Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 07:45 PM
Original message
Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age
A new gilded age. that is exactly what the conservative and Karl Rove's agenda called for. They have achieved their cherished dream. We now have a gilded age again. Just like in the late 1800s when workers had no rights and worked 7 days a week for paltry sums. When a few controlled the country. It was rule by the rich.
Teddy Roosevelt challenged these people and their monopolies. He was the one man who could stare down JP Morgan and not flinch. And he destroyed their monopolies and opened the way for better times for the average person. His cousin, FDR, of course set in place the great programs that provided security and made possible our thriving middle class until now.


The tributes to Sanford I. Weill line the walls of the carpeted hallway that leads to his skyscraper office, with its panoramic view of Central Park. A dozen framed magazine covers, their colors as vivid as an Andy Warhol painting, are the most arresting. Each heralds Mr. Weill’s genius in assembling Citigroup into the most powerful financial institution since the House of Morgan a century ago.

Name Leo J. Hindery, Jr. Age 59 Assets $150 Million Source Cable TV Current Job Manager, Private Equity Fund Philosophy “I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career, who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.”

His achievement required political clout, and that, too, is on display. Soon after he formed Citigroup, Congress repealed a Depression-era law that prohibited goliaths like the one Mr. Weill had just put together anyway, combining commercial and investment banking, insurance and stock brokerage operations. A trophy from the victory — a pen that President Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal — hangs, framed, near the magazine covers.

These days, Mr. Weill and many of the nation’s very wealthy chief executives, entrepreneurs and financiers echo an earlier era — the Gilded Age before World War I — when powerful enterprises, dominated by men who grew immensely rich, ushered in the industrialization of the United States. The new titans often see themselves as pillars of a similarly prosperous and expansive age, one in which their successes and their philanthropy have made government less important than it once was.

“People can look at the last 25 years and say this is an incredibly unique period of time,” Mr. Weill said. “We didn’t rely on somebody else to build what we built, and we shouldn’t rely on somebody else to provide all the services our society needs.”

Those earlier barons disappeared by the 1920s and, constrained by the Depression and by the greater government oversight and high income tax rates that followed, no one really took their place. Then, starting in the late 1970s, as the constraints receded, new tycoons gradually emerged, and now their concentrated wealth has made the early years of the 21st century truly another Gilded Age.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/15gilded.html?ex=1342152000&en=b9361c0993b4502c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. the arrogance almost makes one wish for a crash
Just to see these bastards do headers out of their fancy offices. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. What good is it if a man gains the whole world
and yet loses his soul? (for atheists, put in "character, peace of mind, etc")

People who crave material possessions are really the poorest of the poor, for they are never content. Those who have risen above materialism and are content and happy with what they have are the ones with true riches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. And even THEN, the Gilded Age Robber Barons gave FAR more than their millennial counterparts.
Edited on Sun Jul-15-07 08:15 PM by HughBeaumont
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-easterbrook18mar18,0,5029294.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, net worth $16 billion, gave away $53 million in 2006, according to Slate — one-third of 1% of his fortune. Software magnate Lawrence Ellison, net worth $20 billion, gave away $100 million — half of 1%. Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay, net worth $7.7 billion, gave away $67 million — less than 1%. Nike tycoon Philip Knight, net worth $7.9 billion, gave away $105 million — slightly more than 1%.

(snip)

Why do the super-rich hoard? Certainly not because they need money to spend. As economist Christopher Carroll of Johns Hopkins University points out in an upcoming paper, the super-rich save far more than they could ever spend, even with Dionysian indulgence. Gates' fortune must throw off, even by conservative estimations, about $6 million a day after taxes. You couldn't spend $6 million every day of your life even if you did nothing all day long but buy original art and waterfront real estate. The fortunes of Allen, Knight and others mentioned here throw off at least $1 million a day after taxes. Nobody can spend $1 million every day.

Carroll speculates that the super-rich won't give away money they know they will never use for two reasons: because they love money, and because extreme wealth confers power. We know already that people who give their lives over to loving money surrender their humanity in the process. As for clout, Carroll quotes Howard Hughes: "Money is the measuring rod of power." That $53 billion ensures Gates will be treated with awe wherever he goes. If he gave away 78% of his wealth like Carnegie did, he might be universally admired, but he would no longer be treated with the same degree of fawning reverence. He might even, someday, find himself in the same room with someone who has more money!

Unconscionable and disgusting. You want the source of nearly ALL the world's problems, start with the growing wealth inequity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. I always find it amusing when conservatives nostalgize the 1940's and 1950's
Strong labor unions, high tax rates, a vibrant and growing middle class, low college tuitions and not much of a disparity between rich and poor.

There is an old saying, "be careful what you wish for".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. But how many have any class at all? Thereas Kerry amy be the only one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Welfare for the rich is why they are rich --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC