Billionaire Buffoons Hoisted On Their Own Petards
I want to direct your attention to a fascinating piece of journalistic theater: Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk ‘Imbecile’ Attack on Top 1%. It was the most popular piece on Bloomberg.com yesterday.
After reading the full piece, you may conclude that the quote in the headline was misplaced; it should have been around the word “Debunk” and not imbecile.
Indeed, that was the first a clue that something interesting was afoot. The author is Max Abelson, formerly of the New York Observer — that was your 2nd clue. At the Observer, Abelson’s vicious wit, leavened with a sarcastic streak, was on full display. Outside of opinion pieces, the machinery at the Bloomberg factory tends to squeeze away anything that is not the 5 Ws: Just the facts, gives us the data, leave the commentary to the opinion pages.
However, those familiar with Max Abelson’s prior work can squint and see the embedded sarcasm and wit hidden in the text. But in the Billionaires piece, it is not hidden at all — it practically leaps off of the page. Abelson somehow managed to talk several billionaires into making asses of themselves in public. Their sincerity is both palpable and amusing; to say they are out of touch is to be generous in your criticism.
The column is an exercise in meta-journalism: Each billionaire quote is followed by a specific fact that makes their protestations laughable. The level of contextual sarcasm is in the plain words themselves. I wonder how many people read this yesterday and completely missed the snark . . .
One-percenters who “debunk” the 99%
• “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it” -JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. (2010 compensation: $23 million).
• “If successful businesspeople don’t go public to share their stories and talk about their troubles, they deserve what they’re going to get. Who gives a crap about some imbecile? Are you kidding me?” -Home Depot Inc. (HD) co-founder Bernard Marcus (billionaire)
• “Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let’s call it an attack on the very productive. This attack is destructive . . . It still feels lonely, but the chorus is definitely increased.” -John A. Allison IV, a director of BB&T Corp.
• “If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit.” -Tom Golisano, founder of Paychex (billionaire)
• “I am a fat cat, I’m not ashamed. If you mean by fat cat that I’ve succeeded, yeah, then I’m a fat cat. I stand guilty of being a fat cat.” -Ken Langone, Home Depot co-founder (billionaire)
• “My taxes are more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf” -Peter Schiff, CEO Pacific Capital (net worth $64.7 million)
• “Capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be . . . wealthy aren’t a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot . . . [they] fill store shelves at Christmas, provide health care to millions.” -Leon Cooperman, hedge-fund manager of Omega (Cooperman can “barely get through the dining room of St. Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton Advisors without being thanked” by fellow 1%-ers).
To put that into some context, Abelson used paragraphs such as this:
The top 1 percent of taxpayers in the U.S. made at least $343,927 in 2009, the last year data is available, according to the Internal Revenue Service. While average household income increased 62 percent from 1979 through 2007, the top 1 percent’s more than tripled, an October Congressional Budget Office report showed. As a result, the U.S. had greater income inequality in 2007 than China or Iran, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook.
Nicely done, Max, hilarious stuff. Good luck getting these folks to talk to you in the future.
>
See also:
Dear Jamie Dimon, We Don’t Hate The Rich, We Hate You (Josh Brown, Reformed Broker)
Source:
Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk ‘Imbecile’ Attack on Top 1%
Max Abelson
Bloomberg, Dec 20, 2011
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/bankers-join-billionaires-to-debunk-imbecile-attack-on-top-1-.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
December 21st, 2011 at 7:03 am
Better headline: “Imbecile Bankers & Billionaires Attack on 99%.”
December 21st, 2011 at 7:21 am
The absolute cluelessness is simply stunning. None of them seem to have (or want to acknowledge) the first iota of a clue that it is NOT the fact they’re rich that make so many people angry. It is about how the system is systematically tilted in their favor, be it privileged access to decision makers, incredibly favorable tax code (better than it has been is GENERATIONS) their complete immunity from the laws, their absolute indifference toward their employees etc. etc.
And let’s not start talking about the legions of assholes who act as apologists and trolls for them.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:26 am
Loved this piece. Krugman had a note one it. I hate to snip comments from one blog and post on another, but the first commenter on Krugman’s blog is too good not to pass on:
Buddy Ilic Illinois
Trusted
FLAG
In the linked article Jamie Dimon pretends to think the banking industry, particularly those at the top of the largest banks, are criticized because they’re successful. Maybe he’s in denial, or psychotic, but surviving on $7 trillion dollars of money dished out by the Federal Reserve hardly qualifies as success. He has conveniently forgotten those loans were/are collateralized with unmarketable securities.
Dec. 20, 2011 at 4:53 p.m
December 21st, 2011 at 7:29 am
I don’t know Barry, if anyone missed Abelson’s snarkiness, they are “imbeciles”. Out of touch would be generous. And what’s scary to me is that when reading those quotes you really do sense they feel they are a “persecuted minority”.
And I guess they are, other than the fact that by society’s standards they have everything, and they control our politicians and polticial decisions in their favor and well… other than all that. :-)
December 21st, 2011 at 7:57 am
I’m curious how many of these billionaires made their money creating jobs and how many made their money destroying jobs. For example, by buying up a competitor to take it off the street and laying off its employees, or engaging in derivatives market financial shenanigans that result in destroying companies or destroying other peoples’ wealth, or even by stupid mergers that destroy viable businesses because of mismatched corporate cultures.
How many of them made money selling securities to investors and then engaging in transactions that pay off if the securities they sold become worthless?
~~~
BR: Interesting question. I wonder what the net job creation is for Home Depot versus all the mom & pop hardware and general supply stores they replaced was (is there even data on this?)
See this: On Job Creation, Creative Destruction and Technology
December 21st, 2011 at 8:05 am
You know what I want to have them all show me?
All of the jobs they’ve created since 2007 with the money that me and the rest of the 99% LOANED them.
Pro-rate the jobs that Jamie, John Paulson et al have created through their largesse against all of the jobs that have been lost in the same period.
The biggest joke of all is John Paulson. That buffoon was riding the bus to profits and he thinks he was the driver.
You know, a guy who climbed on and grabbed a strap for a ride down the block and now wants to claim he had the steering wheel in his hands.
After seeing his IQ demonstrated in the Sino Forest debacle, it is obvious he was plagiarizing someone elses work when it came to shorting the housing market. Probably got the idea from that guy Michael Burry.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:24 am
Reading the comments from these uber-wealthy scumbags makes me think the guillotines cannot be far behind. They won’t get it until it is way too late…
December 21st, 2011 at 9:00 am
It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; but as a class they cannot save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment.
Marriner Eccles
http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/09/testimony-of-marriner-eccles-to.html
December 21st, 2011 at 9:03 am
In the selected quotes, no distinction is made between undeserving recipients of corporate welfare (banksters and govt. contractors), and those who were simply successful in business or trading.
Complaints from state-rescued bankers are surely buffoonish. But in asserting that “My taxes are more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf,” Peter Schiff (not a recipient of corporate welfare to my knowledge) is expressing a legitimate opinion that government is too large — which I enthusiastically share.
After forty years of fiat currency devaluation and low productivity in government-financed fields such as housing lending, education, health care and defense, U.S. living standards are falling and inequality is rising. The appropriate remedy to reduce inequality is to stop centrally-directed malinvestment, and the unproductive speculation that the Federal Reserve’s fiat Ponzi scheme induces. Then scarce capital can be productively allocated to creating remunerative businesses and jobs. At this stage, envy-based schemes to redistribute income via taxation will only accelerate capital flight to more welcoming jurisdictions.
This is John Galt, speaking to you from the Ayn Rand broadcasting studio in Galt Gulch … over and out!
December 21st, 2011 at 9:05 am
Once again, the difference between wealth and greed is ignored.
“Successful” businessmen don’t cause systemic catastrophes. Plunderers cause systemic catastrophes.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:09 am
Just when we all thought Jamie Dimon couldn’t possibly become an even bigger asshole.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:17 am
OK, so there is pushback from a few quotable fat cats. Unfortunately for those that want their heads, there will be nothing done because there is still plenty of food to eat, plenty of entertainment to humor and opportunities for the self-motivated to succeed in the U.S.
When, not if, Americans get the rug pulled out from under them through a collapse of “stuff” and hope, things will spiral out of control. Regardless, the 99% /1% ratio will remain intact. Some players will just change places in the pecking order, as power and wealth accumulation over the ages have shown time and again.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:27 am
The underlying irony here is that those who have held on to big money are exactly the ones who have NOT reinvested to hire people and create jobs. They’ve kept the money for themselves.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:33 am
The playing field cannot be level in a warped stadium.
NJ taxpayers still owe $200 million for a functioning, profit making stadium (capacity 80,000) knocked down after 30 years and replaced with a stadium (capacity 80,000) constructed for billionaire team owners demanding more luxury boxes.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
That’s a terrific letter by Josh Brown. He hits the nail on the head.
People know that the system has been corrupted. That’s why there is so much anger towards the “1%”. The deck was supposed to be reshuffled in 2008, but people like Jamie Dimon prevented the creative destruction that would have made the system stronger. They prevented it to keep themselves rich.
It’s sad that our political leaders like President Obama think it’s acceptable to bail out those who failed so dramatically. Capitalism is a system of values. If we are not prepared to live by those values, we should live by a different system.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
The clue that John A. Allison IV is a giant douchebag is that he is the 4th — born on third base but thinking he hit a triple.
Perhaps his great grandfather was productive, but he sounds like a giant asshole.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
The whole 1% thing is a misnomer to begin with. I (just barely) by these qualifications fit the category. As do MANY readers and content providers here, I’m sure.
My cumulative earnings over my entire lifetime won’t add up to what Jamie Dimon makes in 6 months, let alone the ranks of billionaires mentioned here.
These people and I are not even on the same planet let alone in the same ballpark.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
Success is not bad provided that it comes without robbing someone else or being destructive towards society. The 1%’ers that actually create wealth and US jobs rather than picking wealth out of productive peoples pockets and exporting jobs to other countries, they have earned my respect. If they begin whining when they are asked to contribute a little more in taxes because the country is in bad shape, they lose that respect again. There are 1%’ers that I respect but none of them are cited above – a bunch of little brads so spoiled that they don’t even realize how spoiled they are.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:45 am
A few decades ago, an author noted “The rich are different than you and me”; the response was, “Yes, they have more money”.
Today, the updated response is: “Yes, they have more money…and they can buy whatever and whomever they please.”
December 21st, 2011 at 9:49 am
Some Balance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/nyregion/cornell-and-technion-israel-chosen-to-build-science-school-in-new-york-city.html?ref=nyregion
Cornell Alumnus Is Behind $350 Million Gift to Build Science School in City
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
The donor whose $350 million gift will be critical in building Cornell University’s new high-tech graduate school on Roosevelt Island is Atlantic Philanthropies, whose founder, Charles F. Feeney, is a Cornell alumnus who made billions of dollars through the Duty Free Shoppers Group.
Mr. Feeney, 80, has spent much of the last three decades giving away his fortune, with large gifts to universities all over the world and an unusual degree of anonymity. Cornell officials revealed in 2007 that he had given some $600 million to the university over the years, yet nothing on its Ithaca campus — where he graduated from the School of Hotel Management in 1956 — bears Mr. Feeney’s name.
The $350 million gift, the largest in the university’s history, was announced on Friday, but the donor was not named. Officials at Atlantic Philanthropies confirmed on Monday evening that it was Mr. Feeney, a native of Elizabeth, N.J., who is known for his frugality — he flies coach, owns neither a home nor a car, and wears a $15 watch — as well as his philanthropic generosity, particularly to medical research. …
December 21st, 2011 at 9:59 am
“Enough” used to mean maintaining a comfortable lifestyle, retiring at 55-60 and perhaps having a little something left over for the children.
These days – there is no “Enough”, not even when you’ve accumulated enough to ensure your children, their children and their children’s children don’t have to work a day in their life.
Greed is like crack – it is an addiction and it is strangling this country. There’s a reason it is one of the seven deadly sins.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:03 am
Barry, I give you immense credit for being so outspoken on this issue, especially when one considers what you do for a living, and where.
Not much to add to what’s already been posted. These people are crying like they’re wilting under the pressure, yet they have it all (money, politicians, laws, etc.) in their favor and pay one of the most favorable income tax rates in history. And yes, prove to me that those massive Bush tax cuts created millions of new jobs. I certainly see no evidence of them.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:07 am
@873450;
I like Mr. Feney, and considering the tax write-off he gets for his charitable giving he will not suffer any harm if the top rates were to be increased. Indeed others may be induced to follow his example if they can either give a million to a university or give 500K to Uncle Sam and 500K to themselves. Same goes for the (at the moment comatosed) “job-creators”, if they either can give 50% to Uncle Sam or hire another person to buy themselves a little more time with they may actually decide not to hog all the work to themselves.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:08 am
number2son Says:
“Just when we all thought Jamie Dimon couldn’t possibly become an even bigger asshole.”
You underestimate him….
December 21st, 2011 at 10:10 am
These psychopaths wouldn’t know what “noblesse oblige” was if it bit them on the ass.
Or better yet – they do know and laugh all the way to their own bank.
Any sense of responsibility or obligation towards America’s economic infrastructure went off-shore with their ill-gotten gains years ago.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:25 am
If any of these people had the capacity for self-reflection (which in my experience is conspicuously absent from most people who rise to have a C in front of their title…moi excluded of course ;) they would indeed get that no one really “hates” the fact that they are rich. They are becoming increasingly agitated at the deck being stacked against THEIR getting rich just like these people.
The other unseemly thing is that once someone has attained this sort of wealth, there is an unspoken societal obligation here in the US that these people “give back”. Paying higher taxes is one way of giving back, so is establishing scholarship funds, giving to the homeless, clean energy, anything really as long as you’re seen as dutifully philanthropic…one of my many problems with Steve Jobs btw. The epitome of selfishness in my opinion as opposed to Bill and Melida Gates.
And as a C guy myself, I will state again that I have met NO one, not one CEO, who was worth north of 1M a year. Astonishing isn’t it? I’ve met and been involved with many of them through time. Not one. Shareholders should be absolutely livid at pay packages. Investors should be asking “what are we paying the executives?” before buying the stock. So, honestly, I don’t blame government at all here or any regulations. I blame the entire industry itself. Watch what would happen if investors targeted 10 companies where the executive’s pay was more than 10x that of the average worker and pummeled the stock. But again, like during the whole housing debacle, as long as the next guy is getting his cut, everyone looks the other way.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:30 am
Sounds like some folks could use a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:41 am
Alot of people mention that these 1%ers can buy Congress, but nobody mentions that Congress itself is made up of 1%ers. They have no interest in taxing themselves more.
There is no limit on their greed. Why do they need a $23MM salary? What can you buy with a $23MM/year salary that you can’t with a $15MM/year salary? Sure would be nice if they’d increase wages of those under you by the extra $8MM….
December 21st, 2011 at 10:46 am
DeDude:
There will always be a 99% and a 1%. The problem is the disparity between the two.
December 21st, 2011 at 11:40 am
@ econimonium:
>Shareholders should be absolutely livid at pay packages. Investors should be asking “what are we paying the >executives?” before buying the stock. So, honestly, I don’t blame government at all here or any regulations. I >blame the entire industry itself. Watch what would happen if investors targeted 10 companies where the >executive’s pay was more than 10x that of the average worker and pummeled the stock.
Indeed. And, in some not so obvious ways, we (investors) are livid. And, in other not so obvious ways, this points to another way in which the game is rigged in the favor of the few. Let me elucidate:
I can’t really guess how many “investors” are part of the 99%, through investments such as pension plans, 401Ks, 403Bs, variable annuity vehicles and whatnot. Certainly less than there should be, and less than there were pre-crisis, considering that these were the primary savings methods for a good many folk who then found themselves living off their retirement accounts after protracted unemployment. But we can agree that for the bulk of the 99%, the easiest and perhaps the most prolific investment method is to use mutual funds, bond funds, funds of funds, ect., as opposed to 1%ers who are perhaps somewhat more sophisticated investors.
To the extent that workaday folk are these retirement account “investors” (or truly middle class with fund-style investments outside of retirement accounts), even if they are dissatisfied with C guy pay (or corporate hirings/layoffs, environmental practices, what have you) or in agreement with protesters, what do you propose they do about it? It’s unlikely that they even have a complete picture of exactly which companies their fund holdings are invested in, and to what degree, much less do they have the ability to control asset allocation within their holdings. They probably get a prospectus in the mail once a year, and it’s probably Greek to them. They certainly don’t receive proxy statements or shareholder reports that direct stockholders would. Their shares are likely voted by members of the board of directors, if at all. Their only recourse is perhaps to sell their holdings. Ineffective at best, and removes from them the possibility of partaking in future growth. They could buy into some other fund (in a company sponsored plan, their choices will be quite limited), but as a registered rep my experience is really that if you’ve seen one of these funds, you’ve probably seen them all. They may be somewhat different superficially, but not to any measurable degree when it comes to ethical investing or “voting with your dollars.”
It would be difficult to convince me that this isn’t by design. The industry, in its never-ending quest for more investable assets and greater AUM has tried to make it so simple to participate in the markets that even a monkey could do it. But really, who wants that monkey voting shares? Certainly not anyone with something to lose by the person on the other end of the trade making an informed decision. So we took the hassle out of “investing” and have no vested interest in putting the hassle back in.
December 21st, 2011 at 11:41 am
big problem
December 21st, 2011 at 12:29 pm
For the next bailout (and there will be one) – any bank that takes bailout money should be required to send a Thank You note to each and every American -hand signed by the CEO and Board members.
Maybe then it will sink in to them that it is the 99% who have saved their $%^$%$’s…
December 21st, 2011 at 12:43 pm
“Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.”
Sadly, I forgot to note where I read this but it seems about right to me.
December 21st, 2011 at 1:22 pm
How DARE you Lilliputians raise your squealing voices – let alone your eyes – to these great and grand, these alabaster-white pillars of the community who created millions of jobs and unending growth during their sheparidic stewardship of the decade of fiscally-responsible revenue rates.
You are not fit to lick the soles of these modern day Apostles, who created more opportunity for Negroes and Mexicans and all those single broads and their screaming brats (you want them to pay to train and janitorialize) that YOU’VE riddle our once great amber fields of waving grain and statistical metropolitan areas with that so help me, I outta smack you, but you’d love that wouldn’t you you self-loathing LOSERS.
If it’s class warfare you want … well… these gallant knights will raise their swords, don their gleaming white armor and smite you all, Trump-like … “You’re Fired (TM)“
December 21st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
People need to understand that there are rich people who put in a lot of hard works to be successful and there are rich people who put up ponzi scheme, flat-out fraud, and lied their ways into being rich.
I think quite a few of those guys in the quote made their money through hard work.
However, guys like Jamie Dimon and all those banksters, corrupted politicans, senior management & executives at those companies that needed bailout, and those who put up ponzi scheme to take money away from other people should all be prosecuted and put to jail. They should return what they didn’t earn to the rightful owners who were lied to and being scammed by these A-holes.
The tax code needs serious reform to eliminate loopholes that only benefit the big corps and the super rich. There are rich people that are not super rich being hit really hard by taxation because they cannot use those loopholes like big corps or the super rich.
When Warren Buffet complained about being taxed too less, people have to realize this is the same guy who’s against increasing tax for corporation. All the big corps hired a lot of accountants and ex-IRS employees to do their taxes so that they could use as many loopholes and optimize the use of safe heaven to avoid taxes. Increasing the taxes on the rich won’t make sense as the super rich would find ways to create loopholes in the system. The only people who would suffer would be those people that are rich but not that rich while they cannot make use of the loopholes.
The increase of taxes are basically taxing the millionaires to pay the billionaires. That’s why guys like Buffet would ask for a tax increase because if all the rich people are paying more, the gov’t would be able to redistribute the wealth and ended up Buffet would earn back the money through his company.
December 21st, 2011 at 2:09 pm
How many made money by “destroying” jobs? Good grief! What about all the candle maker jobs Thomas Edison “destroyed?” What about all the buggy makers Henry Ford put out of work? What about all the clerks Tom Watson sent into the unemployment lines? If we’ve come to a point where it is no longer an acceptable act to destroy a job we are no longer capitalists! Sheesh!
December 21st, 2011 at 2:34 pm
@forwhomthebelltolls Says “I (just barely) by these qualifications fit the category. My cumulative earnings over my entire lifetime won’t add up to what Jamie Dimon makes in 6 months, let alone the ranks of billionaires mentioned here.”
You are probably a professional, a small businessman, or a middle manager. I have no quarrel with you making seven times what I do. I do have a quarrel with those like Dimon, who make in one year what I would have to work for 2,000 years to earn. Considering economic growth over the last twenty centuries, he probably makes in one year what all of my ancestors have made going back to the Crucifixion.
This is more than wrong. It is obscene. It is the stuff that the French and Russian Revolutions were made of.
The problem is not the 1%. The problem is the 0.1%
December 21st, 2011 at 2:58 pm
There Will Be Rich Always: Finding a New Way to Think About Income Inequality
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/20/there-will-be-rich-always/
considering all of the tax cuts and breaks given to the top 1%, if they had even come close to creating the jobs for all of the favors given to them, we might not be as angry. but they did nothing.
which if you really think about it, is exactly what you would expect. after all, most companies don’t give pay raises for not doing some thing
so they had no incentive to do any thing at all .
December 21st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
and maybe the tax code needs to not lump together those who make 150,000 with those who make 1 million or more?
