Bloggers have spent much time this week trying to unravel what represents true value for money and, perhaps unsurprisingly, their views do not always chime in with those in power.
The debate began on Monday, when the Dubai government said it would not guarantee the debts of Dubai World and hinschelwood asked: "Is this proof that getting slaves to tip sand into the sea isn't a good investment?"
"Full many a tower
Is built to be unfilled
And a waste of capital
In the desert air."
Wrote GreatGreatGrandDad.
Jonathan Freedland's CiF that the debt, excess and exploitation is not just down to Dubai, we've all had a slice of this pie, got clemsworld thinking: "The $64,000 question is precisely who exactly is the mythical loan shark that we (as a global community who have 'all been at it') owe all this money too exactly? When is he going to knock on the door and what will his henchmen look like?"
Well, there might be a few bankers looking for some gainful employment, if RBS is correct. On Wednesday, the bank revealed that it had reluctantly surrendered the right to decide how many bonuses should be paid for the current financial year. However, it was the caveat that this may adversely affect staff retention and recruitment that forced many to question whether the bankers really deserved the payouts.
"Seriously, which planet are these people living on?" asked jacquai. "If you don't like the terms of the deal… we, the people, we will have our money back thanks, because I for one, would rather spend it on hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools and teachers."
CrystalMethod added: "As for 'talent' at the banks, I used to write software for trading platforms until I got too bored of the bank bureaucracy. As part of my job I came into contact with a large number of traders and other trading floor 'talent'. They to a man (very few women in that environment) were no more savvy about economics than the bloke in the betting shop. They would only buy when it was obvious to do so, and sell like lemmings at the lightest provocation."
"What bonus pool?" asked Voltaire21. "Oh, they mean the reward for failure money."
"How about some negative bonuses for the top earners to bring them down to the average wage?" suggested Cyphon1988.
"The whole matter is a farce, this should have been agreed in advance," said Koolio. "Sadly the Treasury seems unable to see beyond its nose these days. It is very rare for the largest shareholder and the board of a company to fall out in public, especially when they are supposed to be working towards the same goal. It makes things look very amateur."
Davidlan agreed with the argument in favour of a windfall tax on bonuses, presented by City columnist Nils Pratley: "It needs to be done. Government intervention in this instance is the only realistic option for changing the current bonus-driven investment banking culture. While the bonuses themselves are, because of their visibility, a public annoyance, the real problem with the current bonus culture is that it drives palpably bad decisions prompted by a short-term focus on revenues. As long as bonus mania is a part of mainstream banking then the whole financial system remains exposed to the (strong) possibility of another meltdown."
Then Lord Mandelson waded into the argument with a plea that banks should show some restraint on pay.
"Dear oh dear!" tutted SAEZ. "Let's ask Satan be kind, the Nazis be tolerant and Blair do something about the Middle East! Mandy is trying to pull our leg."
"Mandelson is part of the same over paid, self-satisfied, patronising bunch of morons who think that they are the only ones in the country who 'produce wealth'," added rubberneck. "Every person in the country is a part of wealth production every time any economic transaction is carried out."
And the prime minister? This week it emerged that Gordon Brown is the 324th highest paid person in Britain's public sector.
"324th?" asked waylandsmithy. "You get what you pay for. Although in Brown's case, I'm sure we're definitely not getting value for money."
The other big value debate this week centred around whether or not we should be paying for internet content. Tim Luckhurst's Cif praising Johnston Press' move to charge for online content from six of its local titles brought some lively debate on the value of journalism.
"Bring it on baby!" wrote TheGreatGigInTheSky. "You stay on YOUR side of the paywall, and we will stay on OUR side of the paywall."
"Dinosaur rages against approaching asteroid," added Ragged. "Blog at 11."
Then there was the decision by Google to allow publishers to limit free news access, following complaints by Rupert Murdoch about 'theft' of content. The story stirred plenty of comment, most of it pretty negative about News Corp.
"I hope Google adds a button so that these newspapers can be filtered out," wrote prayle.
Xiol added that it is all a waste of time anyhow: "The news sites will quickly realise that all the users will end up doing is clicking the Back button and finding another site with the story they're looking for."
What about pundits then? They've got to add something of value, haven't they? Er, not so, says harmonyfuture who wrote following commentary from Morgan Stanley's Graham Secker which included the prediction that living standards are likely to fall, reflecting factors such as a weak jobs market:
"Is the author of these statements paid a lot of money to make these predictions or does he have a degree in the 'fu**ing obvious'," asked this blogger.
The only safe prediction is the value debate has a long way to go. Keep them coming.