… when under his watch, in 2003, two Harvard money managers each took home $35 million in bonuses?
I mean, now, sure, he’s tossing the word around like confetti. But where was outrageous then?
… when under his watch, in 2003, two Harvard money managers each took home $35 million in bonuses?
I mean, now, sure, he’s tossing the word around like confetti. But where was outrageous then?
Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=10514
March 15th, 2009 at 1:48PM
They were getting results!
March 15th, 2009 at 6:24PM
no, they were stealing from a non-profit and taking scholarships from poor students.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:55AM
Because that was then and this is now.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:21AM
Here are three distinct positions, each defensible:
1. Nobody should make that much money
2. Nobody should make that much money working for a university
3. Nobody should make that much money for screwing up
Summers, like most Americans, agrees with the third, while UD leans toward the second.
The opinion that nobody should get these huge bonuses bonuses is certainly defensible, but so is the view that huge bonuses are justified only by outstanding results. Summers, like most Americans I’d guess, subscribes to the latter. Most Americans who are not academics are not outraged by the fact that some people make a lot of money
March 16th, 2009 at 8:21AM
Sorry — all I meant to post was:
Here are three distinct positions, each defensible:
1. Nobody should make that much money
2. Nobody should make that much money working for a university
3. Nobody should make that much money for screwing up
Summers, like most Americans, agrees with the third, while UD leans toward the second.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:26AM
some things are worse than criminal – like taking large sums of money from a weak non-profit
March 16th, 2009 at 8:50AM
A lot’s packed into your “lot,” Mr Punch. Like most Americans, I have no problem with some people making very large sums of money. Why not. But also like most Americans, I have a rough sense of the difference between lots and grotesquely unconscionable, not to say socially destructive, excess. As Christopher Lasch wrote:
“Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture. The difficulty of limiting the influence of wealth suggests that wealth itself needs to be limited. When money talks, everybody else is condemned to listen. For that reason, a democratic society cannot allow unlimited accumulation. Social and civic equality presuppose at least a rough approximation of economic equality.”
In terms of universities, I’ve watched Boone Pickens and whathisname – Mr. Nike – take over many of the operations of Oklahoma St. and University of Oregon, simply because they have so much money everybody else is condemned to listen.