Krugman begins: "One of the disadvantages of being very wealthy may be that you end up surrounded by sycophants, who will never, ever tell you what a fool you're making of yourself."
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Pathetic Plutocrats
21 December 11
ne of the disadvantages of being very wealthy may be that you end up surrounded by sycophants, who will never, ever tell you what a fool you're making of yourself. That's the only way I can make sense of the farcical behavior of the wealthy described in this new report from Max Abelson:
Cooperman, 68, said in an interview that he can’t walk through the dining room of St. Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida, without being thanked for speaking up. At least four people expressed their gratitude on Dec. 5 while he was eating an egg-white omelet, he said."You’ll get more out of me," the billionaire said, "if you treat me with respect."
What's truly amazing is that they're hearing things that aren't actually being said. Obama and others say that the rich have had huge income gains relative to everyone else, so they should be asked to pay somewhat higher taxes; the rich hear that and it comes out "you are all evil".
What I want to know is, how did these people get where they are with such incredibly thin skins? Can you become a Master of the Universe while screaming "Ma, he's looking at me funny!" at every hint of criticism?
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Suppose each starts with $1000, and a correct guess doubles that money, while a wrong guess wipes it out, each person goes all-in at each step. (That's not how most real investments work, but it's a useful simplification. ) After ten investments, the one who hits all ten decisions correctly has $1 million (actually $1024000), and everyone else is wiped out.
Is the one who guessed all ten questions smarter than the rest? No, just lucky. But a lot of the super-rich _think_ they got that way by being smart.
Even worse are those who inherited their wealth, and think they're as smart as those who actually built their wealth by making complicated business decisions. I'm guessing that most of those who are whining about "class warfare" and such inherited their money.
Guess which one is spoken of highly, and which has nobody attending their funeral.
Now that the Occupy movement has liberated the word "greed," let's liberate that other word the rich hate so much: "luck." I know what luck is. I lived through the time when college tuition was free, houses were affordable and jobs were plentiful. I didn't get rich, but compared to today, I was very lucky. Let's make a habit of using the word "luck" whenever the rich get too cocky.
The rich, more often than not, are snot-nosed pencil necked trust fund babies
What would be the outcome from an outrageous act such as that? the growth would realize the rich even MORE MONEY. So what's their problem? That is the question!
When tax rates are low, the owner of a privately held company thinks nothing of taking money, as personal income, out of his business to buy a yacht or a Ferrari, but when taxes are high, he is more likely to keep that money in the business, and invest it to make more ... and the investment gives him a break on the corporate taxes.
The case of publicly traded corporations is a little different, because each shareholder expects a profit when the business is making money, but even there, they have to put some of the profits back into the business to make more.
I definitely favor taxing short-term, speculative stock transactions. Long term investment that grows steadily, actually makes more money in the long run, and is better for the stability of the company, and the economy.
My father made a statement years ago that most investors only care about today. They've forgotten about yesterday, and don't care about tomorrow.
The issue that concerns me is that they speak as if they do know what they are talking about. When the Occupy movement calls out the 1%, it is an indictment of the system that allows their pay scale to be so out of whack.
But what really bothers me is when they say stoopid stuff.
Example #1 was that it would be difficult to determine their salary as compared to the employee median salary. Really? Did they ever hear of Excel?
Example #2 was the CEO who said he was a job creator because he decided to hire people and when to expand. He must know that the job creation comes only after he decides that he needs more people in order to make more money, and the same is true for expansion. Nothing wrong with it, but it is the result of increased demand, actual or potential.
All the article Paul Krugman really shows us is that we should never ask people who are affected by legislation to define what that legislation is. That, and maybe some leftie talk show folks really should tone down the language when talking about the 1%. Don't you agree Mr. Schultz?
It might be a guilty conscience troubling them.
So much for "creating jobs"!
And the taxes they pay; from zippo to almost-zippo, is why I tend to refer to my small-business self as "Self-Exploited"
Methinks they are pitiable in their lack of community connection, isolationism and attempted destruction thereof for the rest of us but they have their lackeys and wanna-be's who support them and make their excuses, like the so-called nobles of old had their lackeys, turnkeys, turncoats and spies from the submerged masses.
Ya gotta laugh at them though (otherwise you'd weep).
