Letter to Editor New York Times/Wall Street Pay

Let us momentarily accept the disputatious fact that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow really did cause the fire. The argument of whether her cow brought about this historic catastrophe by kicking over the lantern or lighting a match was plenarily irrelevant to those whom abruptly became former home and business owners.

The issue of whether executive bonuses caused the crisis is equally inapposite. Those present day victims of a greed spawned crisis experienced parallel consequences and worse. Their concern is not with the function the absurd, unethical bonuses played in the crisis. Rather, their rage is focused on executives who presided over calamitous failures and were simultaneously rewarded with horrendous dollar amounts inversely proportional to their own and their company’s performance.

To say that these executives did not understand “the risks that were being taken” implicitly blesses their inexcusable greed and notorious imprudence in gambling with the life savings of countless people whose trust they blasphemed. It also rationalizes their failure to effectively “execute” (as in executive) their responsibilities.

To say these C.E.O.’s and kindred titled ilk “cannot be blamed for the crisis” is to also give a pass to Mrs. O’Leary’s cow. Neither these executives nor the cow understood the risks and consequences of their actions. The intolerable rub is the difference in their respective responsibilities and paychecks. Executive compensation is theoretically based on effective performance which is achieved through responsible management. Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was paid (room and board) to give milk.

Through gross dereliction of the responsibility and foresight included in executive job descriptions, financial executives stole the city. With responsibility and foresight not being included in the job description of any bovine, Mrs. O’Leary’s cow burned down the city. In either event, the city is gone.

The cow is forgiven.