Get this, motherfuckers:

we own you now, and you owe us.

You know how there's that hoary old cliche of pseudo-and actual intellectuals complaining of how modern/finance/late-capitalism has resulted in certain groups of people - namely those in the finance and banking sector - have culturally and regulatorily captured governing structures, in order to maximise their profits and minimise their losses?

No? Me either. Well, i'm taking about this phrase: 'socialise the losses and privatise the gains', of which we've been seeing a whole lot of recently.

Now, what this phrase is meant to point out is the unfairness that certain industries and entities play by in the vagaries of modern commerce. The supposedly 'sensible' reaction by modern, right-thinking types (even if you're a leftie pinko, though not commie, which i'll come to soon) is to create a symmetry of non-intervention between those conjunctions: gubmint should privatise the losses and privatise the gains.

Well, here's where the commie bolshie in me kicks in. Let's have the symmetry run the other way. Let's socialise the losses, sure, but we sure as hell are gonna socialise those gains too. You made a lot of money this year? Well, hooray! Begin sharing. In a practical sense, what would this mean? High rates of progressive taxation, profit-sharing agreements, and one method quite close to the populist heart, windfall taxes. So, whiling away the time in this realm of bullshit-theorising, it's quite surprising to come across this:

Windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. They are a sop to prejudice, a burden on risk-taking and a form of arbitrary confiscation. No sensible person should support them. So why do I now find the idea of a windfall tax on banks so appealing? Well, this time, it really does look different.

From Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times, no less (!) Continuing:

Fifth, it is hard to argue in favour of exceptional interventions to bail out the financial sector at times of crisis, and also against exceptional interventions to recoup costs when the crisis is past. “Windfall” support should be matched by windfall taxes.

Finally, these are genuine windfalls. They are, as George Soros has said, “hidden gifts” from the state. What the state gives, the state is entitled to take back, if it is not used for the state’s purposes.

The rest of the article is rigmarole about the incentive effects of windfall taxes, and where they should be applied (Wolf argues that it should be placed on the bonus pools of the employees of the institutions involved, mostly convincing), concluding with some mild boosterism for (carefully placed) populism.

Who da thunk it? Anyway, i've had this sitting for a little while now, and was partly inspired reading this New York article about the ongoing feud between AIG's Robert Benmosche and Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called 'pay czar' appointed by the Obama administration. It's...it's difficult to describe in words the sheer, unmitigated gall of the assholes. Bile-rising, rictus-inducing, finger-twitchingly infuriating stuff.

Golub, the chairman, was particularly angry at Feinberg’s decision to limit corporate perks—country-club memberships, private jets, sales retreats—to $25,000.

I've never wanted to choke somebody so badly in my life.