOD ! !
— Posted by C. C. Williams

78.December 19th, 2006 9:11 pm The firm was trailing all the other brokerage houses dramically when he took over. Why, because of bad management. Mr Mack has he cleaned the firm up and the stock has moved up 40% since he took the reins. The bonus is technically paid by the shareholders, all of whome have made plenty due to Mr Mack. He deserves it all, simple as that
— Posted by Sam

79.December 19th, 2006 9:49 pm Mack’s comp, whether grossly unjust or well earned, was paid by some combination of the following constituencies: (1) MS’ stockholders, (2) MS’ employees and/or (3) MS customers. If you are not included in (1) through (3) the impact on you is nil. And if you are included in (1) through (3), vote with your feet. It’s really that simple.
— Posted by Jonathan Swift
80.December 19th, 2006 10:27 pm The guy is just another robber baron. Did Jack Welch really deserve to make the money he did? Probably not. Timing is everything and you would be hard pressed to attribute so much, in either direction, to the decisions and actions of the CEO. If a chimp had been running the bank, it would have made money. This criminal is nothing special. Behind spectactular returns are a group of dedicated people who make these things possible and who probably do not share in the financial windfall…paid out of the coffers of investors.
— Posted by jack

81.December 20th, 2006 6:00 am I have no problem with folks making as much money as they can provided they are creating real value. Labor wages are held at a bare minimum we are told because workers can’t be paid more than the value of what they create. How does ripping off investors by nickel and diming them out of their money via fees create value? It’s not illegal, but it is a rip-off.
— Posted by ChiffonBreath

82.December 20th, 2006 11:19 am Questions not addressed in the comments thus far: Is there really such a dearth of good corporate managers in the world that public companies need to pay their CEOs at rates vs. those of their employees that far exceed those known in earlier periods of capitalism (e.g., 1950s-1980s)? Why do other developed nations’ public companies pay CEOs at rates that are far lower, especially if there is little or no evidence that U.S. companies are generally being run at far higher efficiencies? Questions of what “public good” or societal model is or is not served by creating “superhierachies” of pay aside (for the moment), is it true that with the very large group of highly trained corporate managers now available, large public companies must actually spend to this degree on incentive pay for their leaders (especially if there is little evidence that such pay is tied to overall company success)? Can any true capitalist justify this practice as an example of market efficiency, or is it a sign of market de-evolution and systemic decadence?
— Posted by Hedge Guy

83.December 20th, 2006 11:23 am I am really struck by the venom in most of these comments. Last time I checked, we were living in America. Capitalism is at the heart of our way of life. Here is a man who has made his company and his shareholders a lot of money. Morgan Stanley’s Board of Directors felt that his contributions in 2006 were worth $40mm. That is how our system works. Morgan Stanley is not a charity nor is Mack a professional philanthropist. He performed well in the eyes of his employer and his employer rewarded him accordingly. Get over it. What Mack decides to do with his money is his own business.
— Posted by J.S.

84.December 20th, 2006 11:29 am What are you complaining about ? The end justifies the means, and if someone has worked hard, persevered, and by virtue of one’s own merit, whether that be “shirking blame” or “winning power struggles”, too bad the others couldn’t overcome that. In a world defined by survival of the fittest, this is an expected result. For those who disagree, it’s time you shed your notions of “America the Dream,” and moved on to other nations. Just a thought.
— Posted by ND

85.December 20th, 2006 12:48 pm Made a lot of money for shareholders? This year, maybe. But when I had an account at Morgan for several years, I saw no gains, just losses! I don’t think the CEO that year saw less of a bonus because of it. They never do. And that’s because the rules for compensation change every year. In a good year, it’s about rewarding the guy who “brought in the results through hard work.” In a bad year, it’s about a smart guy who “worked really hard, despite the market.” I’m not complaining because I’m jealous. I’m complaining because the system doesn’t work for anyone but the investment bankers at the top and most corporate CEOs who make ever-increasing piles of money no matter how badly they manage their companies. God bless capitalism! For a few insiders, it works really, really well.
— Posted by VVE

86.December 20th, 2006 9:09 pm Wall street companies that pay this absurd bonuses to their top managers when it comes to compensating their victims of discriminations pinch pennies!
Congress that puts ridiculous caps for discrimination awards should take notice too! Right now tens of employees are suing Merrill Lynch for gender, racial and religous discrimination. The money belongs to those victims.
— Posted by Magic

87.December 21st, 2006 2:29 pm The wealth acquired by the few in this nation of plenty truely disgusts me.
Not one, I repeat, NOT ONE of the executives or founders of ANY U.S. company, including Microsoft, did it on their own! They accomplished their wealth accrual because of the U.S.A.! They could not have done the same in any other country. As such, they should have a responsibility to pay back those opportunities to those that helped create them, the American People! That means those that benefit the most from our system should also pay the most!
And really, does anyone ‘earn’ that sort of wage? Not really, in reality what happens is one set of Board members elect to give executive(s) extreme compensation so that that same executive(s), who sits on their Board, will do the same in return.
Reminders to previous posters: We do NOT live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy. Big difference. Those ‘representatives’ should be bound to ‘represent’ their constituants, not big business and big money. We all know that’s not what really happens. Also, we really do NOT live in a free-market economy. We live in a pseudo-regulated government-subsidized corporation-controlled loophole-riddled economy.
Land of the free? I think not. When workers are required to obtain Federal approval to strike against a corporation or their government employer, that is not the mark of a free, or free-market, society. (For those that don’t know, few non-military government employees, no railway workers and no airline workers can strike without direct approval of the Federal Government.)
That being said, the U.S.A. is still the best gig going, in spite of her serious flaws.
— Posted by OldIron

