Cry Me a F#*king River
Forbes has an article about the plutocrats who have lost the most money in the current market meltdown. The poster boy is Sheldon Adelson da turd, who has seen his worth plummet from $28 billion to a mere $4 billion.
My question about any of these people is why are they still trying to accumulate wealth when they have reached this incomprehensible level of affluence? Isn't there something pathological about this continued quest? To put it in some perspective, even in Mr. Adelson's newly paupered status, if he took his paltry $4 billion and simply placed it in fixed income instruments paying 4% a year, it would generate $160 million a year without touching the principal, a sum of money that no human being could spend in a year if they made it their mission.
These people are the best argument I can think of for an extremely high tax rate on certain levels of income as well as a confiscatory estate tax above a certain level of wealth instead of the current world where Mr. Adelson pays a lower tax rate than I do.
Well, if you're going to vent in "cry me a river" fashion this article from yesterday's Boston Globe is too juicy not to share! :-)
Posted by: oddjob | December 16, 2008 at 07:16 PM
why are they still trying to accumulate wealth when they have reached this incomprehensible level of affluence?
Because that's what they know how to do and that's what they find emotionally fulfilling.
Posted by: oddjob | December 16, 2008 at 07:17 PM
why are they still trying to accumulate wealth when they have reached this incomprehensible level of affluence?
Because that's what they know how to do and that's what they find emotionally fulfilling.
Posted by: oddjob | December 16, 2008 at 07:19 PM
oddjob,
Intereting -- I think the dudes who run the Havard endowment thought they were immune to this sort of thing. They used all of these sophistiatd hedging strategies that made everyone envy their numbers. I guess a -22% return since July 1st would be a little humbling.
Posted by: Sir Charles | December 16, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Between this, and Madoff, and also "Outliers," there seem to be plenty of arguments that rich people aren't more genius than the rest of us.
I always think Hollywood people are liberal because it's quite obvious to us how lucky we are. I made enough money one year to qualify for Bush tax cuts; this year I hardly worked. I'm not that different (unfortunately); that's showbiz, is all. Wall Street guys have been more insulated from this reality -- not that Hollywood people don't have their own illusions.
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | December 16, 2008 at 08:56 PM
Yes!
You know, I'm glad Obama won and all, and I didn't want to say this during the campaign, given the alternative, but it's a sad comment on the state of progressivism and/or the mass media in the U.S. that no significant voice (that I'm aware of) pointed out that Obama's plan to raise income taxes on the top tier by a mere 4% is totally fucking inadequate.
Posted by: ballgame | December 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
These people are the best argument I can think of for an extremely high tax rate on certain levels of income
Or we could just start burning shit down...
Posted by: Corvus | December 17, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Well there is always that! :-)
Posted by: Sir Charles | December 17, 2008 at 03:48 AM
Gamer,schemer, scammer mentality.
Kevin Phillips' Financialators.
Jewish people [just e.g] generally being smart people
seem also given to the game; do it well
[gotten them a lot of resentment and trouble over the years]
but all sorts of folks are..and do.
Probably addicts. At some awful level.
Too bad their machinations can be so hurtful for so many innocents.
Ergo....regulation, and then some more...regulation and then...
Posted by: has_te | December 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM