« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

On Making Money

During a speech in Illinois on April 28, the President went “off the teleprompter” as it were and opined, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” He did allow that if you had a successful business model you could go on making money, this being America and all, but the implication–and the disdain–were clear. “Good” people wouldn’t go on pursuing Mammon when their legitimate needs were filled. They would pay their exorbitant taxes, I’m sorry, I mean “share” with their fellow Americans as they are morally and now legally obligated to do, and get away from this distasteful world of wealth generation and dig a well or plant a tree or write a poem or run for office or do whatever it is that Mr. Obama’s “good” people do.

I wouldn’t know as for better or worse I am in the other camp.

When I was in fourth grade, we had a father’s day celebration at school. We serenaded them with a charming rendition of Barry Manilow’s “I Can’t Smile Without You” and then did an impromptu tribute to our fathers in which our teachers went around our circle and asked us what our father’s made. Some said hamburgers, others said fishing flies. When my turn came I smiled up at Dad and said, “My father makes money.” I remember it being a completely automatic response–the proverbial easy answer. My father is something of an unusual guy–he does not fish or hunt. I have seen him on a lawnmower–once–but I have never eaten a meal he cooked or gone swimming with him. He is dedicated to and enthusiastic about his hobbies but they are not the sort of activity that generates anything besides exercise and enjoyment, so when the question came I had only one response, inspired by my father’s passion for his profession as an investment advisor, the sole goal of which is to generate wealth. I wonder if Mr. Obama would consider him a good person?

The investor class is a hunted bunch in this President’s America. The line appears to be that those who are smart and consistent enough to profit off of investing in the markets over a sustained period of time are leeches who are sucking wealth away from Main Street. They have no right to it. They haven’t done anything for it. When they have made “enough” they should have the grace to just go away.

It makes me wonder what would happen if they actually did. What if our investor class said, “Okay, I have enough. I can reduce my lifestyle (one imagines Mr. Obama nodding approvingly) and continue to pay my taxes and keep my head down and anyway, who needs the aggravation of keeping on at this job when the federal government is just going to confiscate everything I earn? Maybe I will plant that tree and write a poem about it after all.” What then? What if all those institutional investors just stopped bothering?

What troubles me about the President’s statement is that there is no recognition of what I consider to be a reality–the wealth generated by the investor class is not something that they have stolen in a sort of reverse Robin Hood from the working classes. It is wealth that would not otherwise exist. It would not hire people or buy things or (gasp) pay tax. It just wouldn’t be there. Our country would be the poorer. What my father has done over his career is support successful companies by giving them his and his client’s money to continue doing what they’re doing on an ever-increasing scale. If the companies prosper, they reap some of the profits.  But here’s the rub: if they don’t invest, publicly held companies don’t expand at the same rate.  Take these people away and who’s going to make this investment? The federal government? Or will the money just fall from the trees they’re all out planting?

Perhaps I have an unduly rosy view of this investor class given my personal contact with a great investor who is also happens to be a terrific person–not to mention father. Maybe I am taking an off-hand remark of the President’s too personally. But after stewing about it for two days I remain disturbed by Mr. Obama’s snide assertion that there is “enough” and that continuing to earn, produce, employ and encourage beyond the point he designates is somehow unseemly. So many people in our nation’s history–be they Vanderbilt or Rockefeller or Gates of Buffett or a less-well-known name–have decided that “enough” was not for them.  That they would continue to work for the rewards their labors bring.  Of course they have enjoyed a success beyond the dreams of most Americans, but the point is that they made something in the process.  I would like to live in a country where what my father makes counts in his favor, rather than against it.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • JadedByPolitics

    those damned investors, so his slap in the face of those who MADE HIM is the most hypocritical thing I do believe I have ever witnessed. I personally believe Obama has made too much money for doing absolutely NOTHING! He is the most puffed up piece of crap I have ever witnessed in my lifetime and I look forward to him leaving the stage to go make his millions (he will and he will keep it as well) all the while telling those idiots who follow him how “terrible” this Country is!

    • http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport
      • Academic Elephant

        By this culture of compulsory sharing your excess. It was all there in the campaign.

        I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    and at that time, you should cash in, hit the golf course or beach, and stop working to improve your business (which–ahem–will normally involve the hiring of workers).

    Great idea

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      Some people just weren’t meant to make money for themselves. They should just reduce their expectations, give up their dreams of success, get on the dole, and find a local soccer team to support.

      Oh, and die at 50.

  • lineholder

    was when he said, “We don?t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.” I daresay he doesn’t. In the language of socialism, “grow our economy” means “Hey we have all these wonderful social programs that we want to provide for you so that you can become more dependent on our government”. “Fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system” means “By all means, get out there and make all the money you want to. Just remember that it really isn’t your money. It’s the governments.” And somehow this is supposed to inspire us? I don’t think so.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    You’ve just described how the investor class can “strike” , Hell, for just a week, just to let news trickle up, so that everyone will know here everyone stands.

    The entire OBama plan is that everyone stay inside their box, and be “planned for”.

    Very good analysis

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      I thought the investor class already went on strike. Isn’t that why the economy has been sucking wind since 2008 and the first bailout?

  • marshmom

    Like……um……..Oprah, Soros, HIMSELF!! Oh, I forgot, liberals only believe in things if they don’t have to abide by those things. Do as I say, not as I do.
    You know, I have the suspicion that even JEREMIAH WRIGHT makes more money than most middle class Americans. Did Obama ever tell him to give more of his money to the gov’t??

    What an overblown hypocrite! Kiss my grits, Obama.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    Free marketers understand that in many transactions, both parties can profit. And when I’m on the losing end, such as with a bank loan, it’s because I think I can use the loss I take paying interest to make a win somewhere else.

