Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%"

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:14 am

I think it would be a mistake to dismiss this guy as a lunatic or even as an extremist. Mr. Binswanger is the Voice of the Id of the Neoliberal Übermensch. He's merely giving vent to feelings & convictions which nearly all of the 1% share (a sense of infinite entitlement as a consequence of their natural superiority), but which most of them are too canny and too prudent ever to express in public.

Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%

Harry Binswanger, Contributor
I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... -to-the-1/

9/17/2013 @ 8:00AM 167,584 views

584 comments, 48 called-out


It’s time to gore another collectivist sacred cow. This time it’s the popular idea that the successful are obliged to “give back to the community.” That oft-heard claim assumes that the wealth of high-earners is taken away from “the community.” And beneath that lies the perverted Marxist notion that wealth is accumulated by “exploiting” people, not by creating value–as if Henry Ford was not necessary for Fords to roll off the (non-existent) assembly lines and Steve Jobs was not necessary for iPhones and iPads to spring into existence.

Let’s begin by stripping away the collectivism. “The community” never gave anyone anything. The “community,” the “society,” the “nation” is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them. And when some individual person–a parent, a teacher, a customer–”gives” something to someone else, it is not an act of charity, but a trade for value received in return.

Insider Trading Is A Right: Don't Shackle The Knowledge-Seekers Harry Binswanger Contributor

Capitalism Without God: Freedom Is A Secular But Absolute Value Harry Binswanger Contributor

Don't Be Silly, The Entitlement State Won't Allow Bitcoin Harry Binswanger Contributor

By Eliminating Failure, The Government Robs Us Of Success Harry Binswanger Contributor


It was from love–not charity–that your mother fed you, bought clothes for you, paid for your education, gave you presents on your birthday. It was for value received that your teachers worked day in and day out to instruct you. In commercial transactions, customers buy a product not to provide alms to the business, but because they want the product or service–want it for their own personal benefit and enjoyment. And most of the time they get it, which is why they choose to continue patronizing the same businesses.

All proper human interactions are win-win; that’s why the parties decide to engage in them. It’s not the Henry Fords and Steve Jobs who exploit people. It’s the Al Capones and Bernie Madoffs. Voluntary trade, without force or fraud, is the exchange of value for value, to mutual benefit. In trade, both parties gain.

Each particular individual in the community who contributed to a man’s rise to wealth was paid at the time–either materially or, as in the case of parents and friends, spiritually. There is no debt to discharge. There is nothing to give back, because there was nothing taken away.

Well, maybe there is–in the other direction. The shoe is on the other foot. It is “the community” that should give back to the wealth-creators. It turns out that the 99% get far more benefit from the 1% than vice-versa. Ayn Rand developed the idea of “the pyramid of ability,” which John Galt sets forth in Atlas Shrugged:

When you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making . . .

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ‘exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong.


For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt.

Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)

Instead, we live in a culture where Goldman Sachs is smeared as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” That’s for the sin of successful investing, channeling savings to their most productive uses, instead of wasting them on government boondoggles like Solyndra and bridges to nowhere.

There is indeed a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity: the Internal Revenue Service. And, at a deeper level, it is the monstrous perversion of justice that makes the IRS possible: an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange.

An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that one’s life belongs to the tribe, to “the community,” and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.

And Ayn Rand is just the lady who can do it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... -to-the-1/
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:20 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Binswanger

His ideology and politics apper to have no parity whatsoever.

I do agree that we need to give back, though -- specifically, we should be giving back a lot more machetes and pitchforks.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby IanEye » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:13 am

Mr. Binswanger would seem to have his thoughts aligned with the very "reasonable" Mr. Moore:


MOORE: But, why should every job pay enough to live on? The whole idea of a diverse economy is that there are many, many, many jobs on which you can make a living, and there are many jobs which are not intended -- they're at the bottom of the scale -- they're not jobs you're supposed to be able to live on.

HARTMANN: Every job should make enough to live on, because every human being is worth living.