88.December 22nd, 2006 10:01 am Interesting thread to say the least. Mack works hard, Mack is a lug. Mack deserves the money, Mack is a crook. There is even the Mack turned this company around theme but nobody mentions that Mack is a former Morgan CEO.
My concern remains. This should not be about monetary jealousy but methodologies.
Isn’t Morgan Stanley presenting fighting an NASD settlement in which investors in aribitration cases were defrauded by Morgan Stanley because Morgan Stanley lied about the e-mail retentions? Would this not be a decision made by John Mack? The NASD claims that HUNDREDS of arbitration cases failed because Morgan violated the laws requiring the delivery of communications between client and broker. And this is not the first time Mack and Morgan were involved in such failure to provide evidence claims.
Now consider this, Morgan Stanley still holds what is potentially not theirs (client money) and is using this capital to generate additional profits while the clients possible live check to check as they seek restitution. Ultimately teh profits from this money turns into a John Mack Bonus.
This cycle is repeated over and over throughout the year(s) which is why NO Wall Street CEO deserves any bonus to these levels until they have set up systems to protect clients from being defrauded in teh first place. Unfortunately Wall street relies on teh enforcement delay game to benefit from defrauding people today of their money, getting their year end bonuses, and only years down the road paying the consequences (after significant profits have been pocketed).
Why not discuss this aspect of Mr. Mack and his deserving of a $40 Million bonus? As for charitable contributions: Does one get credit (in life) for a charitable contribution when the contribution is really somebody elses money that you took?
— Posted by Dave

89.December 25th, 2006 6:08 pm Mack was the lowest paid CEO last year on Wall Street and amongst the largest companies in America. Morgan Stanley was not successful in the year before Mack took over and had lost several key personnel.
I bet that the majority of the people on this board can’t even get a job as an ibanking analyst let alone CEO of MS, therefore, Mack is an exceptional man in terms of capability. 40mm is high, but you pay what the market dictates and thats how much it costs to get a John Mack.
There are enough people who went to community college then teacher’s college that it only costs 30-40k for a new teacher, thats the way a market-economy works. If you think about it, the 45% tax Mack pays on that 40mm goes a long way towards benefiting a lot of public programs. Mack is also a well published philanthropist and very well appreciated across the corporate world. Hardly deserves to be critiscized for giving away more than 55% of his earnings to tax / charities.
That being said, it is sad that there is great discrepancy and such a high poverty rate in the US. Maybe you should all move to Canada where I’m from - everyone here has free healtcare and we still complain that we pay too high taxes,feel we are not properly compensated for our work and keep voting conservating to get a more ‘americanized’ economy.
— Posted by Dave

90.December 26th, 2006 7:08 pm This is about a skill set which is in demand. How many of the people calling this man a “pig” would be able to effectively manage this company? It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Most of the outraged, median wage earners commenting on this story simply don’t possess a skill set which can generate this level of compensation. Sorry folks, but if you can’t make it to this level yourself, don’t criticize what others earn. $40M: easy to deride, not easy to do.
— Posted by Bertram

91.December 27th, 2006 1:49 am Who the heck is this guy? I’ve never heard of him! I’ve never seen him on my tv. Now if he were playing a popular sport (lets just say basketball) or if he was the lead role in a must-see movie (lets just say Mission Impossible 3 (which was awesome!!)) than I wouldn’t have a problem with the money he gets, because then he truly would’ve earned every penny.
— Posted by Tom Duane

92.December 27th, 2006 8:26 am I would like to compliment the quality of the posted responses(despite what some claim), especially after some of the stuff I have been reading on the web regarding our War in IRAQ. Inno has a point and those of us who haven’t read Jatram’s assignment should get started, myself included. But Noah, O keeper of the Logic, did you approve Zeus’s(I’m a big fan of your son) the CEO is the keystone…arch falls…explosive devices littering the streets conclusion? And Mr Wharton’s laissez-faire idea used to get thrown at students in junior high in the 60’s, but not explained. I don’t think anyone suggested to bw that the janitor should or would take over the company. But what purpose does it serve to taunt those that disagree with you or you with them that they “get a life”, leave the U.S, or go communist? Please keep the discussion on track without the insults because overall it is a good one!
— Posted by NUWAYNER

93.December 27th, 2006 11:31 am Immoral and obscene!
No need to be radical, just have some common sense to be outraged by this. Picture poverty, hunger, disease in the world. Picture the families working hard but can’t afford to send their children to College in this country. Picture people without healthcare.
Then picture CEO salary plus a 40 Million dollar bonus for 1 person.
Some balance needed?
— Posted by GA

94.December 27th, 2006 11:36 am All I want to know is how much cleverer is this guy than I am or how many more hours a day does he work to justify this kind of compensation? What does he know that I don’t that justifies this kind of remuneration?.
— Posted by Garth

95.December 27th, 2006 11:54 am Someone earlier in this thread pointed out something that I think should be clearly discussed. I remember a few months ago, and wish I could find the article, in the NY Times discussing the different management styles between corporations in the US vs Europe.
A distinct different is that corporations in Europe are driven by numerous management committees avoiding all decisions to be centralized to one individual. Likewise, senior managers including CEOs, are paid significantly less compared to their American counterparts. This management style in Europe ensures that critical strategic decisions are distributed across the company’s leaders, ideally minimizing risk and incorporating as much input from impacted areas.
Now there is a reasonable argument that such a style slows the process of change and the ability to respond to market forces quickly and effectively, which is better handled when decisions are centralized and managed by single individual leaders. Certainly credible.
But consider this, if power at the highest levels in corporations were not as centralized, and rock-star CEOs not as depended upon, would the travesties of corporate illegalities be as detrimental - think Enron, Worldcom, and the numerous other American companies where the fraud perpetrated all begin with the highest authorities in each company.
Consider also how much damage such individuals caused, destroying market segments, retirement savings, tax rolls, etc. These individuals do impact our society, significantly, which can result in a domino effect through an industry. As one poster noted, while Morgan Stanley enjoyed significant profits this year, it is still overshadowed with one of the worst compliance records in recent years. While litigation and settlement are years away from being resolved, Mack will reap the rewards of his decisions, and when those settlements come to finalization, and those profits disappear, I’m sure he’ll quickly move on, and them the company, its shareholders, and its clients will pay the price.
Therefore, the issue isn’t whether an individual deserves such pay, to me its a question of short-sightedness. Corporations should tie such compensation to longer term goals that require CEOs to be more cognizant of the long term effects of their decisions rather than focusing on short term deliverables of profit, by quarter or by year. Such short term targets create significant opportunities for fraud and other illegalities. Instead of the focus was on longer term strategy, primarily on growth, then the precision to deliver so quickly will be minimized - hopefully.
To be frank as long as our system is about short term gain, and short term acquisition, we will continue to see such inequitable compensation. This is a problem folks, and its effects, while not immediate, will eventually impact us down the road.
— Posted by YMM

