Interesting article in the new york times. A very wealthy man has recently written a book, which essentially functions as an apologia for the accumulation and defense of great amounts of wealth. Does anyone have any idea if he stands on any sort of solid ground economically, based on the article or outside knowledge of his material?
A Defense of the Banker
- Thread starter Yui108
- Start date
warpus
In pork I trust
If income inequality and poor social mobility is the system working, then the system is designed to benefit the ultra-rich, and not everyone.
Is this true? How does oil speculation benefit me, for example? Doesn't that drive prices up?
That's really the trick, you see. The ideology claims it will be invested in productive businesses. The US experience over the past 30 years is that the concentration of wealth has generated little to no new investment, and possibly even a reduction in it. Nothing "trickles down" because nothing gets invested.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Socialist.article said:
But, yeah, mostly what he seems to be saying is "division of labour good", without really explaining why a stratum of absurdly rich ultrabourgeois play a necessary role in all that. I guess the book might add something more substantial, but it seems like if there was any true grand revelations it would come across in the article. But, I'm not going to be buying this, so I can only fairly withhold judgement.
Although,
Because everyone works 9-5, Monday-Friday. Prat.
(Edit: Also, perhaps this is just me, but does anybody else get the impression that this guy is basically pretty naive? If he really thinks that he can significantly alter the development of American politics with one poxy little book, as if all the world needed was a voice of reason, then he really doesn't understood how social conflict actually works or what function public ideologies actually fulfil. Whatever he knows about finance, he seems to have an even looser grip on history, politics and sociology than he does on tact.)
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
The article irritates me and i'm all in favor of being rich. That doesn't mean you have to be a prick about it.
If he said anything like what Traitorfish claims then there is something wrong. We cannot keep privatizing gains and socializing losses. (Broad scale wise. I understand a social security safety net.)
If he said anything like what Traitorfish claims then there is something wrong. We cannot keep privatizing gains and socializing losses. (Broad scale wise. I understand a social security safety net.)
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I read the article and I can say is that he's one of those very "rational" people who maintains his rationality by excluding contradictory facts and evidence from his thoughts. He doesn't understand economics and he's trying very hard to justify himself.
It's embarrassing, actually, the extent of his ignorance in proportion to his power. He's angry at "art history majors", lawyers, and everyone else who doesn't believe that the accumulation of wealth at the expense of all else.
He talks about innovations that create wealth, which are real, but credits all the wrong people with them. I don't know who invented the aluminum can upgrade he discusses but I will be the agent who financially backed that was either the can manufacturing company (which doesn't require intense private wealth concentration), or investors who didn't need to be fabulously and exceedingly rich.
He takes issue with Warren Buffet for donating to charity and says "that money belonged to the middle class." But we know the middle class has been slipping under these policies he favors, and we know, despite his 5-1 claim, that his kind of "investment" is more of a 1-5 return (gives back one dollar to the rest of the economy for every 5 dollars the rich acquire to invest). So for starters, that kind of money doesn't go to the middle class. Second, he made clear that the rich should have more of it, so he was making a rhetorical point to shore up support.
Third, who the hell is he to say that millions of middle class Americans are more deserving of economic support than billions of world's poorest? Or that the middle class is more deserving of *best case scenario* minor improvements into consumer goods more than the middle class is deserving of innovations in public education or whatever various projects the Gates Foundation is supporting.
It's embarrassing, actually, the extent of his ignorance in proportion to his power. He's angry at "art history majors", lawyers, and everyone else who doesn't believe that the accumulation of wealth at the expense of all else.
He talks about innovations that create wealth, which are real, but credits all the wrong people with them. I don't know who invented the aluminum can upgrade he discusses but I will be the agent who financially backed that was either the can manufacturing company (which doesn't require intense private wealth concentration), or investors who didn't need to be fabulously and exceedingly rich.
He takes issue with Warren Buffet for donating to charity and says "that money belonged to the middle class." But we know the middle class has been slipping under these policies he favors, and we know, despite his 5-1 claim, that his kind of "investment" is more of a 1-5 return (gives back one dollar to the rest of the economy for every 5 dollars the rich acquire to invest). So for starters, that kind of money doesn't go to the middle class. Second, he made clear that the rich should have more of it, so he was making a rhetorical point to shore up support.
