The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age

[BurtWorm]

Here is an amazing, nauseating article by the NY Time's Louis Uchitelle on the congenital arrogance of America's wealthiest as they pat themselves on the back for their role in propagating American-style capitalism and so-called "free" enterprise around the world. I submit this portion as a sample to remind Democrats that it was one of their own who created the conditions for the soulless age we live in. But the whole article is worth reading, if you can stomach it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/15gilded.html?ei=5090&en=b93e1c0193b4182c&ex=1342152000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

...

Mr. <Sandford> Weill’s vision was to create a financial institution in the style of those that flourished in the last Gilded Age. Although insurance is gone, Citigroup still houses commercial and investment banking and stock brokerage.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 outlawed the mix, blaming conflicts of interest inherent in such a combination for helping to bring on the 1929 crash and the Depression. The pen displayed in Mr. Weill’s hallway is one of those Mr. Clinton used to revoke Glass-Steagall in 1999. He did so partly to accommodate the newly formed Citigroup, whose heft was necessary, Mr. Weill said, if the United States was to be a powerhouse in global financial markets.

“The whole world is moving to the American model of free enterprise and capital markets,” Mr. Weill said, arguing that Wall Street cannot be a big player in China or India without giants like Citigroup. “Not having American financial institutions that really are at the fulcrum of how these countries are converting to a free-enterprise system,” he said, “would really be a shame.”

Such talk alarms Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who started on Wall Street years ago as a partner with Mr. Weill in a stock brokerage firm. Mr. Levitt has publicly lamented the end of Glass-Steagall, but Mr. Weill argues that its repeal “created the opportunities to keep people still moving forward.”

Mr. Levitt is skeptical. “I view a gilded age as an age in which warning flags are flying and are seen by very few people,” he said, referring to the potential for a Wall Street firm to fail or markets to crash in a world of too much deregulation. “I think this is a time of great prosperity and a time of great danger.”

...

[zeemike]

1. The beast that devowered the whole earth

and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
(Daniels vision of the final kingdom on the earth) Daniel 7; 23

19. Then we would know the truth of the fourth beast (Kingdom), which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

[BurtWorm]

2. Readers respond (extremely intelligently) to this article

A great group of letters to the editor in today's Times, all worth reading. Here's one of the best:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/opinion/l17rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


To the Editor:

I do not begrudge great wealth. But I do begrudge the tycoons featured in “The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age” (front page, July 15).

These tycoons singularly attribute their immense wealth to personal skills. This is fiction. The tycoons are wrong to ignore their debts to society, and they are wrong to advocate for a light tax burden.

The tycoons are the greatest beneficiaries of the society provided to them. They are kept safe by the military and police and fire departments; they become richer from the labor from employees educated in the public school systems; their markets are stable and profitable because of regulators and the justice system. The list goes on.

Do these tycoons really believe that their riches are independent of these social investments? And why should they be self-excused from a tax responsibility that accounts for the benefits they consume?

Christopher J. Pagan
Cincinnati, July 15, 2007