That’s why the UK government ‘s plans to demand more information about highly paid bankers are being scrapped– HSBC has been especially vocal in insisting they’d leave the UK. But guess what? Hong Kong already demands that, and HSBC didn’t leave. Apparently Thatcher also imposed a windfall tax on banks. They didn’t leave then either.
Subscribe by email
This is a useful database!
Categories
Got something to send the Feminist Philosophers?
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
 | Sally H on Stereotype threat: scaling up… |
 | Walking with Cave Wo… on Gender Assumptions Influence A… |
 | Rebecca Kukla on Nine Men discuss the semantic… |
 | Jason Merchant on Nine Men discuss the semantic… |
 | Anon Grad Student on Using Optical Illusions to Com… |
Top Posts
- Nine Men discuss the semantic pragmatic distinction
- Abercrombie and Fitch
- The average face of women across the world
- Constructing the Myth of the Crack Baby
- Wealth inequality in America
- Gendered Conference Campaign
- 6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism
- Using Optical Illusions to Combat Implicit Bias
- Ever lay for two months staring at the ceiling?i
- If men posed like women
Pages
Blogroll
- A Collage of Citations
- Abyss 2 Hope
- Alas, a Blog
- All About My Vagina
- Amptoons
- And Another Thing
- APA Committee on the Status of Women
- Arab Woman Progressive Voice
- Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice
- Atoms Arranged
- Bangladesh From Our View
- Barbara Ehrenreich’s Blog
- Bideshi Blue
- Bitch PhD
- Bite-Sized Subversions
- Black Looks
- Blogging For America
- Border Thinking
- Broadsheet
- cardiff feminist network
- Carnival of Feminists
- Certain Doubts
- Collegium of Black Women Philosophers
- Colored Demos
- Composite
- Condomologist
- Conservatory Girl
- crooked timber
- Cruella Blog
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Disabled Philosophers
- diversity@spp
- Dolly Mix
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Engage: Conversations in Philosophy
- Engender
- Experimental Philosophy
- F Watch
- F-Words
- Female Science Professor
- Feminist Aesthetics
- Feminist Allies
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Feminist Philosophers
- Feminist Response in Disability Activisim
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Feminocracy
- Fit, Feminist, and (almost) Fifty
- Florida Philosophy Student Blog
- Geek Feminism
- Gender, Race and Philosophy
- Genius NZ
- Gone Public
- Halfie
- Hi My Name Is…
- Hook and Eye
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Irresponsibility
- Jean Kazez
- Just Another Angry Black Muslim Woman?
- Knowledge and Experience
- Language Log
- Law and Letters
- Lemmings
- Lilith Attack
- London Feminists
- London Pro-Feminist Men
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Metamorpho-Sis
- Mind the Gap
- Miss Crip Chick
- Ms Magazine Blog
- Ms Magazine Online
- Multiplicative Identity
- Muslimah Media Watch
- My Fault, I'm Female
- Natalia Antonova
- New APPS: Arts, Politics, Philosophy, Science
- Nine Pearls
- No Cookies For Me
- No Snow Here
- Objectify This
- Oh No a WoC PhD
- On The Issues
- Packaging Girlhood
- Pandagon
- Pandemian
- Pea Soup
- PennyRed
- Philobiblon
- Philosophy, Etc
- Public Reason
- Questioning Transphobia
- Rachel’s Musings
- Racialicious
- Red Jenny
- RH Reality Check
- Rozena Maart
- SAFER
- Sex In The Public Square
- SGRP The Blog
- Shakesville
- Sheffield Fems
- Siris
- Sister Song
- Slap Upside the Head
- SM Feminists
- Social Justice Feminist
- Staff of Ra
- Symposia on Gender, Race, And Philosophy
- The Brooks Blog
- The Curvature
- The F Word
- The Forbidden Sister
- Thoughts Arguments and Rants
- Thus Spake Zuska
- Ultra Violet
- Unapologetically Female
- Unapologetically Female
- Viva La Feminista
- Wages of Ignorance
- What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?
- What Sorts of People
- What We're Doing About What It's Like
- Where's the benefit?
- Women Count
- Women Philosophers
Good thing too. I think I’m right in saying there is some evidence that greater transparency in income actually increases the pay of the top earners. Greed and jealously are more influential then shame.
Frank Rich’s latest piece in the NY Times raises a question: Have the banks bought the gov’t?
His comment on the situation in the States is dangerous for one’s blood pressure:
see:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion
The U.S. government has long served as a welfare state for large corporations. The government could have owned the banks, literally by buying them, though distorted conflicts of interests and dubious concerns about socialism continue to prevent that sort of thing from happening. God forbid the government might take direct steps to help the people, as opposed to the opulent. If Norway can successfully nationalize their oil industry, for instance, why couldn’t we successfully nationalize our banking industry? Sure, I know the usual worries. The problem is that we have not sufficiently tried variations in this direction to see what does and does not work. (If the government buying the banks did work in some way, we could better fund more social programs as well as distributing ownership amongst, or paying dividends to, the population – and so on…)
In ignorance but not in absence of much thought and sentiment, I usually say, “Let them leave.” It’s nice to know that one of Thatcher’s measures allegedly worked. Even if I did not know this and/or if that measure did not work, I would still suggest, “Let them leave.” Maybe it is the recovering Marxist in me, but I think we might be better off with people willing to work under various conditions (that many people will not work under for what I would call ignoble reasons) for various good reasons. (This reminds me of how people are beginning to reject microfinancing because of what happens when you let loan sharks and other ordinary bankers/banking institutions (mis)run the programs.)
What? – We need to pay our university sports coaches a seven figure salary because otherwise they would leave? Let them leave. What? – We need to pay our school administrators many times what we pay our teachers and other staff more directly related to the classroom and students because otherwise they would leave? Bearing in mind the usual arguments, might some good things arise from letting them leave?
In general, I think we need to “Let them leave” much more often – in part just to give it many good tries to see what really does and does not work. Might there be more Ben and Jerry’s in the world (who, for instance, would not pay any employee in their company more than 5 times – later raised to 7 times, but still virtually unheard of in comparable businesses – the lowest paid employee, for instance)? Sure, it was hard for Ben and Jerry’s to hire executives, but did the hires always result in a compromise in quality as opposed to a difference in mindset?
Perhaps banks are a different story, given how central they are to the economy and all. Still, if we let them leave, wouldn’t others give a go at taking (or be assigned to take) their place under the specified conditions?
Come to think of it, this is just a variation of G. A. Cohen’s egalitarian ethos and his criticism of Rawls’ exclusionary focus on the basic structure.
Let them leave.
This is a bit of a thread derail, but I’d love to see a business ethics movement toward the Ben and Jerry’s model. They did a number of really wonderful things. When they went public with their company, they wanted people to be able to buy in at a very low cost so that ordinary community members could afford to be shareholders. They had trouble finding someone who was wiling to help them do this in the financial industry, and so learned to do it themselves.
Yes, I am totally with you Kathryn (and the Ben and Jerry’s model). One inside story (that I happen to know a bit about) is Fred Lager’s book titled, “Ben & Jerry’s: The Inside Scoop: How Two Real Guys Built a Business with a Social Conscience and a Sense of Humor”.