仁爱始于家:财政返还

圣诞节可能是结束了,但是给的精神似乎活了起来,还好——至少在华尔街。投资银行高盛(Goldman Sachs)等公司正在考虑是否要求员工“回馈”社会慈善机构的条款。行动的目的是:a)做“正确”的事情。b)安抚的普通人。c) A和B

真的又有什么区别呢为什么吗?真正的问题是,是这是正确的的事,它会削弱公众批评吗?毕竟,据一位CEO,这些公司正在做的”上帝的工作。”大型救助公司员工站为去年的收益更大比我们以前所想象的失败。在朋友的帮助下,在高的地方,“太大而不能倒闭”的银行已经大幅回升的图表和高管期望报酬。奖金将在一月底到二月初公布,保证激起愤怒的民众。高盛的一些努力安抚公众不满情绪包括拨款500美元为“小商业教育在社区学院”和61美元更多城市保障性住房建设。188bet网址怎么打不开全球投资银行正在考虑让员工课税正式商业模式的一部分。1980年代的华尔街公司,包括贪婪是所罗门兄弟,早就给社区。188bet网址怎么打不开垃圾债券之王迈克尔·米尔肯一直是金融行业最大的慈善家之一自从他在1993年从监狱释放。乔治•索罗斯(George Soros)“打破了英国央行(Bank of England)”一直是一个不断的恩人对许多世界上最贫困的几十年。金融公司建立了学校、承销库、扶贫项目的创建,致命疾病,并支持环境可持续性和社会企业家——所有为了平衡尺度的繁荣。金博宝怎么注册三个最大的贡献者了消防员的寡妇和孩子基金后9•11袭击是美林(Merrill Lynch)、雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)和高盛(Goldman Sachs)。 All the big Street firms gave hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the city and honor its fallen heroes. No one in New York ever forgot that. So what is different now? Isn’t this what capitalism is all about? Making a profit and circulating it back to the people? Of course. Yet any firm that used bailout funds to get back on its feet is no longer viewed as a pure capitalistic venture. With the official label of “too-big-to-fail,” the public sees these firms as government-backed. Therefore the old rules of capitalism no longer apply. Giving a portion of profits to personal charities does little for those losing their homes or the millions of middle-class jobless who took the fall for others. Since the days of Andrew Carnegie, people have confused好商业与慈善事业。昔日的巨头,像卡耐基和洛克菲勒,建立了大企业支持艺术和其他非营利组织的标准。这些人迫使人们工作的最低水平的工资低于人类的条件,然后建立图书馆和学校为同一人。在19^th在21世纪有选择性的慈善事业平衡的天平,^圣世纪它不。企业有义务回馈社会,支持它。188bet网址怎么打不开因此,慈善捐赠是一个基本现实对于任何盈利的公司。然而,在过去的一年里它已经明白地表明企业也有责任不利用社区中获利。188bet网址怎么打不开这个模型的一个很好的例子是前投资银行贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)。熊是最鲁莽的次级抵押贷款证券房屋导致金融危机。在2000年,贝尔斯登也为“给予”的趋势要求高管贡献4%的收入用于慈善事业。杠杆在40岁以上,贝尔斯登的脆弱的承销标准和巨额交易风险把巨头公司。追随它的脚步是美林(Merrill Lynch)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers),高空飞行的抵押贷款市场制造商和慷慨的赞助人。雷曼和贝尔斯登的损失大纽约非营利社区已经心碎。188bet网址怎么打不开然而慈善捐赠,这些公司并没有弥补金融灾难留下的。捐赠4%,最喜欢的慈善机构而破碎工作和中产阶级已经不满意强调纳税人。相同的人失去了他们的收入,也许家里直接导致市场混乱被要求接受慈善捐款来平息他们的怒火。 Hardly a reasonable offering. While firms cannot earmark 10% of profits for philanthropy without enraging shareholders, they can invoke the “charity clause.” Setting aside 5-10% of earnings for top producers to support a special community fund might establish better relations with the public after all - if that fund is funneled into a program that supports those affected directly. For example, Goldman has set aside $16bn in a 2009 bonus pool. What if $1.6bn of this executive fund was used to finance small business loans at zero percent, refinance at-risk homeowners, pay a portion of monthly mortgage payments for unemployed homeowners, or seed money to social entrepreneurship start-ups who guarantee they will hire U.S. workers? These may be highly unusual solutions for profit-seeking Wall Street, but these extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. This week, the top banking chiefs expressed mia culpa for the industry’s part in the economic crisis. Apologies are due, but actions are imperative. Earmarking a portion of bonus checks to plaster your name above the public library door isn’t going to relieve suffering or reduce anger. Real and effective solutions to current economic dilemmas are expected from both the government和金融行业。平息公众沸腾的愤怒,公司需要承认他们参与的骂名,但不是通过镀金时代强盗大亨的道路。纠正的方法进行经济影响不是通过主观的“慈善捐赠”,但真正积极的恢复和改革。

单击GoodB博客——挑衅和信息。

单击GoodB最新的更新