A web of privilege supports this so-called meritocracy
Brad DeLong points to an article by Gary Younge in The Guardian:
A web of privilege supports this so-called meritocracy: Shortly after Mitt Romney’s failed 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination his son Tagg set up a private equity fund with the campaign’s top fundraiser. One of the first donors was his mum, Anne. Next came several of his dad’s financial backers. Tagg had no experience in the world of finance, but after two years in the middle of a deep recession the company had netted $244m from just 64 investors.
Tagg insists that neither his name nor the fact that his father had made it clear he would run for the presidency again had anything to do with his success. “The reason people invested in us is that they liked our strategies,” he told the New York Times.
Class privilege, and the power it confers, is often conveniently misunderstood by its beneficiaries as the product of their own genius rather than generations of advantage, stoutly defended and faithfully bequeathed. Evidence of such advantages is not freely available. It is not in the powerful’s interest for the rest of us to know how their influence is attained or exercised. But every now and then a dam bursts and the facts come flooding forth…
I posted on Brad’s site that if this was “Tagg Kennedy” liberals would be singing his praises.
It was censored. Brad is a bully sometimes.
i’ve never been allowed to disagree with Brad, either…
A privilege is something granted by the state. He has no such privilege. Instead, it is indeed lucky that one would possess genes and membership in a family with enough credibility to convey trust to investors, so that they would risk giving you money versus risk giving it to the millions of other unknowns that try to obtain it from them. There is no better form of insurance that an investor can buy than familial trust. And there is no inheritance more valuable to protect than that trust. Because, as you say, there may be no value added by his presence, but then there is no value risked by it either. Since all candidates may in fact provide marginal increase in value, the investor selects a candidate due to loss aversion.
You are not following through to the logical conclusion of your statements (and neither is DeLong, but then he’s a hack). A family demonstrates the trustworthiness of its members. But that isn’t the conclusion you would like us to take from this question. Because that would be an indictment of the lower classes. 🙂
I can disagree with Brad, except
1) any criticism of Obamacare
2) any criticism of liberal icons
Yeah thats right its the trust worthiness of is family, not the fact that his father may be the president of the US with all its attendant benefits. This is called purchasing influence.
Ah. Well, now we know what Romney has in mind when he says that GM and Chrysler didn’t need federal bailout funds in late 2008 and early 2009 in order to undergo bankruptcy reorganization rather than be forced to liquidate, because there was private-equity funding available for that purpose. Solamere Capital and its Rolodex of potential investors were available, but, stupidly, no one from the Obama administration thought to contact them.
Anyway, I can’t wait to hear the statistics on how many jobs Tagg Romney created!
Right. It must be a law of physics that whenever one side criticizes the other for something, the criticizing side would approve of the something if it were done by their own side. Always. No matter what the something is. Because, well, it would be impossible for this not to be so. Or because it would be impossible for some people to not mechanically claim it’s so, however ridiculous.
What nonsense. Of course, whatever else the Kennedys did, and whatever other forms of nepotism they employed, they didn’t do this.
You might want to check out the definitions of the word “privilege” before you claim again that it’s limited only to advantages that the state confers, Curt.
You might want to check out the definitions of “privilege” before you claim again that the word refers only to privileges conferred by the state, Curt.
It’s an interesting idea. Trust might have been conveyed to me by entering the world via the proper pair of open legs. If only my mothers came with a $100M trust fund I might never have turned into a corrupt thief and meth dealer but could have been a white shoe investment banker. C’est la vie as they say in Oklahoma.
It’s an interesting idea. Trust might have been conveyed to me by entering the world via the proper pair of open legs. If only my mothers came with a $100M trust fund I might never have turned into a corrupt thief and meth dealer but could have been a white shoe investment banker. C’est la vie as they say in Oklahoma.
Just curious Curt, have you ever heard of this writer type guy, name of Charles Dickens? He was all the rage back in the day. If yes, do you think you understood what he was trying to explain to you?
I guess this explains why the monacle and top hat set is so keen on elminating estate taxes. They don’t want that trustworthiness slopping over into the government’s bucket.
I can offer no specific citations to the facts, but I have not seen any clear explication of the Kennedy family parlaying its wealth into an advantage amongst its junior members. Certainly they have the advantage of the basic source of the wealth though that may be thinning with each added generation. Do any of the Kennedys participate in the financial industry? Do they manage other extrmemly wealthy people’s money? Show us rusty how the Kennedys have taken clear advantage of their wealth or celebrity.
On the other hand we have the Bush family with generations of good old boy advantages dating well before Brown Bros, Harriman. Romney is almost a new comer to the game, but Mitt played it well and apparently so too will Tagg. How is the fund doing? Does it employ others to make the major investment decisions and Tagg only for the value of his name and connections?
“A privilege is something granted by the state.” Curt Doolittle’s definition.
The dictionary definition:
priv·i·lege [priv–uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1.a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich. 2.a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in […]
If no, can I suggest starting with his Little Dorrit? Or perhaps Bleak House? If you’re pressed for time a Cliff’s Notes version or BBC adaption might help you get the gist of it.
I have to give this one to “Curt”. The rich really ARE more trustworthy. Just consider all the $Trillions in wealth lost due to Wall Street’s “trustworthy” derivatives trading, CDSs, MBSs, various scams and Ponzi schemes. They MUST be extraordinarily “trustworthy”, otherwise, how could it be that they keep getting bailed out by our valiant Public Servants using our money?
We should all get down on our knees and thank the Prosperity Gospel Deity for the existence of these extraodinarily gifted John Galts, these holy Job Creators, without whom we would server no purpose and thus wither away and die.
They parlayed it to political advantage for sure, but I guess politics is a pure saintly activity. Ted used his privilege to get away with murder. We could go on, and on with the kennedys. Privilege is privilege Jack. Obama’s kids are privileged just like the Bush kids.
Yeah. I knew that little Sasha Obama was a lot more devious than she looked at the age of eight, when she was parlaying her father’s probable run for the presidency into wealthy investors’ investments in a hedge fund that she started. She’s cute, and I thought it was just her charm that got those investors to invest. But I realize now that I was naïve. But at least she was helping create jobs.
(Btw, Ted Kennedy got away with possible negligent homicide and possible DUI, not murder.)
Mcwop,
You can’t be serious with a comparison of Obama’s children and the Bush (children for several generations now). Obama’s girls will have the advantage of celebrity being children of a President. That doesn’t seem to have done much for the children of past Presidents unless they had great wealth in addition to the notoriety of having spent time living in the WH. The Bush family has been at the heart of the financial industry for many years. Oil might be said to have been only a side line for them which they were able to dabble in only because of great wealth of their own and their friends and acquaintances.
Privilege is priveledged. I see no difference amongst people born to someone with means.
So what should Tagg do then Jack? Report to the department of Jack to get his official job assignment?
Really, who cares this is a diversion from the crappy leadership in DC, from the privileged Democrats and Republicans running the country into the ground.
Then, again, rusty, it might just be that he deleted your comment because it –
1) is stupid;
2) is off topic;
3) displays the fallacy of false equivalence.
Cheers!
JzB
Ok, then we will use Al Gore as an example. Guy evaded combat, got into office cause of daddy’s name, and now is worth north of $100 million.
Yeah,Jazz kind of like Chelsea Clinton working for private equity firm Avenue Capital or her Goldman Sachs hedge fund husband. A web of meritocracy indeed.
b-b-but Clinton! You people are insane.
The Kennedy’s were very astute about managing money, including huge commercial real estate holdings in Chicago among other places. Not a criticism by the way, but no Democrat I can find ever criticized the Kennedy’s for their wealth.
The bootlegging and stock market manipulation is too long ago to worry about.
I find it interesting how the Democrats are so respectful of George Soros, a slimey currency speculator.
Whatever one thinks of Romney he did work in the “real” economy.
“Ok, then we will use Al Gore as an example. Guy evaded combat, got into office cause of daddy’s name, and now is worth north of $100 million.”
Irony is fucking dead. If we had to pick names that fit this narrative better we would substitute “George W Bush” who actually WAS in the military, but took care to get into a so-called Champaign Unit of the Texas Air Guard flying a jet that was not used in Vietnam. That is he used his Dad’s name both ways, to get entry AND to avoid combat. A twofer. Another name that would well fit this one is Dan Quayle who also got a rare slot in a non-combat Indiana Guard unit due to his Daddy’s connections (as a newspaper publisher and big figure in Indiana politics). You could even add John Sidney McCain III who by his own account would have gotten kicked out of Annapolis if this namesake father and grandfather had not been big time Admirals.
Or we could deploy similar stories about Gingrich, Cheney and Romney who each deliberately exploited marriage and religious exemptions to dodge any service at all. All of them (except Gingrich maybe) are probably worth more than $100 million today. At least Gore actually got in country (as a photographer) as opposed to most GOP major political figures of the last generation or so whose closest connection to the military has been listening to the Marine Corps Band at some white tie dinner.
But to reprise it takes a lot of damn gall to cite Al Gore when you have the other side of that particular contest represented by discharged early while under punishment detail for not showing up at his Alabama Guard gig at a frigging mostly NON-REPORTING unit. (CBS got punked, actual records produced pursuant to real FOIA requests were out there before Republicans inserted a carefully faked parallel portfolio into the mix. ‘kerning’ my ass).
Bush was AWO from Alabama L. After being bounced from his Texas Guard unit for failing to show up for a piss test to maintain flight status. And if his Dad hadn’t been a Congressman with deep CIA connections Junior would have been burned for it.
Not that facts about either Gore or Bush matter. After all the Right spent millions of dollars mocking and lying about Kerry’s medals, obviously nothing is sacred to them. Hell I am sure that Bob Kerrey and his Medal of Honor will be fair game in the Nebraska Senate race this fall. I mean shit it worked on Max Cleland who left three limbs, Kerrey who only left half a leg literally won’t have a leg to stand on after Corsi & Co get through.
“but no Democrat I can find ever criticized the Kennedy’s for their wealth.”
By and large Democrats never criticized the Rockefeller scions who went into politics because of their wealth (Nelson as a Repub and JD IV as a Dem). At least not alone. Because the Rockefeller’s never attempted to hide the fact that they were children of immense privilege. In that respect they followed the Roosevelt cousins who each drew clear lines between pre-existing privilege and subsequent opportunities for service. Or pretty much the identical situation to most of the third generation of Kennedy’s, each of whom seemed to have used the Kennedy name to openly advance their political or public service endeavors. That is none of them pulled a Tagg and claimed that all the investors (including his mother for God’s sake) were simply attracted to his company because of their advanced analytical abilities.
There is nothing wrong, in principle, with using money to make money, but even Dubya and GHW at their most blatant “just a small town businessman” phase didn’t pretend that Family DIDN’T Matter. For example it is telling that the Bush Family carefully preserves older family names. That is all of the ‘Hebert’ ‘Walker’ ‘Ellis’ (JEB is actually John Ellis Bush) and ‘Prescott’ (as in JEB’s son G Prescott Bush) are names of grandfathers and great grandfathers. For Tagg to pull the pure meritocracy card is particularly galling in that he professes a religion which exalts genealogical descent and family ties as a religious obligation.
As to the Kennedy’s. It is amazing that for people who nobody nowhere nohow ever dare to say smack about everyone without exception seems to react to the keywords ‘bootlegger’ and ‘Chappaquidick’. That is any attempted whitewashing didn’t seem to take very well. Unlike AWOL Bush.