But my overall question, just what gives them the right over all other of us common folk to not pay a fair share of taxes? I'd like someone of their ilk to give me a good rational answer to that!
I await the answer.
Try the link, very enlightening!
Maybe he's taking a little time off to join the drivel-brokers on the owner-media ("Liberal Press"?) and "Fix" which wallow in it. That more to y'r taste Robbie-lad? Come to think of it, why do YOU even bother to drag y'r reactionary-sta tus-quo gluteus-maximus over here occasionally? Like y'r predictable ilk, you never contribute anything but baseless, content-free drivel yerself -if you were even a little bit funny, factual, engaging, entertaining or debate-worthy I'd welcome y'r input but as such, the expression "bitterly-vacuo us" comes to mind.
Even y'r quotes in the past have been phony or mis-quoted!
What's that smell? I think it's a troll.
It is a major failing of the Dems to try and ignore This. Bullies never stop attacking victims until someone makes them, and the rest of our limp wristed major media and similarly endowed Dems have allowed Fox News to poison all news and smear the president well as liberals and the Docratic party.
They should have given Obama's prize to Pete Seeger, who has spent a lifetime earning it.
But one should also point out that the 1% and the rest of the very, very wealthy pay only about, I'm guessing here, 1/10,000 of the payroll taxes.
But even that is not the point. The point is how large a percentage of your income do you pay in total? The 1% have never had it so good. Even the numbers the IRS puts out do not adequately express how good they have it because of tax havens, shelters and tax-free munis that do not show up on in taxable income reports.
Milton Friedman and the Fox noise machine speak a different tune, and hence, the rich are rather sensitive to criticism.
Ah, but do we talk of real people or media creations? In the narrative of the media, the 'rich' are suffering too. In truth, the real flesh and blood blokes are doing quite well, but we don't hear about that. It is not relentless! Only the 99% crew are relentless in their criticism of the rich. But they don't have their own noise (I mean news) channel!
So all this money pours in and a result people complain and point fingers, and then the rich guys feel bad.
Then there are the New Rich who think about money and stuff all the time and like to talk about their expensive stuff and how they are so much better than everybody else because they have a lot of money. They are the worst of the worst.
I think you are right about the "Nouveau Rich" whom the great playwright referred to as the "Beaurocracy" who become overly obsessed with their possessions and delusional about their self-worth and demonstrate uncouth behaviors that is exactly what dominates Chekhov's self-revelatory plays.
Those who manipulate the system to buy political influence from public officials from a lowly county supervisor to supreme court justices such as the Kochs are particularly evil. They are liars, cheats, manipulators and monopolists and the only way to deal them it is to play hardball. That means getting their paid-for, single-minded Republican and so-called Blue Dog Democrats out of office, and then creating good laws with teeth that shut the door to the influence of this particularly corrosive type of wealthy person. That means campaign finance reform.
It's not a panacea, but it's the only road we've got at the moment.
No Republicans and No Blue Dogs in 2012.
It's not the wealth that is evil, it's what they _do_ with the wealth.
Most people who voted for George Bush did so because they thought he was "one of the guys", not because of his intellect and deep insight into the important issues of the day. George didn't have a clue.
hummm a country club for the 1% and they thanked him, I bet he would get a different reaction trying to peddle his nonsense on main street...
We naturally try to comfort those in need. If someone appears dissatisfied, others come to their side to try to help them. These are basic social instincts upon which we build a community. Some learn to take advantage of this. Without a firm emotional foundation based on adequate or early affections, a constant need is generated. Greedy is simply being needy. When such a lop-sided entity gathers more than they can use (and still feels the need for more) they must now watch their back, for they know they have taken the shares of others. They resent being asked to give up anything when they still feel that they haven't received their share of love.
To possess every gratification yet still thirst for satisfaction. These "Masters of the Universe" must prove themselves worthy. Worth and wealth are confused. The skin grows thin. We see the need.
I was a shift supervisor many years ago, and was put through some management training classes. The _first_ thing they told us was, "Don't insult the intelligence of the people who work for you." I have worked for so people over the years who never learned that basic rule. One of the other shift supervisors used to sneak around spying on people to "make sure they weren't breaking any rules". I had good people working for me. They knew their jobs, and what was expected of them, and I left them alone to do the job.
RSS feed for comments to this post