That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means
| Wed Oct. 21, 2009 10:33 AM PDT
Bloomberg listens in on a panel discussion entitled “What is the place of morality in the marketplace?”and hears this:
A Goldman Sachs International adviser defended compensation in the finance industry as his company plans a near-record year for pay, saying the spending will help boost the economy.
“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” Brian Griffiths [said].
Hmmm. I haven't personally noticed any of the rest of us prospering from Wall Street's silicon-powered, supercharged rent seeking in the capital markets. Perhaps Griffiths could enlighten us on that score. More here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
That's Lord Brian to you
Submitted by g. powell on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 10:53 AM PDT.
Yes, apparently his proper title is Lord Brian Griffiths, former advisor to Lady Thatcher. Just makes the quote that much more special when you know where it's coming from.
If the past 30 years have
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 11:00 AM PDT.
If the past 30 years have taught us nothing, they have taught us one simple truth: vastly expanded incomes on the upper end do not equate to rising incomes for the middle and lower end.
The rising tide does not lift all boats in this case, it just offers them credit in place of more income.
How exactly has inequality helped everyone else? From 2003-2007 we saw unprecedented consolidation of wealth and burgeoning inequality. Little of that inequality actually "trickled down" to the population at large. Have we not already learned that trickle down economics is a myth? It does not work, plain and simple. This coming from the same people who BEGGED Congress for a bailout! The nerve is remarkable. Where is the outrage though? People should be mad!
Meanwhile, the Treasury will
Submitted by Maxwell James (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 11:13 AM PDT.
Meanwhile, the Treasury will supposedly order pay cuts at the 7 firms which received the most TARP money - a list that does not include GS.
Griffith's statement is
Submitted by J. Frank Parnell on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 11:42 AM PDT.
Griffith's statement is truly self serving stupidity. Every study ever done says if you give the poor money they go out and spend it. If you give the rich money they sock it into hedge funds, Grand Cayman accounts, or use it to buy a new Mercedes. I abhor the government of the Chinese People's Republic, but it is interesting how in a case like this they would just pick out a couple of individuals and hang them to get the point across that things have to change.
The sentence was truncated, obviously
Submitted by Joel Mathis (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 11:49 AM PDT.
This is how it was supposed to read:
Griffiths said: "“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all ... of my friends."
completely irrelevant
Submitted by firefall on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 12:06 PM PDT.
Furthermore, the statement is purely a pragmatic one - it does not address the morality, or otherwise, of what is being done in the least.
Trickle down
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 12:54 PM PDT.
Aaaah, a variation on the old trickle-down economics theory of the Reagan era. Takes me back, that does.
Well, it's true that income
Submitted by M (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 1:24 PM PDT.
Well, it's true that income inequality is an immediate and natural product of free markets, and that a lack of a decent spread of incomes, and thus of the consequent economic stratification of society, is also a sign of a poor society. The minute you open up an economy and give people any degree of real freedom, wealth increases and so does income inequality. It's not clear to me, though, that the income inequality is in any way the cause of general wealth, rather than a side effect that, up to a point, one must tolerate. And I think that in the case of Wall Street traders and executives, that point was reached a long time ago.
Mr. Parnell might have it right on China, when it comes to that...
Income equality as side effect of general wealth creation
Submitted by Bill Arnold (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 2:43 PM PDT.
It's not clear to me, though, that the income inequality is in any way the cause of general wealth, rather than a side effect that, up to a point, one must tolerate.
Nicely put.
I recall reading a short back-of-the-magazine vanity advert, probably in the 80s, maybe Scientific American or New Scientist, that seemed to imply that the correlation here was causation. Does anyone else recall this?
"That Word Does Not Mean
Submitted by cld (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 1:34 PM PDT.
"That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means"
Almost but not quite like Glenn Beck's recent brainstorm that Progressives were the slave owners during the Civil War, because I don't know what he thinks 'Progressive' means at all in this context.
Big money idea!
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 2:14 PM PDT.
Here's an opportunity for some electronic gadget designer. Or maybe just software.
Input the text of the political or economic message. Use the cursor to trace over the text which automatically changes the highlighted word to it's antonym. Artificial Intelligence, with the user's input, help decides which antonyms remain in the final text. This ultimate translator will help find truth in a world of disinformation and ass covering rhetoric.
Possible names for this innovation:
The Rove-Reader or The Greenspammer.
That Word Does Not Mean What
Submitted by Luther on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 2:56 PM PDT.
That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means
The word is rationalizing.
My favorite argument is the one often used by piggy athletes when asked to justify their big salaries. "We are deserving because we're entertainers."
I thought they were athletes. Scratch head.
scratch head?
Submitted by optical weenie on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 3:58 PM PDT.
Luther, no wonder why you are confused. Athletes scratch ass, not head.
Increasing general wealth is not the result of accumulation,
Submitted by Julia Grey on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 3:43 PM PDT.
it's the result of CIRCULATION.
The faster any given volume of money moves around, the better off everyone is.
Think of money as water. Sequestering it (for example, with people who set it aside and don't actually spend it on products and services) results in stagnation. Pouring it into the sand (into munitions blown to smithereens in foreign lands, for example) stops it altogether.
Nice of him.
Submitted by jrw on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 4:39 PM PDT.
It appears to be easier to tolerate inequality when you're the more equal one. All the same, good on him for holding up under the strain. It must be a burden.
Damn Kevin, the spambots are
Submitted by Walker (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 8:50 PM PDT.
Damn Kevin, the spambots are hitting you hard.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