“A privilege is something granted by the state.”
To echo and amplify what Beverly said (and because I am a dick in a much more insulting way), that is one of the most bass-ackward historical claims I have ever heard.
a ‘privi’ ‘lege’ is a private right, as the name suggests, generally gained via heriditary right or by admission to a normally non-state, or at least non-national state organization. That is on admission to a guild or a university corporation or a chartered city or chivalric order you are granted the full range of PRIVATE, NON-STATE privileges pursuant thereto. Now this historically has been complicated somewhat in that many such corporations were formed by royal or princely charter and in the case of a medieval city or town have the effect of setting up a NEW state or quasi-state, but in any event the end effect was to carve out a new set of private rights AS AGAINST the state.
But even with the complications what you rarely had is ‘privilege’ defined as a direct grant by the state as such to an individual as such. Instead appointments to State Offices come with positive requirements rather than negative privileges, that is ties and not loosenings, obligations and not freedoms.
Look you have a right to your own opinion. But not to your own history and dictionary. And even with all the caveats one could add ‘privilege’ historically means ‘private right typically gained by heredity or free gift’. And even when used in recipricul fashion (as in “it is a privilege to serve”) there is the clear sense of a grant BACK from the recipient, a hint that any attached services would be fulfilled anyway. (Even if this is a contractual fiction in actual practice)
Old Joe was an extremely smart business guy, and used a series of trusts (legally at the time) to obtain professional management and some privacy for the family.
The approximate $600M profit from the Chicago Merchandise Mart was one of the smartest real estate invesements in US history (investment of $12M).
I didn’t see this before I posted my last but near as I can see it just reinforces my historical point. Even in the case of ‘5’ we have the clear sense of ‘severance’ from the State. That is the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution make it clear that State powers and privileges derive FROM a free people. While citizen rights are carved out and reserved FROM any resulting State.
Something that folk who give a lot of mouth service to Tentherism would seem to understand. When it suits their argument.
Yes if that damn soros had just targeted some labor unions instead of central bankers he could have been a playah!!!!
Hey I forgot to mention Bobby K working for Tailgunner Joe MacCarthy…
I actually respected Teddy in his later years because he stuck with his beliefs, a rare occurence these days.
Actually, none of the above.
I challenged the wisdom of he of Berekley with the gigantic ego.
If Soros is a “slimy” (not slimey) currency arbitrager then what do we call a hedge fund manager? Both earn their keep by way of speculative trading of various forms of financial assets. Soros is into many more trades than only currency though he did make a well documented score on some currency trades. While I’m not one to evaluate the value of arbitragers in our financial system, I can point out that Soros had no advantage of family ties or other form of privilege. He is a relatively high profile supporter of socially progressive ideology and politicians. Maybe that’s what makes him slimy in rusty’s point of view. Of course, bringing up Soros is pretty much off topic. A typical approach when one is losing the argument, even if they don’t know it.
Soros got rich trying to crash the British pound.
Hedge funds manage diverse portfolios of various sorts of investments, often for college endowments, public pension plans and private pension plans.
Not quite the same.
I;m not losing. Liberals are often hypocrits, protecting the Kennedys and Jon Corzine among others.
“I find it interesting how the Democrats are so respectful of George Soros, a slimey currency speculator.”
Jaybus Rusty, why not call him a ‘Rootless Cosmopolitan’ and say what you really mean.
Pivilege runs on both sides of the aisle, but people here are trying to say it only runs in the Repulican party.I am pointing out that it exists amongst both parties, which is why we have a governmnet run entirely by priveldged people. Once people realize that, then maybe better folks get elected.
Sorts brought himself up by the bootstraps, though I’d give as much credit to Jim Rogers in the 70’s for the quantum fund’s success.
Corzine, how dare you mention him. I’m sure Democrats will come down on him hard any moment now. All the bloviating aboutWall Street and they do nothing. We already know the republicans won’t.