96.December 27th, 2006 12:20 pm We Americans have a terrible disease. We are a society built upon endless hunger for acquisition and consumption. It’s actually an integral part of our culture. In theory this sounds like a great and productive mindset, but in reality, life flutters by in the background while we waste our time panning for more, more, more! Americans have accomplished many great things as a result of our ambitions, but the resulting great divide has created one of the (if not the) most violent and uncivilized environments that I can imagine a first world country experiencing!
Please understand, I do believe that capitalism is a healthy system. Nothing is perfect. Hey, we have athletes making $20MM yearly for swinging a baseball bat! (Which actually sheds a less excessive light on the bonuses in discussion…)
I do think it takes a very special person to make a list like this (old money/nepetism not included). My goal is not to deflate the accomplishments or villify the individuals. For me it comes down to what they do with the fruits of their labor after the fact. As far as the super rich go, people like Gates and Buffett are making great strides. Unfortunately the majority of the super rich won’t let go of their cash until their hands are cold and dead. They then hand the baton to new generations of super rich brats that simply won’t know the value of a dollar (see documentary “Born Rich” ).
I must say that I pity the people who are only as good as their net worth. I wish the rich could obtain equal or greater feelings of prestige via philanthropic endeavors. I think the media can play a huge role in shifting this paradigm! Picture this, a yearly list of philanthropists ranked on how they stack up to their peers in the betterment of the world! I know Businessweek already publishes a “top 50? list, but this should go far deeper. Maybe even crossection their yearly income with their contributions and have a best and worst list?
I won’t hold my breath.
— Posted by Mike D

97.December 27th, 2006 12:45 pm You guys need to calm down especially Garth…what do you mean how much cleverer he is…i doubt you can lead the company to a 9.5 billion annual profit
Blankfein is just getting what he deserves, it might be a little too much, but it’s not “Immoral” nor “Obscene”
— Posted by Uhhh

98.December 27th, 2006 2:49 pm We are slowly, but surely inching toward another “Great Depression” as everything runs out of control–mergers out of control, corporate CEO compensations running “hog wild.” But at the same time they are squeezing every drop of productivity out of their workers for the same salary, which explains the everrising economic indicator of U.S. productivity.
This is not a surprise because that are only following the example of their leader. Still do not get it? Okay, here is the story.
Once upon a time, a company called Halliburton paid $43 million in stock options to its CEO, who went on to become a vice president. Then this former CEO repaid Halliburton by pushing for war in Iraq, taking advantage of his boss’ inexperience and shortage of political savvy in the calculus of world affairs.
To make a long story short, Halliburton got all it wanted and more; its former CEO’s dividends in escrow grew, and grew, and grew, while we mourned, and mourned, and are still mourning for our young men and women.
— Posted by Percy Nimoben

99.December 27th, 2006 5:00 pm FACT 1: CEO’s need to be highly paid otherwise they wont be ‘incentivised’ to work.
FACT 2: Employees mustn’t be highly paid, otherwise they’ll have no incentive to come to work.
FACT 3: Yes, we’re all jealous. But really, how much is enough? As my daddy used to say, you can only eat three meals a day. (Admittedly, Mack can eat lobster on foie gras with a caviar chaser for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On gold plates. With a cutlery carved from a diamond as big as the Four Seasons. And then when he’s done, put everything in a platinum dishwasher which runs on champagne instead of water. Yes, he’s gotta a lotta dough. Infact he probably uses ‘dough’ for dough and bakes money bread… Mmmm…. moneybread !!!)
But seriously, I don’t think anyone would begrudge Mr.Mack his money if we felt that people were not being left behind. For one person to win, does someone else always have to lose?
And those excess profits aren’t coming from Mack putting in an extra weekend, read Barbara Ehrenreich ‘Nickle & Dime’ or ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’.
— Posted by David

100.December 27th, 2006 6:35 pm Massive “annual” bonuses, how utterly fascinating.$40 million here, $50 million there. Where does it all end? Everything in America is just one big rock candy mountain isn’t it?
Poor old Warren Buffet; pays himself $100,000 a year for running Berkshire Hathaway and lives in the same home that he bought 30 odd years ago for $31,000 or so. Mr Buffet has managed to do fairly well in spite of his rather paltry remuneration considering the million dollar bonuses being passed out up and down Wall Street. (He was able to scrimp along and make a $31 BILLION charitable bequest recently, so if you can do that you aren’t doing too poorly are you?)
I really enjoyed all the self appointed business geniuses that felt compelled to take their fellow bloggers to task for the majorities’ revulsion over these sickening revelations. I’m not a communist or a socialist, but I am intelligent enough to recognize a capitalist, so-called “free market” economy gone wild. Bonuses similar to the ones cited are the product of schemes that don’t just fall out of the sky, but are carefully –very carefully crafted with very few individuals involved. When maximum limits are not incorporated in the bonus discusion, mind boggling results can and in the present case do occur.
Without question, good work should be rewarded. This is a situation that I think is a result of a failed–seriously failed contractual negotiation.I wouldn’t for a moment quibble if those company executives, Board members, Compensation Committeemen or whomever it was that made such idiotic give aways had to personally fork over that kind of money to the fortunate “Bonusees”. But the sad truth is that money comes from the owners/stock holders rather than themselves. Had that kind of money come directly from them, i doubt that the “arrangement’ would have been quite so generous.
My humble suggestion is for the affected owners of the companies, namely the stockholders, to vote their approval or their DISPLEASURE at the next annual meetings.
I intend to ask my Congressional representatives to take a look at the tax laws to see if they can do anything to significantly ameliorate these excesses. So see, I do still believe in the American democracy even though situations like these make it difficult.
— Posted by Alan Langford

