Great Letter To The Editor re: "Top Producers"

[Scuba]

This LTTE appeared in the October 3rd issue of the LaCrosse (Wis) Tribune. It was written by James C. Harrison of LaCrosse

A recent letter to the Tribune expressed the opinion that not allowing tax cuts to continue for folks earning more than $250,000 a year was a penalty against "top producers."

That belief, of course, was a backhanded slap at regular people; that their efforts somehow don't help America. The far right as long echoed that government isn't the solution, it's the problem.

I would like to know how the hedge fund manager who earned $4.4 billion last year helped America? How did the movie star who makes $20 million for an 87-minute movie help America? How did the $15 million a year quarterback working six months a year, 30 minutes a Sunday help America?

The top 13,000 American families have more wealth than the poorest 20 million American families. In 1980 the average CEO was paid 40 times as much as the average worker, now it's over 400 times as much. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found the gap between the top 10 percent and bottomn 10 percent in terms of income was bigger in America than any other country in the world.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" wrote James Madison. I don't know about others, butr I haven't seen any angels lately.

Mr. Harrison knows what he's talking about.

[yurbud]

1. I would not lump the movie stars & athletes in with hedge fund managers

at worst, the entertainers and athletes did no good.

Wall Street on the other hand actively causes harm by shorting functional companies, countries, and even the world economy, effectively betting on them to fail then helping make that bet a sure thing.

[Scuba]

2. Agreed. But I didn't write the letter.

Perhaps I might have excerpted. Hmmm.. Thanks.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I would. If you believe anyone is worth what other people are stupid enough to pay them, then...

there's no real difference between a guy with a good fastball and a hedge fund manager.

However, if you think that pay should reflect something actually done to grow an economy or business, than how does the guy with the fastball do better than the CEO of a growing company, or the hedge fund that finances that growing company?

Wall Street has more faults than benefits for sure, but it is not designed to see the economy fail and is pretty much the only source of capital for growing operations.

[yurbud]

4. Wall Street has one function: increasing the wealth of those who play

if it can be done by betting on good businesses growing, it will do so.

however, if more money can be made more easily by betting on businesses to fail, they will take the surer bet, and that is clearly what has happened to our economy.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. That's not even close to what's happened to our economy. And, like it or not...

just about every business or individual does what it can to maximize profit when given the chance. That's kinda the point with most businesses and jobs. Greed isn't so much good as it exists, and has to be dealt with.

Very few are altruistic enough to forgo the bucks when the bucks are there.

[yurbud]

7. I didn't say greed was good or bad, only that it follows the path of least resistance

people who start businesses often have a love for the product or service itself, and while profit is important, it exists in a tension with that original love.

Once a business gets past a certain point and the MBA's come in, the product becomes entirely secondary. The company may choose to put out the best product possible, or if they feel they have a captive audience, put out the shittiest product they can get away with to turn out a greater profit. If they can bribe the government to rig the game for them to dominate their market, even better. Best of all is when the government becomes their primary customer and they can suck tax dollars without worry of quality control since campaign contributions can keep that in check.

[Historic NY]

6. K&R