MOORE: No. When you're unskilled, you should not expect to be able to make a living off of your ordinary day's labor.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby 82_28 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:41 pm

Seriously? This guy actually went there? What in the living fuck is wrong with this guy's social and environmental detectors? What a fucking cocksucker. Every single cent I earn goes back to this guy.

I want an apple that I can pick for myself to eat in an apartment I rent. So I gas up the fucking car I paid somebody thousands for at $4.00 a gallon and drive my ass up to some orchard and pick an apple since there are no orchards because of his urban sprawl, then drive back and go to the grocery store and buy some fucking Stove Top stuffing and chicken thighs because I spent too much on my little drive to the orchard for that one apple that I could have just bought at same grocery store. Yet it could have been orchards the entire time. I just happened to have settled on some apple flavored candy instead of going through all that cost and hassle they have saddled all of us with. Then, when I am done eating my apple flavored candy and Stove Top stuffing I am going to donate one million dollars to a representative I helped democratically elect in order to represent my poor ass.

What a galling cocksucker. If you could, like the age old question about Hitler, go back in time and kill Ayn Rand, wouldn't you? These people seem to like to use fuckers on both the "left and right". I bet this guy also attended a Martin Luther King Junior gala in respect for the African Americans who bravely serve in the pillage of entire peoples via the corporate military. Fuck this guy. I'd call him a loser, but apparently he is not. He's just a simple and humble winner who has needs.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

the opposition's tongue is cut in two

Postby IanEye » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:03 pm

82_28 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:41 pm wrote:

I want an apple that I can pick for myself to eat in an apartment I rent.


"There is simply no room left for 'freedom from the tyranny of government' since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare.
Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission.

Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it."



1. Responsible procreation and childrearing are
well-recognized as legitimate State interests
served by marriage.


One of the paramount purposes of marriage in Michigan

—and at
least 37 other states that define marriage as a union between a man
and a woman—

is, and has always been, to regulate sexual relationships
between men and women
so that the unique procreative capacity of
such relationships benefits rather than harms society.
The understanding of marriage as a union of man and woman,
uniquely involving the rearing of children born of their union, is age-old,
universal, and enduring.



.



the sex police are out there on the streets
make sure the past laws are not broken

the race militia has got itchy fingers
all the way from New York back to Africa


.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby minime » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:33 pm

Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.


Given the not-too-subtle reference to Jonathan Swift's essay, I take this as satire.

Be that as it may, the finest response to such modest proposals is something like deconstruction.

The author of the Forbes' article is making a serious error in exposition and in judgment which is in our best interest (and his) to address.

The most cogent criticism of modern capitalism--modern capitalists--is not that they succeed, or that they are paid beyond their abilities, but that they prevent, beyond scruple, other technologies which might render their own efforts relatively less profitable or even obsolete.
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby slimmouse » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:00 pm

minime wrote:The most cogent criticism of modern capitalism--modern capitalists--is not that they succeed, or that they are paid beyond their abilities, but that they prevent, beyond scruple, other technologies which might render their own efforts relatively less profitable or even obsolete.


Be those technologies either political, edcucational, financial ,spiritual, or just plain old physical and material technology.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby MinM » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:32 pm

@mtaibbi: New post on that hilarious Forbes columnist who said Lloyd Blankfein deserves more "moral praise" than Mother Teresa http://rol.st/18GJuLO

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ... ernet.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023691777
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:48 pm

.

From the comments section of the OP article.


• John Tamny, Forbes Staff 2 days ago
Nothing Lehman did was criminal. Failure is not a crime. What’s criminal is the government’s actions vis-a-vis Bear, and then Lehman. If it had stayed out and allowed the markets to put them out of business, there’s no crisis. The crisis was born of federal intervention.

Reply

o Virginia Nancarvis 1 day ago
Insider trading, constructive trusts, investors mislead by credit rating companies, betting on mortgage defaults, underwriters paid to allow loans guaranteed to default, banks allowed to use their customers money to invest in risky business, idle money taxed at a lower rate than hard labor, “creative” investment vehicles, extortion, blackmail, monopolies on and on…and lawyers charging $150 to $250 a hour assured that the majority of the people in the U.S. will never get their day in court when deceived. Coercion is not just physical force.
The author of this article conveniently forgot our labor history or how his so called “intellectual’ 1% owned others to support their lavish lifestyle. Individuals that think like him lack what the majority have…love of children, family and fellowman that hold them from fighting back to protect their loved ones from separation, punishment, hunger, rape, lynchings. The 1% can be characterized as ruthless, deceptive, greedy, love money and power. Of course that isn’t true for all that have obscene wealth any more that it is true that the working class are like pack mules. He also conveniently forgot our Constitution and the true intellectuals that knew that power can corrupt and crush the voice and will of the “common” man…the eternal struggle since our origin. It doesn’t matter what he thought our government should do, it is what our government decided to do. What he doesn’t lack is arrogance.

Reply
o D. Roberts 1 day ago
This is simply ignorance-with-blinders and an immense amount of tunnel-vision leading to blatant confirmation bias. As a professional within the financial housing industry, I’ve watched this whole mess unfold from the beginning and your assertion that the problem was “government” is simply laughable. I suspect you believe that ACORN rigged the last presidential election, as well.
The irony is that the conditions which allowed for the bubble/collapse were born from government action of deregulating the industry from both the consumer and business/investment sides. From the late 1990′s through the first half of the 2000′s, there existed a spate of deregulation of the financial industry. First, on the consumer side, was the loosening of credit restrictions and ability-to-pay determination for loan qualification.
The effect on the middle and upper classes was minimal, however the reality of dog-eat-dog capitalism soon reared it’s head when communities essentially cannibalized themselves via the greed of pushing through unconscionable loans (often in no-documentation schemes) for those few percent of commission.
Secondly, the deregulation of standards and practices concerning complex and endlessly bundled mortgage-backed securities allowed investors to conceal poor financial products in a “quick buck” scheme where long-term stability was thrown from the window in favor of massive, if temporary, balance sheets from which executive bonuses and compensation packages are derived. Self-interest without ethical checks essentially ran us into the ground.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:25 pm

MinM » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:32 pm wrote:
@mtaibbi: New post on that hilarious Forbes columnist who said Lloyd Blankfein deserves more "moral praise" than Mother Teresa http://rol.st/18GJuLO

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ... ernet.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023691777



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... a-20130920

I got a lot of letters from folks this week about an online column for Forbes written by a self-proclaimed Ayn Rand devotee named Harry Binswanger (if that's a nom de plume, it's not bad, although I might have gone for "Harry Kingbanger" or "Harry Wandwanker"). The piece had the entertainingly provocative title, "Give Back? Yes, It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%" and contained a number of innovatively slavish proposals to aid the beleaguered and misunderstood rich, including a not-kidding-at-all plan to exempt anyone who makes over a million dollars from income taxes.

This article is so ridiculous that normally it would be beneath commentary, but there's a passage in there I just couldn't let go:

Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)

Instead, we live in a culture where Goldman Sachs is smeared as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity. . ."

What a world we live in, where Mother Teresa wins more moral praise than Lloyd Blankfein! Who can bear living in a society where such a thing is possible? Quel horreur!

It reads like an Onion piece, just hilarious stuff. I mean, Jesus, even Lloyd Blankfein himself didn't go so far as to take the "God's work" thing 100% seriously, and here's this jackass saying, without irony, that the Goldman CEO literally out-God-slaps Mother Teresa.

The thing is, for all its excesses, Mr. Catyanker's piece does reflect an attitude you see pretty often among Rand devotees and Road To Serfdom acolytes. Five whole years have passed since the crash, and there are still huge pockets of these Fountainhead junkies who genuinely believe that the Blankfeins of the world are reviled because they're bankers and they're rich, and not because they're the heads of unprosecutable organized crime syndicates who make their money through mass fraud, manipulation and the shameless burgling of public treasure. In this case you have a guy who writes for Forbes, a business publication,and apparently he isn't acquainted even casually with any of the roughly 10,000 corruption cases involving Blankfein's bank.