101.December 27th, 2006 7:48 pm Learned people if you politely find 40 million or 50 million dollar “Bonuses” a tad unpalatable, I would suggest that your Congressional representatives be made aware of your displeasure accompanied by a demand that tax laws be drafted that put the quietus on this kind of robbery.
On the other hand if you think that on some golden day in the future you will be the recipient of that kind of largesse then, by all means demand of your legislators that the tax laws be designed to reward you for all your personal intellectual brilliance, hard work, long hours, educational preparation,etc. However, with all those attributes I would imagine that your executive luminence would have managed your way around all obstacles regardless.
— Posted by Alang

102.December 27th, 2006 10:44 pm Posters mostly reveal their own ignorance, hang-ups, etc… without offering useful insights.
to the poster who points out that teachers don’t deserve more than the lower-middle class wage they earn, i’d say, pay them twice as much and you’d get higher quality teachers. limit the pay of top execs and you’ll get a lower quality individual filling the job.
to the poster who points out the incompetence of politicians i ask: who put them their?
— Posted by Ziggy Freud

103.December 27th, 2006 11:23 pm OK, it’s clear we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich.
— Posted by Milan Kovacovic

104.December 28th, 2006 7:43 am Mack just received “pig-dom” cover from Blankfein’s $54 mil.
This predatory form of capitalism has created a two class system. The only thing that has prevented the historic “off with their heads” revolution is that the wealthy have wisely filled the guts of the subservient class with so much high fructose corn syrup that they cannot move off their sofas to lead the revolution. Even if they could muster the strength to leave their flat screen tv’s, they probably would get lost in their SUV’s on the way to battle front - Goldman Sach’s corporate offices.
For a wake up call to have any meaning, one must have someone or some group worthy of waking up or capable of comprehending that a wake up call occurred.
The subservient class will finally get the message when the only jobs available are polishing the shoes of Blankfein, Mack et al.
— Posted by William A. Kerekes

105.December 28th, 2006 9:07 am Its critical to understand that although Im sure the performance of these businesses have been stellar, that we live in a world where there are scores of humans are not able to afford basic needs. In America, people are struggling to get by. How do you think millions of people under insurmountable debt, not able to afford higher education, and even a decent home are going to react to the compensation of these few business-poeople? I like to think ideally that it inspires each of us to work towards achievement. However, the oppportunities are so few that most will become alienated and disgruntled. How long will it be until the masses rise up against the minority upper classes in this country? How can we even possibly manage the anger of those same people? We live in an age where wisdom and humility has been forsaken by greed in the majority of boardrooms. Perhaps when their palatial homes are overrun by people who haven’t been afforded the same opportunities in life, then they will regret speaking out in word and actions against overcompensation.
— Posted by ad3pt

106.December 28th, 2006 1:35 pm Our son is in the military. He recently returned from his second tour in Iraq. His unit is preparing to go back again in 2007. He is a single parent of two children…one 15 yrs. & one 12 yrs. He, and those he goes into battle with…as well as ALL military who serve this country around the world…THEY are the ones that need to be compensated for “jobs well done!” While individuals like Mr. Mack, or Mr. L. Blankfein (who received $53.4 million), sit safely in their homes or their penthouses looking down on all those who worked so hard to get them where they are. Trying to figure out what expensive gifts to get their families for Christmas. Our son, and many like him, didn’t have the cash for even a tree! Except for the cards, with money from grandparents or other family members, there were NO gifts for our son or grandkids on Christmas morning! Many military personel didn’t even have the “PLEASURE” of being with family, or to be in a safe and happy environment!
This doesn’t even take into consideration the large number of people who make their homes on the “streets and underpasses” all across America!
There IS NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS EARTH THAT IS WORTH THAT MUCH MONEY!
If these corporations have money to get rid of…give it to the men and women who serve this country with PRIDE! The ones who do their jobs, leave their families and homes,and look forward to Jan. 1 of the New Year hoping to get a 3-4% “cost of living raise”! WHY? Just for the LOVE OF COUNTRY!
— Posted by Sam

107.December 28th, 2006 8:58 pm Why is winning the lottery okay? How many of you buy lotto tickets in the hope that you too will win big?
— Posted by Sue

New York Post 16 December 2006

BONU$ BABY BUZZ, ASIA LEADS GOLDMAN
By ZACHERY KOUWE

All the hoopla about giant-sized bonuses at Goldman Sachs has fueled rampant rumors inside the Wall Street powerhouse about who was lucky enough to get $100 million checks this year. Several members of the $100 million club are in Goldman's Asian offices. Morgan Sze, a head trader in Goldman's principal strategies group based in Hong Kong, is mentioned by several sources as a possible member of the club.

Goldman's principal strategies group makes bets on stocks and other securities using nearly $10 billion of the firm's own capital. Pierre-Henri Flamand, Sze's counterpart in London, is also rumored to be receiving a $100 million bonus, as are some traders in Tokyo. Raanan Agus, who is the New York-based head of the principal strategies group, could receive a bonus north of $70 million. "Apparently, a $100 million payout isn't as uncommon as some originally thought," said one Goldman source.

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein is likely to get about $50 million, while co-presidents Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried are expected to receive between $40 million and $45 million, sources said, more than the $40 million Morgan Stanley's John Mack took home.

While some of the top traders and bankers at the firm raked in bonuses that were 30 percent to 50 percent higher than last year, some of the junior staffers were upset at receiving bonuses that were just 20 percent higher than last year. "The discontent is pretty widespread among the junior ranks," said one source. "About 15 percent of the firm is unhappy with their bonuses and 45 percent are just content."

