The bonuses are just a symbol


For all the so-called analysis replacing reporting on facts these days, there have been few if any stories that actually point out why the matter of bonuses for AIG, et al, are such a hot issue.

People are reacting to the vast difference in wealth the bonuses represent, and inequity in society and power. Much of that inequity was glossed over or unacknowledged during flush times, when it could be said - if not quite proven - that the vast amounts of money "awarded" to a small fraction of the population was due primarily to success in the marketplace, etc. But the recession - and dwindling balance sheets - has exploded that myth, showing pretty decisively that in most cases there's a rather large disconnect between reward and risk, reward and achievement, etc.

The anger shouldn't be particularly surprising. Anyone who follows baseball knows that the disgust at players' outsize salaries is pretty much a given. Ironically, at least in their case the connections between pay and achievement are pretty transparent - you can look up the batting average or see the home runs.

The question is, what happens to this anger? A really smart politician can channel into something extremely destructive: see Europe during the 1920s and 1930s.

I'm not smart enough to know what the solution is. Retroactively selective tax laws are a bad idea on too many levels to even consider. And socialistic wage ceilings are worse. Part of the answer is surely a moral attitude that acknowledges that greed is bad . . . but how that translates into the real world where us sinners live is an open question.