JohnRgt

Palin feared by Wall Street

5 posts in this topic

Big Money has been snarkily dismissive of Palin’s recent opining on monetary policy, the dollar and the dangers of inflation. But guess what? A “free-market populist” campaign in 2012 would likely further highlight that Palin’s not too big a fan of them, either. And her economic musings are yet another sign she’s running
Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality. … The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.” …
That agenda might not attract much campaign cash from Manhattan bankers or Washington lobbyists, but it could be a compelling formula in the new Tea Party-infused Republican party. Then again, bankers who care about cutting government spending and keeping taxes low might want to take a second look.

Reuters Opinion

The piece links to:

Goldman Sachs wants regulation, not laissez-faire

As a FORUM member pointed out in private recently, schools are teaching MBAers to seek such alliances with government in order to minimize risk.

Shifting the context of a line from 300:

This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no surprise to me that some businesses use the government to squash their competition. Anyone who has done a small amount of examining into what business schools (especailly the MBA programs) are teaching today should not be surprised with what is coming out of them. And they should also be able to see that the businessmen of today claim they can work in any economic system as long as they can "manage the risk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a FORUM member pointed out in private recently, schools are teaching MBAers to seek such alliances with government in order to minimize risk.

Our top line is several dozen billion dollars (all generated by a few hundred people). Our return on equity is over 25%.

I've yet to meet an MBA in the firm (I think some of the strategy guys, and some of the Americans, might have one) and I see the CEO of the business every day (my boss reports to him).

Our training emphasized that governments are dangerous and that you should always avoid getting close to them (for example by giving ownership of the goods to the buyer prior to entering their national waters).

One conference call last week started (from the US side) by "now we live in a democracy again".

Our firm is thriving, growing enormously (especially in 2007-09, and we didn't take a dime from any government), and will keep doing so for another decade (after several hundred billion top line, you cannot grow anymore - there is simply no market large enough!). The MBA-run firms are crashing into the ground and burning as fast as the Harvard endowment (aka academic Ponzi) is finding its intellectual arrogance no match for reality.

And this is HBS' response?

We don't need comedy - real life is funnier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is no surprise to me that some businesses use the government to squash their competition. Anyone who has done a small amount of examining into what business schools (especailly the MBA programs) are teaching today should not be surprised with what is coming out of them. And they should also be able to see that the businessmen of today claim they can work in any economic system as long as they can "manage the risk."

That's what Hank Rearden thought his "man in Washington" was "taking care of". Then "man in Washington" resurfaced in the novel as Wesley Mouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is no surprise to me that some businesses use the government to squash their competition. Anyone who has done a small amount of examining into what business schools (especailly the MBA programs) are teaching today should not be surprised with what is coming out of them. And they should also be able to see that the businessmen of today claim they can work in any economic system as long as they can "manage the risk."

That's what Hank Rearden thought his "man in Washington" was "taking care of". Then "man in Washington" resurfaced in the novel as Wesley Mouch.

An example of brilliant insight, thanks for the reminder, ewv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites