[I was taught some are rich, some are poor but most live comfortably in the middle. And to ensure we don't end up in some Victorian era "some are rich but many are poor" scenario our capitalist system is well-regulated to keep everyone playing by the rules.]

Well, I won't argue that's what you were taught. I was taught--and saw--differently. I'm not arguing with what we SHOULD have--I too would like to think our regulations allow most people to live in a large middle class--I simply think that it is NOT what we have. Maybe in 1962, but not anymore. To validate your idea, we would have to compare the US to Africa, Asia or South America. But compared to Western Europe, for example, we are generally poorer.

As for your larger point: I understand very clearly WHY people are mad at jerks like the LW. But that goes toward proving my point above: we don't live in a society with an even playing field. Most people are poorer now than they were in the 1960's, while the captains of industry and finance are, in real terms richer than they've ever been. A point to remember: Carnegie and Rockefeller not only made gobs of money, they owned the company. People in the 1930's understood and accepted the concept of risk vs. reward; they saw, quite publicly, how a billionaire like J. Ogden Armour went from supplying all the canned meat to the US Army in WWI to being truly penniless, living in a cold water flat, by 1935. Nobody bailed him out. Owners took all the risk! Today, the CEOs make most of the money and have nothing at risk--even if they fail they get an exorbitant severance. And the worst part is that these magnificent failure have betrayed the very essence of what made this country great: the balance between management and labor, between rich and poor.

A few points to clear up.

[It isn’t like it is the job of the officers of the company to steer it correctly.]

You better believe it is. If I'm buying stock in a company I'm relying on their judgement to keep that company alive and profitable. I really hope that was sarcasm on your part, otherwise nothing else I could say matters if you don't understand how a corporation works. I should point out that a VP in a place like AIG is not exactly that high on the ladder; a local branch manager, managing a sales team, is commonly a VP in most large organizations. They don't have much input on home office decisions. Let me clue you in: anyone getting ONLY a $700,000 bonus at AIG is NOT making decisions. The decision makers are getting at least EIGHT figure bonuses.

That said, this guy is not necessarily entitled to his bonus. I never said he was. He is entitled to be told the truth by his employer as to what's going on and whether they can pay him. And most of the jacobin rants here miss the point that at the end of the day everybody expects to be paid for their work. If they cannot be paid, they should be told as soon as possible. It's that simple. You judge this guy, implying he made his money through deception. I have no idea if that was true, and neither do you. I cannot be sure this guy, as a sales officer, knew the CDS products his company were buying and selling were crap, because that bit of insight escaped many many people. Can you warranty the products or services your company sells? Do you know every step of the process? Because if you don't know for a FACT the LW knew he was selling junk you have no business accusing him of shady motives and making other blanket judgements.

My original point stands--much of the response here seems reduced to "he made lots of money, let him suffer". My defense of the guy was pretty limited to the fact that he is being judge simply on the amount of his income, nothing more. That's wrong.

We all feel our job is fundamental to the job of mankind, while yours may be epitomized by greed or sloth.

[What great service did he provide that he thinks he is OWED over 1 million dollars in BONUS? Which, by definition is OVER and ABOVE what he got as base salary?]

My understanding is that his salary was $1. My guess is that the bonus WAS his compensation.

Whether we realize it or not, in America we all help in placing the value of our work. For example:

[In a country where soldiers are dying because of lack of equipment,]

which we as voters endorsed by rewarding Bush and his cronies with a second term,

[teachers are underpaid,]

which we determine when we refuse to raise our property/county taxes to allow for raises,

[hardworking people are homeless]

by not discouraging new affordable housing or rents

[and without healthcare]

which we the people allow by not demanding single-payer insurance as they have in every other modern country and allowing us to be spooked by the AMA, health insurance companies and lobbyists crying "socialism".

[His letter, more than anything else, highlights the disconnect between the culture of entitlement on Wall Street and the other 300 million of us.]

I'd venture to guess it's not that much different than the culture of entitlement among Americans in general.

[He needs to ask himself - did I create anything of enduring value? The answer is a resounding No.]

No, he didn't. But I'm hesitant to paint all of Wall Street as a cesspool. While CDSs are garbage, the service he--and millions of others--believed he was performing was creating liquidity in the capital markets, crucial to any modern economy. That system allows everything from you borrowing money to finance a new car or your kid's college education to the operation of the government. I state that there IS an inherent value in assisting that.