That's hard to pull off. There are Japanese soldiers still holed up in Pacific atolls, waiting for the final surrender order, who've probably heard more about things like the Abacus case than Mr. Binswanger apparently has. In the comments section, someone cheekily asked Binswanger to enlighten them as to how Goldman makes its money. This is what he had to say in response:

On how Goldman Sachs makes money, I repeat what I said in the post: they invest – i.e., channel savings to their most productive uses. If they make a profit it means they bet right: they funded value-creating enterprises; if they make a loss it means they bet wrong: the venture they funded used up more in value than was produced.

Binswanger clearly knows nothing at all about Goldman other than that it's nominally a bank, and his answer is just a parade of Randian clichés here about how successful banks make money. Asked the same question twenty years ago about a different bank, his answer would have been exactly the same. This would be like someone asking me about A-Rod's steroid use and me answering with a bunch of Bernard Malamud quotes about the sacred art of hitting.

Just for yuks, let's fill Binswanger in on some of the ways Goldman has made its money over the years. This is just the stuff they've been caught for, by the way.

• Way back in 1999, several eras of corruption ago, Goldman serially engaged in manipulation of the IPO markets, including illegal tactics like "spinning" and "laddering," where insiders and top bank clients would be allowed to buy shares in new companies at severely discounted prices, sometimes in return for investment banking business or for promises that those insiders would jump back into the bidding later to jack up the price artificially. In a famous case involving eToys, Goldman paid a $7.5 million settlement for allowing insiders to buy shares at $20, far below the $75 shares the company traded on opening day. The secret discounts might have cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. The firm went bankrupt in short order, by the way.

• In the infamous "Abacus" case, Goldman teamed up with a hedge-fund billionaire named John Paulson to create a born-to-lose portfolio of mortgage derviatives, which were then marketed by Goldman to a pair of sucker European banks, IKB and ABN-Amro. When the instruments crashed, Paulson made bank on bets he made against his own loser portfolio. Goldman's peculiar role was in "renting the platform," i.e. allowing IKB and ABN-Amro to think that neutral Goldman, not a hedge funder like Paulson massively betting against the product, had created the portfolio. Goldman only made $15 million in the deal that ended up causing over a billion in losses, meaning this wasn't even just about money – they were just trying to curry favor with a hedge fund client out to screw a bunch of Euros. They were fined $550 million.

• In the even more absurd Hudson deal, Goldman unloaded a billion-plus sized chunk of toxic mortgage-backed crap on Morgan Stanley during a time when Lloyd "Mother Teresa" Blankfein was telling his minions to unload as much of the firm's 'cats and dogs' as possible, ie. its soon-to-explode subprime holdings. In its marketing materials, Goldman represented to Morgan Stanley that its interests were aligned with Morgan, because Goldman owned a $6 million slice of the Hudson deal. It didn't disclose that it had a $2 billion bet against it. Morgan Stanley, which was subsequently bailed out by taxpayers like Harry Binswanger, lost $960 million.

• Goldman bought a series of aluminum warehouses and has apparently been serially delaying the delivery of aluminum in order to artificially inflate the price. Even Binswanger might have heard of this one. The CFTC sent a wave of subpoenas on this score just last month.

• Goldman paid a fine to the SEC in 2010 after it was caught breaking rules governing short-selling on at least 385 occasions – it is currently embroiled in numerous lawsuits that similarly allege that Goldman has engaged in widespread "naked" short selling, a kind of stock counterfeiting that artificially depresses the prices of companies by flooding the market with phantom shares.

• Earlier this year, Goldman and Chase agreed to pay a combined $557 million to settle government claims that the banks and/or their mortgage servicing arms engaged in wholesale abuses in the real estate markets, including (but not limited to) robosigning, the practice of mass-producing fictitious, perjured affidavits for the courts for the purposes of foreclosing on homeowners.