Goldman employees were informed on Wednesday of their bonuses, which make up between 80 percent and 90 percent of their annual salaries. The amounts are determined after a rigorous evaluation process and each employees' reaction to their bonus figure is recorded by their managers and placed in their personnel file, sources said. Word of the nine-figure bonuses came as Goldman yesterday named Marc Spilker to oversee its money management unit's alternative investments operation, which includes private equity and hedge funds.

December 17, 2006 Dealbook
Goldman’s Season to Reward and Shock
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

IF you happened to see Page Six of The New York Post on Thursday, you would have noticed a provocative cartoon: eight shady-looking executives, wearing black eye masks and smoking cigarettes, were holding a board meeting. Their company? Goldman Sachs. The caption read: “What’s next on our agenda? Oh yes, our end-of-the-year bonuses.”

You probably know by now that Goldman Sachs, Wall Street’s golden child, is paying its employees what seems like a king’s ransom: a total of $16.5 billion in compensation. That equates to $623,418 for every employee. Several top traders are said to have made as much as $100 million.

To some, it seems almost criminal.
ABC News tallied up all the things that $100 million could buy. “You could feed about 800,000 children for a year ($60 million), recreate the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes and Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston weddings four times over ($16 million), buy one of Mel Gibson’s private islands ($15 million), and still remain a millionaire nine times over,” ABC News reported.

In London, Goldman’s office cleaners threatened to strike. “Whilst bankers at Goldman Sachs will be splashing out on second homes, cars and polo ponies with their multimillion-pound bonuses, cleaners at Goldman Sachs are being squeezed by staff cutbacks,” Tony Woodley, general secretary of the Transport & General Workers’ Union, which represents the cleaners, told BBC News.

Driss Ben-Brahim, a top Goldman trader who according to press reports collected $98 million, was stalked by paparazzi outside his home in London. One of Goldman’s holiday parties was mocked for its lavishness when it was reported that some of its managing directors anted up $10,000 each to pay for it.

As the cleaners and others have vented their outrage, one group has stayed largely silent on Goldman’s largess: its shareholders.

And they ought to be up in arms.
What’s that, you say? What does a shareholder of Goldman Sachs have to complain about? After all, its stock is up 61 percent so far this year with dividends reinvested. Goldman made a profit of $9.4 billion in its 2006 fiscal year ended Nov. 24, nearly as much as it did in the last two years combined.

And Goldman Sachs has taken great pains to tell investors that as a percentage of revenue, the compensation costs for its 26,467 full-time employees are actually lower than those of many of its counterparts. This year, the firm spent 43.7 percent of its revenue on compensation and benefits, compared with 46.6 percent last year. That’s lower than Lehman Brothers, for example, which spent 50.1 percent of its revenue this year on compensation. Last year, Merrill Lynch spent about 49 percent of its revenue on compensation; Morgan Stanley, on the other hand, devoted 41.8 percent of its revenue to paying employees.

Using a different yardstick, however, Goldman’s pay seems completely out of whack with its peers’. Goldman’s compensation per employee, as mentioned earlier, is about $623,418. That’s nearly double what the average employee at rival firms earns. Lehman spent the equivalent of about $314,000 for every employee, and Bear Stearns spent about $320,000.

You could argue that Goldman Sachs makes its money more efficiently, and it does. You could argue that Goldman Sachs is in a different business than its rivals, and in some sense, it is: its biggest profits come from trading, not from investment banking.

But are its employees so much more talented than the rest of Wall Street that they deserve a “Goldman premium” of such huge proportions? That’s a tough case to make. Yes, there is a competitive marketplace for talent, and the proliferation of hedge funds has only intensified the fight for top people. Some of Goldman’s superstars could quit, either for a hedge fund or to start their own fund, and make far more money. But a vast majority — especially those who are being paid at the mid- to top end — could not.

And for those Goldman employees who appear to be stars within the firm, their stellar performances do not always travel with them when they leave 85 Broad Street. Consider the example of Eric Mindich, a star Goldman trader, who left in 2004 to found Eton Park Capital Management. The firm raised an enormous amount of money based on his track record, and now has $5.5 billion, but its returns have proved to be a fraction of the regular double-digit returns he made at Goldman.

If Goldman shaved its compensation costs just 6 percent, profits would have been nearly $1 billion higher. The firm could then have issued a special dividend, which would have benefited all shareholders. Many of those shareholders are, of course, Goldman employees.

DER SPIEGEL 18.Dezember 2006

Sündenfälle des Kapitalismus

Wenn der SPIEGEL die Sündenfälle des Kapitalismus beschreibt, profitiert er bei der Titelbildgestaltung nicht selten von der Inspiration des australischen Künstlers Gregory Bridges. Der Zeichner erwarb sein Renommee mit futuristischen und surrealistischen Arbeiten, seine moderne Darstellung des biblischen Turmbaus zu Babel für den im März 2000 erschienenen Titel „Unternehmen Größenwahn“ zählt längst zu den Klassikern des Genres. Damals stand die Hybris zur Zeit des Börsen-Hypes im Mittelpunkt, in dieser Woche beschreibt der SPIEGEL, wie internationale Finanzinvestoren immer größere Teile der deutschen Wirtschaft kaufen – und Bridges zeichnete ein Exemplar jener furchterregenden Heuschrecken, die sich Unternehmen einverleiben, um ihren Profit zu maximieren. Die SPIEGEL-Redakteure Beat Balzli, 40, und Marcel Rosenbach, 34, trafen bei ihren Titelrecherchen in Frankfurt am Main einen Protagonisten der Branche. Thomas Krenz, 47, der sonst pressescheue Chef der Beteiligungsgesellschaft Permira, war gerade dabei, einen neuen Coup vorzubereiten: Mit Kollegen von Kohlberg Kravis Roberts kaufte er für 3,1 Milliarden Euro den Fernsehkonzern ProSiebenSat.1

December 18, 2006

The Goldman Sachs Premium

It has been a week of large numbers at Goldman Sachs, the investment banking giant. Confirming its status as Wall Street’s golden child, the company reported record profit of $9.4 billion in its 2006 fiscal year, nearly as much as it did in the last two years combined. It also said it was paying its employees a total of $16.5 billion in compensation this year. That equates to $623,418 for every employee.

