by russell
This had me in stitches. Then, I was profoundly depressed for a couple of minutes. Then, I scratched my head for about a half hour. Then, I laughed some more.
My favorite bit:
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.
The folks in the dining room of the St. Andrews Country Club in Boca being, of course, a representative sample of the population. A veritable den of everymen and -women!
Q: Why doesn't Tom Lehrer perform publicly anymore?
A: Because, nowadays, satire is redundant.
Human psychology being what it is, it's not surpising that some people who live in rarified environments can be clueless about the broader realities that exist outside those rarified environments. But that doesn't make those people any less clueless.
In any case, the poor devils will get by somehow, despite the hardships they're now facing.
(Monica Seles???)
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | December 21, 2011 at 01:51 PM
I think Jacob Marley has a membership at St. Andrews.
TARP purchased the gold-plated toilet appointments in the men's room at the club, wherein Paulson's, Cooperman's, et al exquisite scat is gathered and packaged for sale to rubes worldwide.
Ah, yes, Boca Raton, where bucket shops full of reptiles would slither over each other years ago to call unsuspecting small investors at the dinner hour on their 800 landlines trying to unload funky penny-stock paper and submerged Glengarry Glenross real estate.
Lotta tip sheets come outta there too. Seems to me a lot of late-night lying tiny little ads pitchman use it as a backdrop as well. Let me show you how to slice, dice, and pulverize your "portfolio".
Now, of course, all of the world is a bucket shop surrounded by ruin, thanks to Phil Gramm.
I'm not a basher of the rich -- I'd like to be rich and pay, say, 4.6% more in marginal taxes on every dollar I earn over $200,000 or thereabouts and maybe more over a million clams.
I'd still fork over my green fees at St. Andrews and I certainly wouldn't skimp on tips to my caddies as a way of distributing a little trickle-down Galtian vengeance among the help.
And at this point I would usually cite the history of tax rates laying out the 91% marginal levels (too high, yup) from many years ago and ask how it is that the U.S. fared so well for all those decades, but ....
.... when plutocrats winge about such small numbers, well ... just f**k it, which I think is Tom Lehrer's point of view too.
I'm reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" at the moment and I was struck by the fact that the University of Chicago-inspired murderers in Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, etc, when they weren't outright butchering the innocent as part of the push for "economic reform", would round up labor union leaders and other troublemakers and send them to armed prison camps in the jungle to get them out of the way as the Milton Friedman economic enemas were carried out.
I'm leaning toward a reverse shock doctrine in this country, but rather than gathering all of these jagoffs together in one place and have them whine about the accomodations and the uniforms, it would be cheaper to transport the barbed wire and armed security to places like St. Andrews (you could seal the joint in barbed wire and be home before Cooperman et al finished the first nine), the economics building at the University of Chicago, FOX News headquarters, the U.S. House of Representatives, various think tanks, etc. and begin some in situ shock indoctrination as soon as possible.
Cooperman is so put-upon that he can afford only the whites of the eggs in his omelet, presumably putting the yolks away for a rainy day.
It may get so bad under Vladmir Saddam Obama that Cooperman will order the omelet and ask the chef to hold the eggs all together.
Merry Christmas, all and good will to some men and women.
To quote Christopher Hitchens, who could probably finish off all the Scotch in the drink caddy's cart by the third hole, regarding Jerry Falwell, if you gave Leon Cooperman an enema, what was left of him could fit in a matchbox.
Posted by: Countme-In | December 21, 2011 at 02:53 PM
Where is the love?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | December 21, 2011 at 03:30 PM
I read that article yesterday and had to make sure that it wasn't written by The Onion. How hard is it to be humble when you're worth 8, or 9, or 10 figures? Or to at least mouth some platitudes before trying to defend yourself? Or hire some media consultants to ensure that you're not confirming everything the "imbeciles" think about you?
That said, the article does provide a great deal of insight into the mindset of a certain segment of the financial elite.
Posted by: Ugh | December 21, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Please, please, please keep whining! Oh please oh please oh please!
Posted by: Rob in CT | December 21, 2011 at 03:36 PM
If you don't like that, I say there's something seriously wrong with you. RIP Donny Hathaway.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | December 21, 2011 at 03:36 PM
"You’ll get more out of me,” the billionaire said, “if you treat me with respect.”
If asked this question by a lowly worker, what would this clown reply?
Posted by: bobbyp | December 21, 2011 at 03:49 PM
I'm reminded of a few scenes from Roger and Me.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | December 21, 2011 at 03:52 PM
If you don't like that, I say there's something seriously wrong with you.
Seconded.
Posted by: russell | December 21, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Adding: it would be nice if there were some objective measure of who are the "job creators," but there doesn't seem to be, and what all but one of those quoted in the article seem to assume is that because they're "successful," which is defined to mean "I've made a lot of money," then they are the job creators.