December 21st, 2011 at 4:00 pm
My own two cents:
A major problem with OWS is the failure to articulate in a few hundred words or less their beef with the system. Into this void the 1% have poured their own explanations: you hate us for our wealth/success; you’re jealous; you’re lazy and you want a handout; you’re socialists, etc. The OWS is protesting but what exactly do they want fixed? I think everyone has a vague agreement of OWS’s anger but more is needed to expose the corruption of the government by the 1% (A fair question is did government corrupt the 1% or did the 1% corrupt government).
Here is my attempt to describe the problem the 99%s have with the 1%s:
Government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the extremely wealthy; when the 1% wants or needs something government jumps to attention and falls all over itself to oblige. If the 99% wants something the response will either be: stop your whining or a few crumbs for the peasants. Folks are angered that the elites have a private door with white glove service to get their needs addressed; the 99% gets a complaint card.
How has the 1% does this?: campaign contributions but more importantly lobbying and sweet jobs when a lawmaker leaves office. Every lawmaker and congressional staffer knows that if they do the bidding of the wealthy (individuals or corporations) there may be a sweet 6-figure job awaiting them. You want to stick to it to GE or Goldman Sachs or Citicorp? I admire your principled stand but you can kiss your ticket to the promised land goodbye.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Barry, if you really wanted to research the number of Home Depot stores vs. the number of “mom & pop” stores over time, County Business Patterns 9http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html) would be one place to start. It would require some data clean up and wouldn’t be all inclusive so I’m not sure it’s worth it for a mere mental musing.
Reading the billionaire article is just fascinating. I can’t help but gawk in disbelief.
December 22nd, 2011 at 2:52 am
bifboswell 1 more cent from me and a few more I just saw on Charlie Rose w/David Brooks
what USA needs now (following powwwow yesterday with POTUS BHO)
1. growth adgenda
2. entitlements
3. family adgenda
while watching the whole hour w/DB .. below came to mind:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/01/5-stages-of-market-grief/
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Bah: “There’s a good video on youtube illustrating these 5 stages”
BR: “HeyBah – I love Robot Chicken!”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWsVDs-oCEE (removed by Cartoon Network)
The Five Stages Of A Giraffe In Quicksand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTHP8zT28Q&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL5797CE16A538BBD4
oh this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
“phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.”
December 22nd, 2011 at 7:40 am
I guess I just don’t understand how anyone can hold the view that our government is a “wholly owned subsidiary” or works exclusively for the 1%. If that is the case, how is it that virtually the entire bottom half of earners has been exempted from income taxation? How is it that we keep hitting new record highs in the number/percentage of US citizens receiving government assistance? Why was a “community organizer” who champions the needs of the under privileged able to ascend to the highest office in the land (and use the bully pulpit to attack them)?
And if our government is so massively powerful that it is able to provide subsidy and special service to our most avaricious minority among the ranks of the well connected, isn’t that a prima facie case that it has grown too large to be effectively controlled, rather than a reason for an even more massive regulatory apparatus?
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:04 am
[...] have their panties in a bind. In an eye-opening post at Bloomberg, some shit from the rich (h/t The Big Picture): If successful businesspeople don’t go public to share their stories and talk about their [...]
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 am
@Lukey;
Because tehy understand that if you leave the masses without sufficient resources for “basic survival” you get a revolution. So as the masses have been robbed of ways to improve their income the taxes on the low end had to be reduced. You cannot shave the hair off a bald guy and if you try to cut a few mm more of him anyway, he gets angry and violent.
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:56 am
@Dedude
So the rich have specifically and strategically elected a guy who bashes them to appease the masses so they can continue to steal the national wealth? If that was the plot of a movie screenplay it couldn’t get greenlighted by Charles Manson. Come on, think about what you are suggesting here.
December 22nd, 2011 at 9:04 am
I was compose’g this yesterday in my head, post-its, keyboard:
when the pacifist gets angry the revolution will get rolling .. ya know that offer the other cheek stuff
(upon see’g CNNs year in review clips @ 1/8/11)
some like a well oiled machine .. some want to gum it up (job security)
The Six Million Dollar Man intro theme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7zNY0I5JNI
I’d add my fav of 2011 but its been said before:
“Lawyers & Accounts Full Employment Act”
(“in moderation – duplicate post”)
(what the H in advance – its a good one – F’g GDP reports that taint MIC%)