Of course, that loot is not being spread out evenly.
Top bankers and traders are getting a large chunk of it in the form of year-end bonuses, which are coming in especially big this year. Employees were informed of their bonuses last week, and several top traders are said to have made as much as $100 million, The New York Post reported over the weekend.

The Post said that many of the workers whom Goldman has handsomely rewarded this year hail from the bank’s principal strategies group, which makes bets on stocks and other securities using the firm’s own capital. These people include Morgan Sze, a head trader in Goldman’s principal strategies group based in Hong Kong, and Pierre-Henri Flamand, Mr. Sze’s counterpart in London, the Post wrote.

Outside Wall Street, some are criticizing the bonus bonanza as excessive.
ABC News tallied up all the things that $100 million could buy. “You could feed about 800,000 children for a year ($60 million), recreate the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes and Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston weddings four times over ($16 million), buy one of Mel Gibson’s private islands ($15 million), and still remain a millionaire nine times over,” ABC News reported.

But as the cleaners and others have vented their outrage, one group has stayed largely silent on Goldman’s largess: its shareholders. And they ought to be up in arms, DealBook wrote in its column over the weekend.

Goldman Sachs’ stock performance for 2006
To be sure, Goldman Sachs’ shareholders have fared well this year: Its stock is up 61 percent with dividends reinvested. And Goldman has taken great pains to tell investors that as a percentage of revenue, the compensation costs for its 26,467 full-time employees are actually lower than those of many of its counterparts.

Using a different yardstick, however, Goldman’s pay seems completely out of whack with that of its peers. This difference raises a question: Are Goldman’s employees so much more talented than the rest of Wall Street that they deserve a “Goldman premium” of such huge proportions?

Go to Article from The New York Post »
Go to Article from The New York Times »

79 comments so far...

1.December 18th, 2006 9:22 am Every single secretary, cleaner, janitor, maintenance man, para-professional etc etc should get up and walk out. Shareholders should revolt. These bonuses are excessive and demeaning to the majority of people without whom Goldman would go out of business.
— Posted by James LaForest

2.December 18th, 2006 9:33 am Fine, fire every cleaner, janitor and maintenance man. Then hire others. Repeat as required.
— Posted by Bill Box

3.December 18th, 2006 9:37 am If you can pay out $16 billion in compensation and still double your annual profit, then why on earth would shareholders be upset? The people who are earning $100 million bonuses could just as easily walk out of Goldman and start their own funds. Goldman has to give them a reason to stay employees. If Goldman tried to pay bonuses in line with their industry, then they wouldn’t be enjoying this profit growth for long. That’s when shareholders would be upset.
— Posted by Rich Smith

4.December 18th, 2006 9:38 am “OUT OF WHACK”- is ANYBODY LISTENING.? OUR IRS Chief is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs-(he made $720,000/week just prior to Mr. Bush appointing HIM to the IRS) Then the IRS “quietly issued guidance that EXCUSES EXECUTIVES FROM A 20% PENALTY IF THEY SELL HOLDING IN A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN-”when the caliber is raised to the secretary of the Treasury, it does make sense to accelerate it a bit”. How sad. But it gets better- Mr. Paulson goes to China ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE- to discuss OUR dealings with China. OUR leaders allow the bankruptcy of Delphi-orchestrated by CEO’s Wagoner(GM) and Miller(Delphi)-sanctioned by the FBI(Mike Anderson) and the SEC(Linda Thomsen) when GM exploits the Chinese people. Though I am not an attorney I know right from wrong. As a RN and retired General Motors Salary employee with documentation to Prove ALL I say- How can the “media elite” cont. to dismiss the Majority. The American People deserve to know th REAL story. Is there ANYONE out there that has the INTEGRITY to report the TRUE story to AMERICA??If Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility WHERE is yours.?TRUTH IS THE ONLY DEFENSE AGAINST LIBEL & SLANDER.
Gail DeCaire RN- the last GM nurse(general motors) L.A.W.S. & ACORN- God is working in mysterious ways. God Bless American and have a Blessed Christmas.
— Posted by Gail DeCaire RN

5.December 18th, 2006 9:47 am I worked at Goldman for 4 years. I can tell you for certain that bonuses are NOT distributed in an equitable manner. Goldman is a white collar slaveship. It is not a job but a lifestyle, one where the least earning and lowest ranking “team” members are expected to act, behave and spend their earnings as if they too received 100 MM bonuses. They do this by spending above their means in expensive housing, wardrobe, accesories, jewelry and vacations to match. Don’t forget that many of the firms employees come join the firm straigh from undergrad, grad or law school from the top schools in the world and many enter the workforce saddled with student debt. They use most of their work time knocking each over for “face time” with more senior members of their team and other areas of the firm in the hopes of standing out and being noticed so they may rise above the ranks of their peer group and advance their level and career. I know one manager that not one person that was asked could note a single thing this person accomplished yet is running an office and is well compensated for their lack of effort and spends so much of their time “working the floors” that their nickname is “the happy wanderer.” I finally left this madness to work in a more normal and equally as fantastic investment bank that respects work-life balance and quality of life outside of the office as well as real hard work instead of jazzing it up with the big boys and girls.
— Posted by Marcia Kaplan

6.December 18th, 2006 9:51 am Obscenely compensating highest-profile employees and CEOs, while outsourcing back office functions to disorganized labor pools (such as India), and squeezing salaries and cutting benefits for what low-profile staff that remain, should bring pause to all investment banking customers and investors as to the unethical principles of the leaders of these firms. A winner-take-all approach to executive and sales compensation distorts contributions made by others throughout the firm, the city, and the society that affords them the opportunity to flourish. Investment bankers are no more than heirs to the Robber Barons who should be roundly condemned. How does their siphoning off resources to such an extent for personal gain benefit shareholders?
— Posted by Zladislaw K.