Now, maybe that's the best proxy measure we have in general, but specifically, what evidence is there that Jamie Dimon ("Jamie Dimon's father, Theodore Dimon, was an Executive Vice President at American Express. The younger Dimon came to [Sanford] Weill's attention when Theodore passed along an essay that Jamie had written to him" per wiki) is a better job creator than whoever would be in charge of JP Morgan in his absence? Or, even, Warren Buffet, who seems to have made a great deal of money for his investors but is there any job creation there?
But Mr. Cooperman is a hero to the Ty Webbs at Bushwood! Hoorah!
Posted by: Ugh | December 21, 2011 at 05:02 PM
"those quoted in the article seem to assume is that because they're "successful," which is defined to mean "I've made a lot of money," then they are the job creators. "
Not for nothing but the two guys from Home Depot created a bunch of jobs, and (not my favorite guy) Buffett has succesfully invested in lots of companies that vreated a bunch of jobs over a long time.
IMO, the problem is that the majority of these wealthy guys in there 60's and 70's really did create a lot of jobs, over 30 - 40 years. But then what have they done for us lately?
Posted by: CCDG | December 21, 2011 at 07:20 PM
They didn't create jobs out of thin air. The guy who started Home Depot was able to do so becuase other people had jobs which gave them the disposible income which allowed them to buy what Home Depot was sellig which meant that Home Depot had a reason to hire people.
How half the population is at of below the poverty line ad the Republican party wants to make that worse by attackig uiions, and blaming federal and state employees for deficit in order to justify depriving them of their jobs. The majority of Repubican politicains in Cogres also wanted to increase poverty by turning Medicare into a voucher system and by gutting the funding for Medicare. The majority i the House want to dump a thousand dollar payroll tax on what's left of the middle class.
Which means that the 98% will have, if the Repubicvas have their way, even less money to spend, which means the so-called creators will not be creating jobs, there being such a dimininished market for their products.
What it amounts to is the real job creators are people who support state and federal spending that directly creates jobs such as the Chrysler bailout or the interstate highspeed rail system.
Tax the rich. They onloyu create jobs if the rest of us have spending money.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | December 21, 2011 at 08:34 PM
And whether they create jobs or not, the question is what level of taxation is sufficient, yet will not damage job creation. I personally don't care if my well paying and rewarding job is created by Home Depot or the government. I do care that resources are being put to reasonably good use.
With that, are these guys suggesting that they wouldn't invest (thereby supposedly creating jobs) if capital gains taxes were a bit higher or marginal income taxes a bit more progressive? Will they all take vows of poverty if estate taxes are raised?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | December 21, 2011 at 08:57 PM
Did they? Maybe, but I'd like to see the numbers, including the number of small hardware stores driven out of business by Home Depot.
Now, maybe that's capitalism at work, and we are all better off because of Home Depot. OK. But that doesn't imply that the company is a net job creator. Indeed, given that it, and Lowe's, have substantially lower costs than Joe's Hardware, it might well be a job destroyer.
Using fewer workers to deliver the same goods or services is a mark of efficiency, of course, but hardly one of "job creation." Just ask Romney.
Posted by: byomtov | December 21, 2011 at 09:09 PM
Not for nothing but the two guys from Home Depot created a bunch of jobs
Well, so did the Stalin 5 year plans, Hitler's rearmament, wealthy West Indian plantation owners in the early 1700's. So somehow, calling yourself a 'job creator' strikes me as something of a misnomer, or perhaps it's simply an ideological congratulatory pat on the back looking at the question in a manner that lacks the punch of any particularly valuable insight.
Propaganda tends to be that way.
Posted by: bobbyp | December 21, 2011 at 10:33 PM
"Well, so did the Stalin 5 year plans, Hitler's rearmament, wealthy West Indian plantation owners in the early 1700's. "
Can't imagine why a guy wh0's 70 years old would feel disrespected as his life's work is compared to this.
Both these guys and Romney, created jobs. A well run company grows and creates jobs. Poorly run companies may have a lot of jobs today, but won't have any at some point, no matter how much money we have to spend.
I am fine with the reality that lots of people contribute to the success of a company, I am not willing to demean the accomplishments of the people who lead and guide that effort.
Maybe because lots of what I have done for most of the last decade was fix poorly managed companies. In those companies, no matter how hard everyone worked all of their jobs were going away.
When guys like these build or rebuild well run companies, lots of people have jobs because they did.
Posted by: CCDG | December 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM
When guys like these build or rebuild well run companies, lots of people have jobs because they did.
The point is this...there are a variety of ways to "create jobs". When you assign this social outcome to the particular actions of particular individuals you pull the curtain over the bigger issue of the societal structure that 'creates' the conditions and the incentives for them to do so. And following ever so closely on this is the high moral dungeon that these people are inherently 'more valuable' to society, thus doubling down on an serious intellectual error.