    I sell an asset because I value the money I get more than the asset, while the buyer has the opposite view. We both profit, getting something we value more for something we value less.

    Similarly, we believe that making money is usually done by acting in a good and positive way. It helps the world for a rich person to get richer. And it doesn’t make the poor poorer, except perhaps relatively.

    So since the act of making money is a positive one, why stop? Why fail to do something which is good because one has done it before?

    But the leftist believe that making money is in itself at best a neutral act, not a positive one. By tenet, the richer you are, the more likely it is that you ripped people off to get it.

    So the guilt that inheres to the wealthy can only be cured by first turning away from thievery, and then washing in the blood of poetry about trees.

    Excellent diary, as always.

  • Common_Cents

    That’s if he ever has a press conference and if we had an independent media instead of a propaganda machine.

    • The_Gadfly

      since he indicated as much in the campaign by where he would draw the line at promising your taxes wouldn’t increase. How much lower that turns out to be in reality is another issue entirely.

      Oh, and it doesn’t apply to any of his friends who are “advancing” the cause of “social justice.” They can earn as much as they want, live in the most expensive houses, and vacation at the swankiest resorts without condemnation.

  • kowalski

    Imagine what would happen if nobody was willing to take risks.

    People do take them all the time, and in fact they take them sometimes just based upon the advice of others, and occasionally with murky evidence of a guaranteed return, because they think it might be a good idea. The risk they take, of course, and their willingness to undertake it, hinges on the idea that the people on the “other side” of the equation will do their best to make a good outcome happen, so that there is some return on the investment, or at the very least no terrible loss involved.

    That requires some trust in the basic ethics of everyone engaged in the conversation by all the parties involved, the “financiers” and the “doers”, those who take the risk and those who help to allow them to.

    We take these risks and are willing to do so based on a belief that everyone in the “system” is more or less sane: that they’re not deliberately malevolent, they’re not thieves, they’re not deluded, and that they will work to try to make the investment return. We can accept losses if it can be shown that everyone behaved responsibly and it was just a round of bad luck. We have a much more difficult time dealing with loss when it can be shown to be the result of untrustworthy people.

    • kowalski

      One of the things that always gets me about overcontrolling economics is that it eliminates the possibility of luck, or something that I prefer to call “serendipity.”

      Call it what you will, I can honestly state that some of the best things that have happened in my business have occured in an “Out of the Blue” fashion, as opposed to the majority of the ones that resulted from careful planning. I don’t mean to say that we should rely on it, but nevertheless it’s true.

      Your truck breaks down in the middle of the highway because a tie-rod end fails. Instantly, it’s a terrible day, because you can’t deliver what you expected to deliver to the customer who is just ten miles away, it’s going to take an extra couple of hours. The heat is on. You’re sweating and you’re upset. Nevertheless the guy who pulls up with the tow truck is an amiable sort, and you start a conversation: and it turns out that he has an interest in what you’re doing and amazingly, a new job for you. That job is worth more than the one you’re delivering.

      Why did that happen? Because a piece of equipment failed — that’s really the proximate cause. You could do the root cause analysis on it, but even if you did, nobody in their right mind would say: “If the tie rod on your truck breaks because somebody cast it wrong, you will get a new job as a result.” That would be silly and irresponsible for anyone to estimate.

      However, that kind of thing can happen and it absolutely *does* happen. There is no explanation for it except for serendipity and the freedom to act on those events when they occur. To make the best of bad circumstances in other words. Those things simply cannot and should never be “planned.”

      • kowalski

        By the way, people’s response to economic loss is, to me, the single best piece of evidence that most people believe that they themselves and other people do in fact possess free will.

        Otherwise there is no real justification for their anger when they lose something, but most people do not think that way, and for a pretty good reason. Without sounding too much like Herman Kahn, I think it shows that all ordinarily competent human beings are capable of assessing risks and therefore they should be allowed to take them.

      • kowalski

        Why does the Tow Truck Driver have an opportunity that is even more profitable than the one that’s sitting in the back of your truck?

        Because he runs his own business and is out of NCR carbonless forms, and he also needs 2,000 business cards and a 500 envelopes for his daughter’s wedding invitations, that’s why. :) It also turns out that he’s a part-time bass player in a local band, and they need posters for a couple of upcoming gigs in the next couple of months.

        What a great thing it was that your tie-rod end broke, because otherwise you’d never have met each other. And just think! You didn’t have to ask a bureaucracy to tell you he needed these things, or provide them! You just happened to be in the right places at the right times!

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Frankly. it is about time the mask came off. Mr. Obama is simply expressing fundamental tenets that are a central part of his personal philosophy. Welcome to the real definition of “change”.

    Mr Obama is more about destroying wealth and rationing which diminishes individual purchasing power. He is focused on the collective, which will be enforced by increasing state power and diluting individual rights. His disposition is driven by parochial beliefs and encouraged by like-minded despots in the name of “common good”. He is a modern day Robespierre or Danton, convinced that all is owed and nothing should be spared to enforce a vision they believe long overdue.

    That is obviously the converse of fine people like your father and countless others who have spent a lifetime helping people realize their personal dreams, and thereby the American dream. These folks are driven by other forces. Forces that define our basic American values, underwrite our unique place in this world and for generations have built this country into the most successful, strong and yes, enviable republic in the history of mankind.

    I for one, can’t wait for the modern day Thermidorian Reaction which will drive these destructive denizens from the people’s houses.

    . Once upon a time that was valued.

  • hickorystick

    Is you dad investing in start up companies? Those guys do a phenomenal service to the country. They make a lot of us nutty west coasters, who have a good idea, richer than snot. Us being a loose term, I’m not rich. But I have worked for some.