Third, who the hell is he to say that millions of middle class Americans are more deserving of economic support than billions of world's poorest? Or that the middle class is more deserving of *best case scenario* minor improvements into consumer goods more than the middle class is deserving of innovations in public education or whatever various projects the Gates Foundation is supporting.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
That's exactly what it is. There are very few people in finance I would trust with economic policy since so many are surprisingly ignorant. The kind of finance person I would trust with policy is the one who was successful, but then opted to relax on their acquisition of wealth and spend their time educating themselves on policy and economics... making them effectively a side door economist anyway.
The rich, the bankers, the traders, the brokers--they all have a valuable voice. But they don't have any monopoly of economic expertise whatsoever.
Paul Krugman said it best on Rachel Maddow last night "I've been in meetings where you have the guys from wall st. the guys from wall st are impressive. they're smart and funny and rich, they have great tailors. And they tend to get treated seriously even if they destroyed the world. They tend to have a weight that bearded college professors don't in these discussions. [...] That guy may sound impressive, look impressive, but fundamentally he is not on your side."
The rich, the bankers, the traders, the brokers--they all have a valuable voice. But they don't have any monopoly of economic expertise whatsoever.
Paul Krugman said it best on Rachel Maddow last night "I've been in meetings where you have the guys from wall st. the guys from wall st are impressive. they're smart and funny and rich, they have great tailors. And they tend to get treated seriously even if they destroyed the world. They tend to have a weight that bearded college professors don't in these discussions. [...] That guy may sound impressive, look impressive, but fundamentally he is not on your side."
OK, having read the first couple pages, I can't go on. The guy is a dumbass. Just because he got in a place that worked for him does not mean that he understands the system.
“Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” = Everything the author of this book thinks about the economy is wrong.
“Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” = Everything the author of this book thinks about the economy is wrong.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Appropriate comment, using a slightly modified quote: "A modern banker engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy - that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness"
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
He's like David Ricardo's evil twin who showed up 2 centuries late.
CommonKnowledge
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 190
What I don't understand about these incredibly rich people is that surely there must come a time when they think to themsleves "actually I have enough money now." Personally I see money as a means to end so if I ever aquired enough that meant I could live the rest of my life pursuing topics of interest whilst living in relative comfort I would. But these people whos life is devoted to accumulating pennies just seems rather pointless.
What I'm saying is that beyond a certain point money stops being tangible and becomes abstract. If someone gave me £1,000 I could think of lots of things to do with it. Whereas if that amount were to be replaced with £1,000,000 then suddenly it becomes an unreal amount and I have no idea what to do with it. I guess people who naturally deal in such large amounts aren't handicapped by such things.
What I'm saying is that beyond a certain point money stops being tangible and becomes abstract. If someone gave me £1,000 I could think of lots of things to do with it. Whereas if that amount were to be replaced with £1,000,000 then suddenly it becomes an unreal amount and I have no idea what to do with it. I guess people who naturally deal in such large amounts aren't handicapped by such things.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
But if you don't make that extra hundred million you won't get invited to the next tier of rich people parties. When your social worth is based on wealth, because you've devoted your life to it, and there's a tier above you, you won't quit. If only I could find a video of the Rat Race scenes where the billionaires are playing betting games.
Some do. But many others do not. You see many of these business executives still working in their 70s and even 80s, even though they could have retired rich in their 50s. Something is certainly still driving them to make even more and more.
Mise
isle of lucy
Honestly, this sounds like link-bait. Grist for the idiot mill.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Now now. Rather than leaping to a conclusion after just 2 pages of a six-page article you could have gone on to the *third* page and seen where the guy very clearly and explicitly demonstrates he's a dumbass.
Actually it's being published by Penguin, not Regnery.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
That's a common misconception, but no, speculation doesn't necessarily drive prices up. Why would it? To give a concrete example: speculation is blamed on both driving oil prices up but natural gas prices down. You can't have it both ways, blaming every "bad" price movement on the "speculation" boogieman!
So, Conard was on the Daily Show, and he wrote an on-line defense. Jon Stewart is always fun to watch, so here it is.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--3
and the defense
http://www.edwardconard.com/2012/05...new-york-times-magazine-article/#.T9JHy7BYvTo
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--3
and the defense
http://www.edwardconard.com/2012/05...new-york-times-magazine-article/#.T9JHy7BYvTo
