The pressure is beginning to show in the financial blogosphere over the media’s seemingly pig-headed assumption that comically-high financial rewards might have something to do with the appallingly low ebb to which our financial world has now fallen.
Take the Epicurean Dealmaker, who has made us a post we couldn’t refuse:
“Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.’ Miami, Sandwich and now Geneva. I propose to wring the truth out of you.”
Goldfinger’s eyes slid slowly past Bond’s head. “Oddjob, The Pressure Room.”
I am a firm believer in the Chicago gangland maxim which Mr. Goldfinger cites, so I believe it is time to respond to the third by delivering what I hope will be a knockout blow to the mass of misperceptions, misunderstandings, and sheer obstinate stupidity which I think underly both these articles and the political movement afoot to restructure compensation practices in the financial industry.
Unlike Auric Goldfinger, however, I do not propose to wring the truth out of anyone. Rather, I intend to beat some truth into those commentators, market participants, and spectators who are busily jumping up and down in the bleachers calling for the heads of all financial intermediaries and sundry.
We confess to having brought this Epicurean wrath down upon our own heathen heads. Or at least we can blame Martin Wolf.
Anyway, here’s the full “public service” post.
I like both the phrase and the idea “comically-high financial rewards might have something to do with the appallingly low ebb to which our financial world has now fallen.”
. The Second New Deal, anyone ?
ED, where did you study rhetoric?
“I can guarantee you that you have no idea how prevalent these flaming ***holes are in the general population, until you begin to try to sell something to them. (Who knows, maybe even you qualify as one in certain circumstances.)”
Sorry for the edit, but this site has an obscenity filter.
All in good fun. Besides, some of my best friends are economists, journalists, and commentators. No, really.