For a classless society, we sure have a lot of twits complaining that the peasantry doesn't know its place.

Salmon concludes, "When rich liberals and rich conservatives agree on something, that thing is going to happen. Especially when that thing is in their own self-interest."

It's a truism that moneyed interests run the show in this country, but it's also a truth. And they're not doing a very good job of it. 

Comments

[Bill Yaner]

Yes, like when rich liberals and rich conservatives agreed that extending home ownership to as many as possible was a wonderful thing, well, bring on the bubble that nearly wrecked us all.

[Billy Jones]

Bless their hearts.

[Collards]

Economic bubbles are a fact of life. It is plain old greed and a herd mentality at work.

The housing bubble cannot be blamed on Clinton or Bush but a perfect storm of polices that together allowed our greed to get the best of us.

Blaming Washington merely places our responsibility on that metaphor known as inside the belt line instead of back home.

Are those people up there smarter than the average American, of course. Do you they know what it is like to stand in our shoes or when to shut up, evidently not.

[cheripickr]

But blaming is what we do here. Since we don't do stuff, stuff can't be our fault. It must be the fault of people who do stuff. So we blame them when they screw up.
But what about when the people who do stuff are successful at it?
We blame them then, too.
We have all the bases covered.

[Stephen]

First twit seems to be more upset that a well proportioned ass has upstaged her own influence..

Which reminded me off something I saw the other day...why is it OK for entertainers and athletes to be paid millions of dollars, but it's not OK for someone who runs a business..

[Ed Cone]

Collards, you make it sound like a natural disaster. It wasn't. Economic cycles happen, but we can learn from specifics and try not repeat our mistakes.

What makes this situation especially vexing is that we managed to unlearn some lessons hard-won in our grandparents' time, and to ignore specific data (e.g., interest rate movement over recent years) in our own.

World-weariness and cynicism serve the people who screwed up, by giving them a pass for their actions. CP may think it's useless to discuss this stuff, but I hope people will pay attention and try to change a broken system.

[Thomas]

"why is it OK for entertainers and athletes to be paid millions of dollars, but it's not OK for someone who runs a business.."

Who put forth that idea? Don't think I've seen it expressed quite like that.

Something sort of along those lines is sometimes expressed in lamenting the disconnect between the performance of the enterprise and the compensation of those involved.

When Tiger Woods plays in a golf tournament, a lot more people watch on TV (still). When Britney Spears puts on a concert, the people who buy tickets are there because she is there. In both cases, if the situation reverses, these people will see a drop in income. The same doesn't seem to be true anymore in the corporate world. Especially at the highest levels. Executives of failed (but for bailouts) enterprises get bonuses because they supposedly possess some expertise that is vital to the function of the enterprise, no matter how poorly the enterprise has functioned.

[Thomas]

And why does anyone pay attention to David Brooks? He's just not very smart or insightful. Another case of poor correlation between performance and pay.

[sittinginthemiddle]

Stay tuned for more of the class warfare envy strategy.........

[Lex]

Stephen: To be a little more technical about it, it's a difference between royalties related to the artist's creativity, and a salary/benefits paid to someone who's titular responsibility is to execute a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of shareholders.

But Thomas is right: I don't think anyone in a responsible position anywhere in society is making the argument you suggest. And if they are, they're economically illiterate.