General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMeet the Planet's Current Biggest Asshole Next To His Former Boss Romney: Edward Conard.
Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-purpose-of-spectacular-wealth--according-to-a-spectacularly-wealthy-guy.html?page=1I think guys like this are the reason they invented guillotines.
Oh . . . . it gets better. And by "better", I mean much . . . MUCH more shameless . . .
snip
Conard concedes that the banks made some mistakes, but the important thing now, he says, is to provide them even stronger government support. He advocates creating a new government program that guarantees to bail out the banks if they ever face another run. As for exotic derivatives, Conard doesnt see a problem. He argues that collateralized-debt obligations, credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities and other (now deemed toxic) financial products were fundamentally sound. They were new tools that served a market need for the worlds most sophisticated investors, who bought them in droves. And they didnt cause the panic anyway, he says; the withdrawals did.
Seriously, the more you read what this guy's about, the more dumbfounded you become that anyone can truly be this big of an asshole, as if a stratospheric bar has now been set.
"Its not like the current payoff is motivating everybody to take risks, he said. We need twice as many people. When I look around, I see a world of unrealized opportunities for improvements, an abundance of talented people able to take the risks necessary to make improvements but a shortage of people and investors willing to take those risks. That doesnt indicate to me that risk takers, as a whole, are overpaid. Quite the opposite. The wealth concentrated at the top should be twice as large, he said. That way, the art-history majors would feel compelled to try to join them.
Eddie . . . in my world, I would put a double secret probation tax on your insular sanctimonious ass for your idiocy.
You would never have made it to where you are at all if it weren't for public wealth and governmental services. You think all of this money is made out of a vacuum, as if we, us know-nothing peons are merely meant to just spend, fill your pockets and shut the hell up while doing so?
A run on banks didn't put millions out of work, profiteering did.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs aren't outsourced because of risk taking, it's because of GREED.
You're "extremely productive" class doesn't think that "life is unfair" . . . it's just that they think it shouldn't be fair for anyone except Y'ALL.
My God . . . THIS is what America worships? THIS is who we give all the money to and it STILL isn't enough for them??
Yeah, give the future of America to THESE guys and watch it drown in the Atlantic Ocean.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,858 posts)Sharpen the pitchforks, light the torches, hitch up the tumbrels. This guy goes first.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)I'm SO goddamned tired of hearing the line "you peons simply don't know how the economy works". Uh, yes I do, and I also know how "WRONG" works. "WRONG" is a bunch of incestuous profiteering board execs voting lottery perk, salary, bonus and exit packages for themselves and the company leaders no matter what their performance or how good or bad a company does during their tenure. That is dogshit CRAP and that is NOT "economics", that's legalized THEFT. And it's not just "a few bad apples" doing it either.
Simple rules of gravity dictate that nothing . . . NOTHING on Earth is built from the TOP down.
cali
(114,904 posts)these fuckwads are the bottom of a very scuzzy bucket. Sharpen the pitchforks is right.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Typical.
Why are the wealthy greedheads suddenly trying to justify their ill gotten gains?
Twinge of guilt, perhaps?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Here's another thing I can't stand hearing about when anyone defends the wealthy:
The whole "Where would you and the rest of the world BE if it weren't for people such as Steven Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin?" argument.
Here's the fallacy with that: For every Steven Jobs who DID innovate a product, employed others and theoretically deserved his wealth, there are a hundred to two hundred more super-wealthy people that DIDN'T invent anything, WEREN'T responsible for their company's success, GOT lazier as they made more money, EMPLOYED parasite business tactics such as leveraged buyouts, corporate raiding, one-sided mergers and job offshoring while voting themselves lottery bonuses and salaries no matter how good a job they did. Oh, and they fired workers because profits just weren't high enough last quarter. These parasites are on the boards of corporations across the country and in our governmental offices. Some of them come FROM the government and go back TO it, like a rotating door of vampire fascists.
"Productivity", "can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", "austerity for thee not for me", and all that.
A Steven Jobs doesn't excuse a Mitt Romney or a Lee Raymond or a Jack Welch or an Al Dunlap. It also doesn't define the "law unto themselves" business practices they frequently are allowed to get away with.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)safeinOhio
(32,725 posts)risk taking" are the ones that got their money by winning the sperm lottery. The Kochs, Waltons and Mellons are the biggest donators to the right wing spin machines.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)These "rugged individualists" would be NOwhere without millions of poor/working/middle class people buying their products/services, nor would they be anywhere without the wholesale utilization of governmental services. Particularly the Koch Brothers, who farm in TeaHadists for their anti-government agitprop outings, but at the same time willingly consume a lot of government largesse for their dirty industries.
EC
(12,287 posts)always looking for fresh bait.
Sees potential suckers everywhere and is angry that the suckers don't bite.
PatSeg
(47,602 posts)and no one seems very receptive to his point of view. He lost me in the beginning when he referred to "the poor" as a "number". I look around me and see lots of "numbers" - they are friends and neighbors and relatives, not to mention myself. What an arrogant jerk!
I had recorded it and I'm watching it now. Conard is looking like he may have regrets about appearing on Morning Joe and these are not hardcore liberals interrogating him.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)The guy thought he was going to get away with tossing around conservative generalities and it seemed to throw him off to be asked for numbers.
He's a great posterboy for the 1%; hope he gets invited to a lot more shows.
PatSeg
(47,602 posts)If Willie is questioning your philosophy and it doesn't involve sports, you are probably way off.
I am hoping to see him on more shows as well, though he might feel the need to retreat to FOX News. Can you imagine him on Bill Maher or Jon Stewart?
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Between CNBC, Faux and hate radio, this guy has probably faced few real tough questions and came off looking good and selling books. He (or more specific, his publicist) thought that going on with Joey would be safe ground as well. I saw the segment and was amused there was no Joey there...and out of the bubble this guy sounds like the selfish boor he really is.
I found it amusing how this guy tried to downplay not only his role at Bain but also his relationship with Mittens. I'd be interested in finding out what type of "vulture capitalism" he's been involved with over the years. He, like Willard, seem ashamed to defend their wealth...
PatSeg
(47,602 posts)to be at the table, but even so, Mika and Willie are hardly intimidating people. I think you're right, he probably thought Morning Joe was "safe ground".
I liked it when he said Mitt had read his book and told him he was going to be the next Ayn Rand! Not exactly something most people would admit.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Conard will be free as a bird to spew the rightist rhetoric unabated on that pile of a show between Kernen's softballs and Andrew Ross Sorkin being the meek centrist he is.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Let the big finance boyz take the big risks. If they win, they keep their winnings. If they fuck up, the rest of you pay for it. Why wouldn't everyone want to be a "risk taker" when there's no risk?
PatSeg
(47,602 posts)is the same as the reward for success. Everyone else has to play by the rules, whatever those happen to be on any given day.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)It baffles me that people could care so little for the future of the earths people & animals that they would be willing to invest in the stock market.
Once you have sold your soul to the dollar bill and given up on the idea of creating a better, safer, cleaner and healthier planet for kids & critters then you have to protect your conscience by justifying the large amount you sold it for.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This reeks of satire...
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)I don't know what's worse . . . these puking pablum 5-star reviews which smack of not having read the book at all, or the fact that the Freakanomics author and Nouriel Roubini are giving this pulp praise?
"Am I the only one that can taste the BILE?"