But I shall also ask you this: Those jobs were 'created' and filled with 'people' who what?....were created out of thin air? Did they not leave other jobs to take these 'new' ones? Or maybe it was population growth that led to more demand that led to 'created' jobs?
Cart. Meet horse.
Posted by: bobbyp | December 21, 2011 at 11:28 PM
"Or maybe it was population growth that led to more demand that led to 'created' jobs?"
Yep, we were born and the jobs just appeared. Talk about doubling down on serious intellectual error. I believe you could find places with more population and fewer jobs per capita and more poverty.
You are saying their population growth must have been somehow different from ours?
Posted by: CCDG | December 21, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Can't imagine why a guy wh0's 70 years old would feel disrespected as his life's work is compared to this.
Similarly, I can't imagine why a person who is, well, of any age eligible to hold a job, would fee disrespected when they are asked to pee in a cup to determine their eligibility for unemployment benefits. But by all means, we must coddle the feelings of the wealthy.
Clearly their egos are much more fragile than we have been led to believe.
Posted by: bobbyp | December 21, 2011 at 11:40 PM
Not for nothing but the two guys from Home Depot created a bunch of jobs
First, hiring somebody to work at your company is not identical with creating a job. You hire somebody because work needs doing. Some of that can be credited to good management, but there are many other factors involved as well.
And it is not a one-way relationship. Managers hire people. Those people do things that create value for the enterprise as a whole, and for the folks who own the enterprise.
If the company is well-run, whatever pay folks receive is more than matched by the value they create. Otherwise there is no point in hiring them.
It's not just good management that makes a company prosper.
What creates jobs broadly is the need for a good or service. If a company is well run, it's more likely that those jobs will be created at that company, rather than another.
In Romney's case, specifically, some of the companies he bought and managed grew and hired people, and in other cases Bain ownership resulted in jobs being shed in large numbers. What Romney and Bain were very good at is making money for the owners.
Not the same thing as creating jobs.
My overall point in citing the article was not the economic theory involved, but the general cluelessness of the folks quoted. They appear to live in a bubble that reinforces their sense of their own importance. They should all get out more, and I'm not talking about the St Andrews Country Club dining room.
Posted by: russell | December 21, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Coddle...long distance...compare to Hitler.
Posted by: CCDG | December 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Buffett has succesfully invested in lots of companies that vreated a bunch of jobs over a long time.
As an aside, for the record Buffett is a guy whose great wealth bugs me not at all. Not in the least.
Because he became wealthy by creating value. He did a huge amount of homework, over decades, and directed capital to companies that made good use of it. I'm sure he picked a large number of duds as well, but overall, he invested folks money well.
He made a large number of people very wealthy in the process.
And, because he has a sense of perspective and balance about his role in the economy and society overall.
I really don't have a problem with people getting rich. Even wildly, ridiculously, I-could-never-even-spend-this-much-money-in-ten-lifetimes rich.
Some people are just really good at what they do, or they do something really useful or valuable. Some people are just really lucky.
Fine with me.
I have a problem with people extracting value from the economy without creating some corresponding value. And I have a problem with people thinking that being wealthy entitles them to anything other than the enjoyment of their wealth.
I'm sure it's partly due to how the article was written, but the people quoted come off as a bunch of entitled jackasses.
Posted by: russell | December 21, 2011 at 11:58 PM
Yep, we were born and the jobs just appeared.
And here I thought those who are in thrall of free markets were more or less in agreement with the the dictum that supply creates its own demand.
At least that is what they http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Say.html> Say.
Posted by: bobbyp | December 22, 2011 at 12:09 AM
"My overall point in citing the article was not the economic theory involved, but the general cluelessness of the folks quoted."
But russell, they aren't clueless, they are tired of being the whipping boys of the administrations class rhetoric.
And you constantly demean their accomplishments with three paragraphs on how many people contribute to the success of a business (which no one disagrees with) while barely admitting that the best company can be ruined by bad management.
As for Romney, I have laid off, on average, 20% of everyone that ever worked in the companies I took over, the other 80% got to keep a job because I did. I didn't destroy a single job, I saved 100% of the jobs that the companies continued to have, and then created more. Thats what private equity companies do also. And yes, they make money.
These guys you say are clueless wonder, along with me, when that became a bad thing.
As for demand, yes, good businesses focus on goods and services that are in demand. I can't fathom how that is relevant in any discussion of whether executives are good or bad unless they continue to focus a company on making buggy whips.
Good management and executive direction, both instrumental to company success. Ask the people at Apple and Google and IBM etc. if they think great executives are important to success. Then ask the people at Yahoo and HP.
Posted by: CCDG | December 22, 2011 at 12:09 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.