So, Lloyd Blankfein has decided that Goldman Sachs’ top management will forgo their yearly bonuses this year, bringing the “will they or won’t they” argument to a close. Now the others are expected to follow suit.

Smooth move, Lloyd: Please Washington by taking a hit at the top; let the “little people” take home their bonuses; and Wall Street and Main Street are finally reconciled.

Goldman’s “goodwill” move has prompted executives at UK-based, Barclays, PLC, Germany’s Deutschbank AG and Switzerland’s UBS AG to abandon bonuses for senior managers. But executives at Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and AIG aren’t lining up to fall on their swords. In fact, John Mack and Brady Dougan are conspicuously silent on the matter while Vikram Pandit has decided to eliminate the bonus question altogether by slashing jobs.

Everybody should take home a bonus this year, even if I’m not. It’s kind of crazy for Americans in general to expect that, just because they’re hurting, everyone else should hurt too. Congress can mask their little witch hunt as an effort to curtail corporate excess but, seriously, no one went after hedge funds at the peak of their profitability. Nobody targeted Exxon when they announced that they made over $14 billion in the third quarter of this year. So, now, making money is a problem?

Absurd.

Yes, exposure to toxic mortgage-backed securities ruined the global economy. And Wall Street should take the blame. But what is the Street supposed to do: repay investors out of the money that would have gone to bonuses? That’s not free-market capitalism. Moreover, nobody on either side of the Atlantic has mentioned that as an option.

Every economy in the world will have to limp through this recession. And — I’ll admit — some people need to go down for this. But making everyone poor won’t do anyone any good. Besides, if Blankfein — who made more than $50 million in 2007 — is an appropriate model for the typical Wall Street manager, taking a haircut in a bad year won’t hurt those at the top anyway.

John Mack “quickly signed,” the Wall Street Journal said in its coverage of the Treasury meeting with America’s top nine banking chiefs on Monday.

Maybe he did, or maybe he actually signed in alphabetical order — which would put him somewhere in the middle. “Before the meeting, John J. Mack said his bank, Morgan Stanley, did not need capital from the Treasury. It had just sealed a $9 billion deal with a large Japanese bank,” according to the New York Times account of the same event.

The details here might paint different pictures of Morgan Stanley, but the outcome is all the same. Mack and each of his peers definitively signed away on a $125 billion cash injection (executive pay caps included). Both papers clearly made that point in their coverage of the Washington gathering between the nine CEOs, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and other government officials.

And the initial objections, the arguments, the speculation over who signed first vs. who signed last were all part of a great CEO bluffing game. The most eager to sign might seem least confident in the eyes of his investors, but the last to throw in his cards and take a portion of the split pot might lose his best bet.

Not even the clean John Stumpf of Wells Fargo could afford that bluff.

The reasons are countless, but in today’s news alone:

The Dow fell 733 points, bringing it down to 8,578, and all major indexes lost at least 7%.

JP Morgan’s third-quarter earnings fell 84%.

Citigroup continued its litigation against Wells Fargo for billions of dollars in damages over a lost bid for Wachovia.

And all that toxic debt is still floating around.

The credit crisis has only begun to show how bad it can get, and just like with oil reserves, nobody knows where the bottom is. The poker faces are officially off.