Since times immemorial, banking has been the shadiest business of all, and yet you liken it to professional sports in your special report on international banking, where you do your best to justify the alleged principle that pay should be commensurate with talent (“Chained but Untamed,” May 14, 2011). “Restricting bankers’ pay may make political sense,” you argue in connection with the odium of the extraordinary bonuses granted successful bankers, “but is it good economics?” And here is the grand lesson you have to offer:

The market for talent in both banking and professional sport is fairly transparent (at least to the participants) and fairly efficient. Both are meritocratic. Teams with better players win more often. Banks with the best traders or dealmakers generally earn more money. If talent and performance are strongly correlated, it seems reasonable that pay should follow.

Goldman Sachs’ double-dealing with customers’ money immediately comes to mind. Was selling securitized mortgages while betting on the collapse of the housing market fairly transparent? Was it transparent even to the participants? It was definitely not, and that explains why the general public is not up and against the high “bonuses” in professional sports, where performance is regularly televised, but is quite disgusted by the likes of Goldman Sachs’ high rollers, who customarily work behind closed doors. If restricting bankers’ pay makes political sense, it is for a good reason, too. And poorly conceived arguments like yours can only contribute to the general disgust.