7.December 18th, 2006 10:07 am Amen Bill
— Posted by Fred

8.December 18th, 2006 10:09 am The situation at Goldman Sachs is just symptomatic of the gross mal-distribution of wealth that is growing worse every day in this country and the world. It is an outrage that the few can consume so much while the many struggle just to get by and frequently have to forego regular meals and medical treatment. Yes, hard work, creativity and enterprise should be rewarded–even handsomely, but there must be some rule of reason that allows our society to allocate wealth in a way that permits all to have a decent home, adequate nutrition, access to health care and a life with dignity. We should also rethink how we value work. Is a stock trader, a baseball player or a movie star really worth so much more than a teacher, a healthcare worker or the people who keep the trading floor clean??
— Posted by Stephen Somerstein

9.December 18th, 2006 10:10 am “Using a different yardstick, however, Goldman’s pay seems completely out of whack with that of its peers.”
What yardstick is that?
Look, Goldman has to offer insane bonuses to keep insanely productive employees. There’s nothing to the business but large pools of capital and human resources, so you’ve got to pay a lot to maintain your staff. Goldman is paying a smaller percentage of its revenues on compensation than competitors, you say, so…what’s the issue?
— Posted by dan

10.December 18th, 2006 10:13 am 16 billion, something is wrong with this picture. This is how and why the rich get richer and the middle class poorer. 100 million dollar bonus,please! Our hard working nurses in our medical group will receive a 100 dollar bonus. Was it Marie Antoinette that said let them eat cake?
— Posted by jp bonnet

11.December 18th, 2006 10:17 am My first reaction is that Goldman is paying a lot of money to people that will never have to work again. My second reaction is what are thousands of support people at Goldman getting paid (I used to write software for investment banks)? My third reaction is that as a public firm Goldman is doing what is has to do to keep talented people. My fourth reaction is that when Goldman decided what it would pay people it looked at what it’s competitors where paying people. This would include hedge funds and private equity firms, none of which are public and therefore do not report compensation information to anyone. My last reaction, is with such a great cash position, why not pay it’s stock holders a special one time dividend (such as the $3 special dividend that Microsoft paid a few years ago)?
— Posted by Peter Koppelman

12.December 18th, 2006 10:19 am Yeah, Goldman Sach wouldn’t be in business without the janitors. Are you serious with that one? It’s not the janitors that are bringing the rain of revenue over there. I do feel like they should be compensated but let’s get real on who deserves what.
— Posted by Eric LaFleur

13.December 18th, 2006 10:27 am The problem is that we are still using the rather benign term “executive compensation” when we should be talking in terms of “rape and looting” of corporate treasuries. This money belongs to the corporation, not the executives, but they treat it as their private cash register. There should be a mandatory relationship between the highest paid and the lowest paid in all corporations, then the top paid executives could not give themselves enormous bonuses (looting) without giving similar amounts to all of the other employees who have contributed, all in their own way, to the corporate success.
— Posted by Benjamin Platt

14.December 18th, 2006 10:33 am And so our engine of self distruction motors on. I read on one page how Katrina still claimes victims and on another how Goldman-Sachs with its huge influence in the White House has made a fortune speculating on mythical hedge funds and various manipulations such as credit card debts with crippling rates. Hurrah for unmitigated greed!
— Posted by LaMont Parker

15.December 18th, 2006 10:34 am Certainly, those folks who are already extremely* well paid could go off and start their own funds. And, you can certainly fire every single non-priviledged employee who felt they weren’t participating in the mega-profits. As usual, we are in a classic capitalist situation with respect to income equity. Can Goldman give 100 million to their valued deal makers? Yep. Should they? Ah, that social contract thing. We don’t want to be in any way associated with some sort of socialism. If there is some sort of obligation felt to lower-income employees (who are human beings after all)let’s make sure it is masked in economic lingo so we don’t feel in any way obligated or responsible.
— Posted by Shirley Spraguer

16.December 18th, 2006 10:40 am What outsiders (people not in the industry) don’t understand is the competitiveness among employers. If they did not pay these talented individuals the amount they do, they would jump ship and move to other firms. Many large investment banks have lost their most talented traders to hedge funds that are often willing to pay higher incentive-based compensation. Traders are paid on their performance, unlike many Fortune 500 CEOs. Their pay is a very small portion of the revenue they bring to the firm.
— Posted by Jameson Weck

17.December 18th, 2006 10:41 am Q. How much money does a person need to be happy? A. Just a little bit more…
— Posted by Napoleone

18.December 18th, 2006 10:44 am Maybe the rich people will share their money.
— Posted by Megan McGrath

19.December 18th, 2006 10:50 am It’s so easy just extending your hand and ask for more money. Every cleaner should think as how to be better prepared and professionally educated so maybe one day they would be in the bonus list.
— Posted by Juan Balbontin

20.December 18th, 2006 10:56 am The shareholders don’t complain as long as they get their share in this ponzi scheme. Unfortunately, they get it back in spades, since all our accounting system does is create inflation.
While the rich get richer, the number of rich is growing smaller. Just like the game Monopoly, all the money ends up in the hands of one person.
It is far more likely that the rich will lose everything when the system implodes. And it will! It is a mathematical inevitability. And those whose only skill is to push paper will find themeselves begging for mercy.
History repeats itself. Pride comes before the fall.
There is a reason why planes fly into banks. People who hide behind a wall of money (like Scrooges) eventually wake up to realize that they are the walking dead.
Who is more to blame, the blind, or the blind who follow? The shareholders are having their own children as lunch. Every generation pays for the sins of their parents.
www.behappyandfree.com
— Posted by Steve Consilvio

21.December 18th, 2006 10:58 am What should upset shareholders is that the bonuses are paid in cash instead of restricted stock. Goldman Sachs’ specialty is making cash appreciate, turning $1 into $2. But this $16 billion are assets they can no longer invest. It is foolish to take $16 billion of cash out of an organization that compounds as effectively as Goldman Sachs. Payment in restricted stock, by contrast, would leave the cash in the entity, would incentivize employees to grow the company and could be structured to encourage retention of those star employees.
— Posted by Thomas Chase