• A VP in Goldman's Boston office was nabbed making improper contributions to the former state Treasurer in Massachusetts, during a time when Goldman was underwriting $9 billion in state bonds. Goldman paid a $14.4 million fine in the pay-for-play scandal.

• In what one former SEC official described to me as "an open-and-shut case of anticompetitive behavior," Goldman took a $3 million payment from J.P. Morgan Chase to bow out of the bidding for a toxic interest rate swap deal Chase wanted to stick to the citizens of Jefferson County, Alabama. Goldman got the payment, a Chase banker joked, "for taking no risk." Chase ended up funneling money to the County Commissioner, who signed off on a deadly deal that put the citizens of the Birmingham, Alabama area into billions of debt (and ultimately bankruptcy), in what is still considered the largest regional financial disaster in American history.

• In 2009, a Goldman programmer named Sergey Aleynikov left his office in possession of a code that contained Goldman's high-frequency trading algorithms. Goldman promptly called the FBI – which up until that point had done exactly zero to prevent crime on Wall Street – to help Mother Teresa's bank recapture its valuable trading code. In court, a federal prosecutor admitted that the code Aleynikov had in his possession could, "in the wrong hands," be used to manipulate markets. Aleynikov just pulled an eight-year sentence. Goldman, incidentally, has gone entire quarters without posting a single day of trading loss – in Q1 2010, the bank made at least $25 million every single day, somehow never once betting wrong in 63 trading days. Imagine that! What foresight! What skill! One can see how Mr. Binswanger could believe that the bank's CEO should be exempt from income taxes.

I could go on – Goldman has been wrapped up in virtually every kind of scandal known to investment banking (and even more that they invented) and was recently at the center of a mysterious and near-catastrophic computer-trading disaster that could have caused massive social damage (more on that in a column coming soon).

The bank is also a truly courageous pioneer in the area of securing completely underserved public bailouts, including the collection of nearly $17 billion in public money for speculative trades with bailed-out AIG and the outrageous receipt of a Commercial Bank Holding Company charter in late September of 2008, allowing it to borrow billions in lifesaving money from the Federal Reserve discount window at a time when Goldman execs were already selling their beach houses for cash in anticipation of the firm's collapse. Surely even Mr. Binswanger is able to see that Goldman is not, in fact, a commercial bank, and that giving it a commercial bank hat to wear while standing on line to the Fed's discount window is pure welfare, as inappropriate as LeBron James collecting a federal disability check.

If he can't see that, he might perhaps at least see the rank absurdity of then-Treasurer Henry Paulson – a former Goldman CEO – instituting a ban on short-selling of financial stocks at the behest of Goldman and other banks in that same late 2008 period, a 100% anticapitalist, government interventionist maneuver that served no social purpose other than to protect the share prices of undeserving banks like Goldman from investors who quite sensibly wanted to wager on the dying companies' downfalls.

Harry Binswanger is a nut on a lot of issues, the kind of guy who thinks that people who bust their asses all day cleaning Haz-Mat sites or changing diapers or fighting fires are parasites, and that the only "producers" who genuinely earn their compensation are people who come up with entrepreneurial ideas – like for instance renting the Goldman name to a hedge-fund pirate so that a pair of European banks won't know they're buying a product designed to implode. This is the kind of activity that earns you a spot on Rand's famed "pyramid of ability."

There are a lot of people who believe in this worldview, and I'm not going to bother debating it here – if you can read an Ayn Rand book and not see through it as the comically pretentious horseshit that it is, nothing I or anyone else says is likely to change your mind.

However, it is worth pointing out that people like Binswanger are so stupid that they can't even see that the best argument against a company like Goldman is a libertarian argument, that Ayn Rand herself would denounce the company if she were alive and able to pull her head out of one of her thousand-line paragraphs long enough to pay attention. Goldman is a company that in a pure free capitalist system would definitely have been bust in 2008 had it not leeched parasitically off the taxpayer – through the AIG bailout, through its totally improper Fed loans, through the life-saving short ban, and most importantly, through the impression all of these moves left across the markets that the firm was state-supported and would never be allowed to go under.

So even forgetting the fact that this company on a good day makes its money rigging metals prices, stage-managing IPOs to help insiders, falsifying documents, selling phony mortgages to institutional investors while betting against their own product and engaging in highly dubious high-speed proprietary trading programs that mysteriously allow the firm to pick winners every single time (Harry, they're using cheat-algorithms to trade split-seconds ahead of the market, not "digging" legitimately as "knowledge-seekers" for inside information, which I know you think should be legal) – even all that wasn't enough, and Goldman still would have gone out of business, had all of us parasites not been pressed into service to rescue the company with our tax dollars.

It's hilarious that these Rand-worshipping cultist types are still blind to this basic fact a half a decade later. And my God, Mother Teresa? Would she have been a more "valuable" person if she'd managed an Applebee's? What the hell is wrong with you people?


User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:02 pm

I also posted this yesterday, but on FB, with a sleek: No comment! As none was possible, I thought.

A thread on this goon was worth it for that Taibbi smackdown.

Catyanker. Heh.

He left out the part where Goldman & JPM speculation in futures of commodities they did not even hold helped to massively spike food prices in 2008 and 2011, leading to starvation around the world.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby Nordic » Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:11 am

A guy like this cannot be argued with. This Ayn Rand bullshit is his religion. The guy is THAT stupid.

It is about as productive as arguing with one of these faux Christian nuts about Jesus riding around on dinosaurs. He belives it, end of story.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby mulebone » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:50 am

All proper human interactions are win-win; that’s why the parties decide to engage in them.


Maybe on an individual level of barter & exchange this is true, but if this were even remotely true for U.S. companies they wouldn't have to spend the billions & billions of $$$$ that they spend annually on manipulative advertising that preys on folks psychological weaknesses & sociological quirks to create needs & wants where none existed previously.
Well Robert Moore went down heavy
With a crash upon the floor
And over to his thrashin' body
Betty Coltrane she did crawl.
She put the gun to the back of his head
And pulled the trigger once more
And blew his brains out
All over the table.
mulebone
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby smiths » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:45 am

Let’s begin by stripping away the collectivism. “The community” never gave anyone anything. The “community,” the “society,” the “nation” is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them.

Sounds a lot like Nozick

Nozick argued that the notion of an abstract collective good was mistaken and immoral, "there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good ... only individual people ... using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more."

Nozick argued that no-one had the right to force a sacrifice upon individuals in the name of some greater good, “least of all a state or government"

Written as a desperate attempt to squash Rawls' idea that there ought to be some kind of distributive justice, ahhh, if only ...
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Forbes Op/Ed: "It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The

Postby minime » Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:56 am

smiths » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:45 am wrote:
Let’s begin by stripping away the collectivism. “The community” never gave anyone anything. The “community,” the “society,” the “nation” is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them.

Sounds a lot like Nozick

Nozick argued that the notion of an abstract collective good was mistaken and immoral, "there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good ... only individual people ... using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more."

Nozick argued that no-one had the right to force a sacrifice upon individuals in the name of some greater good, “least of all a state or government"

Written as a desperate attempt to squash Rawls' idea that there ought to be some kind of distributive justice, ahhh, if only ...


I wonder if those quoted in this thread realize how dangerous such notions are... to them. Fools they are. After all, if everyone is a free agent, then no action taken is a collective action, but is the action taken by free agents. There is no communist threat, no socialist threat, no appeal to patriotism, no appeal to Democracy. It cannot be justified, even in theory. There is only raw and resplendent self-interest. The hive mind is the ultimate expression of individuality.

Just in time for the Internet: The Great Internet Party.

Vive l'Evolution!!! Vive le Commonist Manifesto!!!

"There is a spectre haunting America: the spectre of Free Enterprise. All the powers of old Europe have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this spectre..."
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests