Exploitation: By the Rich or the Government?

Newscasters of the mainstream press (or lamestream press, as Sarah calls it) never tire of reminding us of the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to wall street executives. They thereby gain a lot of public support for their favored policies and politicians. It is hard to argue that those bonuses are legitimately earned and good for their companies or for the economy as a whole. However, economic and business realities explain those sky-high payments. Without knowing many details about the operations of investment banking and other high level financial firms, such payments must also result from some form of government intervention in the market place. That is usually the case with seemingly inexplicable market phenomena.

Regarding the business explanations, there was a recent article in Atlantic Magazine that offered some insight. (Why Goldman Always Wins by Megan McArdle) The author, who had served as an intern at a large firm while a business student at an Ivy League school, stated that even the interns seemed to be paid much more than market forces justified. The fact of the matter is that businesses that make a large stock offering to the public are willing to pay top price because they have so much at stake. Multimillion share sales of stock, such as an initial public offerings, are one-time, make it or break it shots. An executive with experience, contacts, and a track record can bring in the business and a large salary is not only justified, but necessary to obtain his services. The market, as always, tries to find ways to do things for less. Google for example, did their initial public offering via the web. They met with only limited success, partly because the large investment banks, wanting to discredit the completion, did not participate. With a wall street deal of this type, presumably the bankers have plenty of contacts who they can place large chunks of stock with. Without those deals, Google got a lower price than they would have with the banks' help. The market did push the price way up later, but those gains went to the on-line investors, not to the original owners.

The high premium paid for the services of top wall street players can be understood by this sort of explanation. The second rate bankers, who charge lower fees, are just not worth the gamble with a high stakes deal. How did they ever come to dominate the market to such an extent that other firms cannot compete? It seems that government regulation must have made it difficult for others to enter the market and build a competing business. It should be noted that size is not the only factor, or even the most important factor. Of course, a large bank can prop-up a market itself when they buy with their own and with customers funds, but it seems that it is the individual with the contacts who is the indispensable deal maker. Therefore, government limitations on the size of a bank would, if anything, increase the value of key players.

This is a matter of economics, not of class warfare, as the Congressional Democrats and BHO tell us. Marx tried to blame our economic woes on class exploitation and he failed. The true liberals, the free market thinkers, explained that exploitation can only take place with government help and they proved it.

See the Ludvig von Mises Institute article of yesterday, from which the following is a quote:

"The implications of this insight are profound. The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests. This harmony, however, is transformed into conflict whenever government intervenes. If a business can get the government to keep out competitors, customers no longer have the ability to take their dollars elsewhere. Then, and only then, are companies in a position to raise prices or turn out shoddy products." -- David Osterfeld http://mises.org/daily/4062