22.December 18th, 2006 10:59 am I’d like to congratulate Bill Box on his oh-so-witty response to the Goldman Sachs article. Isn’t it wonderful that such a tiny percentage of our population live like kings while the vast majority of us barely make it from paycheck to paycheck. Yes, these very few must be very special indeed to deserve so much, but isn’t that the American dream - to get more and more and more? If there is a problem in this country, and clearly there is, it is people who think like you.
— Posted by Karen Johnson

23.December 18th, 2006 10:59 am this really disgusts me - no one needs this much money - We could fix school systems with this money, significantly reduce worldwide AIDS, reduce hunger…..the list goes on and on. The rich get richer…and then even richer. Something is wrong with the entire system.
— Posted by Jennifer

24.December 18th, 2006 11:00 am The question concerning the concentration of private wealth is not how much is received but how much is kept. Better to ask why we, in the form of our elected government, allow this inequity to continue. Eliminating the FICA limit and increasing taxes at the very top, e.g. incomes greater than $500K might be good first steps. It is our government that is irresponsible, not GS for rewarding its employees.
— Posted by P.Trager

25.December 18th, 2006 11:11 am Call me jaded but I still think this is way over the top.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bear stearns, Lehman, Merrill, etc… are financial services companies that are entrusted to protect the finances of our nations people and people around the globe. Profits come from decisions made and all are not in the best interests of safety. Instead the interest is bottom line profits which results in personal financial satisfaction.
Members of the Industry, Regulators, and Congress have long debated the merits of the large fines imposed on these firms and teh value they bring. we now can see the value they bring and should be calling for higher and not lower penalties.
If Goldman is having this kind of profit growth, and can afford to pay their employees nearly twich that of the competition, we should never expect to see a regulatory enforcement case brought against the firm for a lack of compliance procedures, lack of computer technology, or lack of supervision. They make enough money to put all of these in place and if they don’t EVERY employee should pay the price since every employee benefits if there is a lack of such.
The $1.4 Billion settlement being the perfect example as each firm reaped far greater profits than the fines levied, employees got the riches, and the injured were forced to take their cases to civil court individually. Heftier fines may be the deterrent these employees need if a violation will truly affect them all if caught.
The system needs to be fixed and that costs money. It is about time these firms stopped paying themselves first and instead put the money into systems necessary to protect us all from their indescretions.
— Posted by Dave

26.December 18th, 2006 11:18 am Unfortunately, shareholders as a group are uninterested in fairness; they want profit, and they certainly got that.
Because traders’ skills are more necessary to the company’s profit than a janitor’s, traders should get larger bonuses. But Goldman should set a ratio by which the largest bonus may exceed the smallest. Thus, even if the ratio is 100,000:1, the janitors and receptionists will get their due.
To do otherwise, is not capitalism (check your Econ 101 textbooks–janitors are capital, too); it’s exploitation.
— Posted by J. D. Edelman

27.December 18th, 2006 11:47 am Even if you triple the profit, it is absurd to think the collective effort of a few in a large company like Goldman were responsible for the large marginal profits. There are vicarious reasons why companies make profit, in the case of Goldman, the street cred is equally important.
Sure the company executives and managing partners diserve bonuses, so do the mail room and janitor. You are still ingnoring the stockholders. I suppose that is the difference between Goldman and Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet would have never allowed this type of self aggrandizement. I highly doubt that Goldmans stock in the long run will show the kind of growth that of Berkshire.
— Posted by Navin

28.December 18th, 2006 11:57 am Gains like these are an unseemly and immoral tax on the hard work of people like, well, the administrative and maintenance staff of Goldman’s HQ. These kinds of excessive payouts should themselves be taxed into oblivion. A 95% tax bracket for $100 million earners would not be too much. And that’s what it was as recently as 45 years ago.
Those who benefit disproportionately from the economic opportunity given them and protected by our democratic institutions should bear a disproportionate share of the burden of supporting those institutions. It’s only fair.
— Posted by James Linkin

29.December 18th, 2006 12:46 pm Believe it or not there is actually a market for talented senior wall street professionals. If goldman paid their people less, they’d simply join another firm. That $100 million trader could leave and start his own hedge fund and probably make slightly more.
— Posted by efeezy

30.December 18th, 2006 1:01 pm To those who are so opposed to paying heavily to CEO’s and others in general and at Goldman in particular:
Tell me how the money, if not given to employees, can fix the world’s problems? Say if Goldman gave away a $1B instead of 16.5B, do you really expect them to “donate” the difference to eliminate poverty or improve healthcare in the world? Come on, they are a business - not a philanthropic organization. They can donate a few million but not the entire kitty. Wish I were working for GS. What’s wrong with having insane amount of money?
Slam Dunk
— Posted by Slam Dunk

31.December 18th, 2006 1:12 pm Most of you seem to be under the impression that investment bankers and traders get to work at 9 AM, talk to Rick and Suzie at the water cooler about the movie they saw over the weekend, file some papers, do some online shopping, and then go home at 5 PM. It’s actually long, hard, nerve-racking work that not many people can–or want to–do. Thus, it takes seemingly insane levels of compensation to keep people devoting their lives to their firm.
If you don’t like the way they’re spending their bonuses, compete with them for their jobs, collect the money yourselves and give it all to teachers and nurses. Problem solved.
— Posted by Jay

32.December 18th, 2006 1:30 pm If anybody should get a ludicris bonus from Wall Street it should be Alan Greenspan.The Tsunami of capital created on his watch, and more pertinent to the Goldman Sachs of the world, the super low interest rates that generated the mega wave of liquidity (the pro’s & con’s a strident debate to be sure), is akin to $50.-$60 for Exxon-Mobil. Both industries do not often see margins so rich, and in the financial world so accomadating; especially, the near zero interest or free money period that appeared for some months, or quarters, following the 2000 implosion in equities, and the afore mentioned Mr. Greenspan’s response to it.
What does this have to do with