Comments on: Obama Nails It: The Prima Facie Immorality of Great Wealth

By: howiem

howiem — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:44:29 +0000

Looking through these posts, I se no relevant mention of the key word CONTRACT. One of the principles of a free society is that contracts must be honored. If those bonuses were the result of legitimate contracts they must be honored. Let’s not confuse ethics with legal requirements. The second thing is that no one seems to consider that those who achieved the positions that the companies were willing to pay large amounts of money to earned their way up the latter. They were successful in the past or they never would have gone as far as they did. There are exceptions, of course, but the general rule is that you perform or you don’t get promoted. I see many signs of jealousy (taake care of your own business and on’t worry what others make), anger at the amount (again the contract determines the amount), and bewilderment (that anyone could pay this kind of money without some sort of performance clause). Performance clauses are not the easiest things to write. I doubt whether there are any who intentionally took their company down the road to ruin. Do we penalize them for not being fortune tellers? Did some of them fail because they gave in to the Dodds, Obamas and Franks to loan easy money? I suspect that if anyone tried tio sue them for taking the money they would lose.
So the imposter in the white house is capping CEO pay. What about everyone else. there is no law that a CEO has to make the most money in a company. If the politicians would stop playing with the rules, this never would have happened, because the overwhelming number of people who got loans would have been able to repay them. Now you’ve elected someone who wants more government to “fix” the problems. When you lear some day that governments are incapable of doijng anything but taking tax money and the more they get the more they misuse.

By: Jack R

Jack R — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:37:57 +0000

I love these clowns who speak of capitalism as the only moral system as if an economic system that distributed goods according to market principles grew out of moral principles and the will to do good. Capitalism may be a more efficient system than it alternatives but how do you begin to impute morality to a market model in which there is no concept of want other than that one wants as much as he or she can possibly get. Self-interest of the market sort need not be immoral, but let’s not make selfishness and greed virtues either. Hey, Ron, at least the power-tie and mojito set can read your column. Not well of course, but it’s a start.

By: Syd B.

Syd B. — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:16:44 +0000

Capitalism is what happens when government leaves people alone.

Ron, I know you fancy yourself as an intellectual, somewhat better than the rest of us, however, here is an interview from a few decades ago of a real intellectual. Milton Freidman’s words were astoundingly relative to today. As Obama directs the country closer to the cliff’s edge, I would find Freidman’s views to be fascinating. Unfortunately, he’s gone. I’m certain Obama’s agenda would exclude Freidman’s position in any case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&eurl=http://smalldeadanimals.com/

By: Northern Light

Northern Light — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:31:56 +0000

Churchill: “It’s the worst system in the world-except for all the others.”

He actually said that about democracy not capitalism.

There is a difference.

I’d just like to know how Wall St. can pay out $18 billion in bonuses then say they are bankrupt and need a bail-out. Didn’t people used to receive big bonuses for success? These guys want a reward for incredible failure.

By: David S

David S — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:15:59 +0000

@94. Marc Malone:

Let me know if you come up with a better description of the mess we’ve been watching develop on Wall Street, and the attendant worldwide fallout.

Peace.

By: Marc Malone

Marc Malone — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:48:56 +0000

#93 David S – That was such a beautiful Marxist statement. You could not have made your belief system any more evident. “…capitalist house of cards from falling under the weight of its own greed.” Wow. All your postings, and now we know exactly where you stand!

By: David S

David S — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:26:35 +0000

@92

Enjoy your Rand fantasies. Meanwhile, in the real world, folks are hard at work trying to prevent the capitalist house of cards from falling under the weight of its own greed.

Peace.

By: Oscar the Grump

Oscar the Grump — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:35:54 +0000

I want to preface this with I’m a conservative Republican.

We have given away our industrial base to a host of countries. No other country in the world has ever done this. Without a manufacturing base in this country, you can not have a viable economy. Unfortunately both political parties were complicit in sending our jobs overseas. We can point and howl but it isn’t going to help. Obama’s method of throwing money at the problem is only a short term solution. The only thing that will really help is to rebuild out industrial base and punish those who send jobs overseas.

The other point here is Obama is throwing money to the private sector. We should get something for that. What is wrong with controlling the companies you bank roll. If its done in the private sector, its good business. If it is done by government it is socialism. Every innovation in the car industry was stifled by either the oil industry or the auto industry itself. They richly deserve what they are getting now. All they seem to do is show us what they can do in the future not now. We live in the present, we need the innovations now. If it cost those arrogant b’stards control of their companies, tough.

Internationally we face industries in Europe that have been nationalized. Japan has been called Japan Corp. because of the intimacy of government and business. Neither of the two let us play on a level playing field. Korea has joined in and is modeling itself after Japan. Our buddies are kicking our a’ses.

This is akin to what we had to do during WWII, that is do what you have to. We’ll straighten it out later. We always do. We’re a remarkable country.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:36:55 +0000

I love how Obama chastises wallstreet while handing out a trillion dollars. I believe in capitalism, all the failing businesses should be allowed to fail no matter the result. It will make our lives hell for awhile, but REAL recovery will occur. Our childrens lives will be better for it.

By: Tailgunner

Tailgunner — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:17:15 +0000

Obama said, “This is not the time for profits”.

A more obscene statement has not been made for some time.

In “Atlas Shrugged”, one man said to a major industrialist at a party that “we might not allow you to make any profit at all”.

This was the type of prevailing attitude in this novel that caused the disappearance of many key businessmen, inventors, investors and entrepreneurs who, although nearly invisible, turned out to be the ones on whom the world depended for nearly everything.

Why should we not expect a similar “strike of the mind” against Obama’s outrageous remarks, an attitude apparently shared by today’s Democrat Party?

Socialism depends on brute force. Socialists expect those who keep this economy running to operate under compulsion, usually against their own self-interest.

Eventually, whether it’s a catastrophic meltdown or a slow decline, the great minds and risk-takers withdraw from an environment they know will lead to their destruction.

They may retire or simply work for their own needs, but they will not invest, they will not create, and they will not risk, knowing that greedy bureaucrats stand ready to seize their profits to ’spread the wealth around’ as Obama so casually puts it.

Then socialism will show itself to be a tool of naked force wielded by panicked collectivists desperate to enslave the few remaining minds.

Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ may well turn out to be far more than a massive community service project.