Gilded Age Redux...

DarrenWright · Jun 17, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15549672/

NEW YORK - Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has joined Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge fund manager whose founder has contributed to many Democratic Party campaigns, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 17, 2007

to bring some larger meaning to that sum, krugman points out it would be more than sufficient "to provide health care for a year to eight million children -- the number of children in america who, unlike children in any other advanced country, don't have health insurance."

the point.....

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 17, 2007

Let's look at James Simons.

First, he went to MIT. His father was a shoe store owner, so he earned his place into MIT as opposed to it being a legacy.

Next, he took his education in math and created a geometric measuring equation that is considered essential in the concept of string theory and theoretical physics.

He took that knowledge and founded a company that uses a hedge fund based around businesses and technologies that he knows: physics type companies. Because he uniquely qualified to judge the success of this type of work, his hedge fund is wildly successful. He isn't "paid" this money; he is the founder of the company and he earns it.

He has donated millions to math science depts of many colleges, including establishing "chairs" at several colleges.

He built a 130 acre nature preserve in NY.

Donated millions to applied physics research.

Donated over 38 million dollars for autism research, with plans to spend more than 100 million more. He is single-handedly the largest private benefactor of autism research, in the world. He also gave another 10 million to two scientists for a specific autism research project.

It's really none of your business how he spends his money. If YOU ever do something worthy of earning, EARNING, 1.7 billion dollars in a year, and YOU want to buy all that insurance, go ahead.

In the meantime, thank you for pointing out James Simons. He is now one of my personal heroes.

Simons Foundation is his philanthropic organization:

http://simonsfoundation.org/

~faith,

Timothy.

DarrenWright · Jun 17, 2007

The point.....

Well, it was entitled the "Gilded Age Redux." I just wanted to recognize one of the "gilded" who happens to be a child of a champion of a socialized system, while her successors (the Bush twins), are working for Unicef, and on a recent pediatric AIDS project.

Hedge funds were designed specifically for rich people to get richer. Until recently, only rich people employed hedge funds, so they are making the man's salary. Noone is hurt in the emploment of these fund managers, overpaid as they may be, but they are compensated according to the success of their activites.

The money could definitely be used to help a lot of poor people, but the creators of this wealth are free to do as they wish with it. If it weren't paid to the managers, it would simply return to the pockets of the rich people who hired him.

Your point duly noted, but I suppose I didn't see the point in speculating about how someone elses money could be used.

DarrenWright · Jun 17, 2007

Rethinking this, I would have to say that if I was investing in a hedge fund that was paying the manager over a billion dollars, I better be getting a pretty beautiful return myself on my investment, and I would be very interested in knowing what he was doing to justify that wage.

I don't think I'd be speculating about what other people could be doing with this man's salary.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 18, 2007

Rethinking this, I would have to say that if I was investing in a hedge fund that was paying the manager over a billion dollars, I better be getting a pretty beautiful return myself on my investment, and I would be very interested in knowing what he was doing to justify that wage.
I don't think I'd be speculating about what other people could be doing with this man's salary.

Just a point of clarification: it's not a wage, or a salary. He is not being 'paid' by any organization. He is the FOUNDER of the hedge fund. It is a difference between being an employee and being the boss.

He's the boss.

It's a subtle but huge difference. Being paid a salary of 1.7 billion is obscene because it implies that somebody authorized such a high expenditure on his salary. EARNING that much money: well that's making money the old fashioned way. . .

And you can bet that those in his hedge fund are making out like bandits, or the fund wouldn't be funded enough for him to make that much money. That is the very nature of capitalism and free markets.

And THAT is why America is a great nation.

But the real question is this: what advantage was he given that you (generic you there) didn't have access to, given the right set of talents and the right application of those talents?

~faith,

Timothy.

DarrenWright · Jun 18, 2007

Just a point of clarification: it's not a wage, or a salary. He is not being 'paid' by any organization. He is the FOUNDER of the hedge fund. It is a difference between being an employee and being the boss.
He's the boss.
It's a subtle but huge difference. Being paid a salary of 1.7 billion is obscene because it implies that somebody authorized such a high expenditure on his salary. EARNING that much money: well that's making money the old fashioned way. . .
And you can bet that those in his hedge fund are making out like bandits, or the fund wouldn't be funded enough for him to make that much money. That is the very nature of capitalism and free markets.
And THAT is why America is a great nation.
But the real question is this: what advantage was he given that you (generic you there) didn't have access to, given the right set of talents and the right application of those talents?
~faith,
Timothy.

Have to agree. And I also have to say that I could never be so presumptive as to speculate in even a slightly critical manner about what his 'earnings' could be used for.

If I could answer the question, though, maybe I'd say that he may not have been given any advantage that I (generic I here, meaning 'we') did not have access to. He may have simply been more wise, adventurous, daring, and subsequently successful.

It's fantastic that every single one of us have the same unfettered potiential to become wildly successful at something in this great country.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 20, 2007

I think the real point of Mr. Krugman was that corporate compesation should be questioned in light of societal priorities. I always like Jim Hightowers comment. "Everybody does better when everybody does better..."

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 20, 2007

I think the real point of Mr. Krugman was that corporate compesation should be questioned in light of societal priorities. I always like Jim Hightowers comment. "Everybody does better when everybody does better..."

Then I think Mr. Krugman is an idiot because this wasn't an issue of corporate compensation. He isn't on salary. He owns the fund.

I agree with Mr. Hightower's comment that you quoted above. The way to do THAT is the free market. Everybody does better because everybody has the opportunity to do better.

The way to screw that up is with so-called "progressive", aka socialist, policies that ensure that nobody can do better. A "fair" share in a dismal outcome is certainly not everybody doing better. It is a recipe for failure. History has proven that, over and over.

The right to be successful must be coupled with the right to NOT be successful. The responsibility inherent in such rights fall to the individual. But, those rights (and responsibilities) naturally belong to the individual, as granted by God. So said our founders. So I believe. They are NOT the gov't's rights to decide whether or not I should exercise.

They are mine alone.

Trying to take those rights and yield them to gov't is just cause for revolution. As has been done before. So believed our founders. So I believe.

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 20, 2007

the problem isn't incompetence or deviation from the conservative course. the problem is actual existing conservatism itself. it celebrates military prowess when the threats to our security -- stateless terrorists, catastrophic climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the growing gulf between rich and poor -- have no military solution. it offers no answer to a corporate sector shredding the private social contract that guaranteed many workers healthcare, pensions, job security, and family wages. it opposes the very reforms vital for our economic future -- the transition to clean energy and conservation, support of a world-class education system, and provision of affordable health care and retirement security.
after a quarter century of conservative dominance -- from reagan to gingrich to bush and delay -- the verdict is in. conservatives cannot be trusted to guide the government they scorn. not because they are incompetent or corrupt (although incompetence and corruption abound), but because they get the world wrong. their policies foster an america that is weaker and more isolated abroad, divided and more unequal at home. that was as true for ronald reagan, who helped give birth to this conservative era, as for george bush, whose failed presidency should bury it.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatism_itself