$450 million in profits against a $20 million fine
Yep, and never mind the destruction to society, they just call the fines “cost of business” and keep at it perhaps more discreetly afterwards. They usually only get the fines in the first place because they didn’t grease enough palms in government to stay off their back.
But, that’s what we can come to expect from “people” that are psychopaths:
Exactly, Cow.
You (not you you… I mean general you) can’t tell me that when the CEO asks for a risk-assessment, the analysts and legal departments somehow neglect to include the magnitude of possible fines for certain actions. C’mon. When the CEO asks for a list of options, ALL OF THEM are on it.
Including ignoring repeated warnings from inspectors of the Macondo drilling platform - “A catastrophe will cost us 20 billion, worst case. But if we can extend the life of that rig without an outlay of 1 billion per year for the next 10 years and put our resources into other wells rather than safety equipment, we will realize 100 billion and only have spent 15 billion. Or 35 billion if the worst happens. Let’s gamble and go for the 15 billion expenses and hope for the best.”
You can’t tell me they don’t talk this way when planning their big plans. Big accidents don’t just happen. They are not necessarily incited, but they are well-planned for in advance because it comes down to $$$, bottom line, every time. If BP couldn’t absorb 20 billion in fines, it would have teams of inspectors working closely with engineers on every platform in the Gulf.
Maybe the rich are crybabies because all humans are greedy
You’re going to have to speak for yourself and the corporatist scumbags there. All humans aren’t consumed with greed, just the worst of us.
Ut oh, you’re smashing the narrative that Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same and voting doesn’t matter at all. Watch it… the cognitive dissonance will hurt some brains…
It’s not a socialist vision. This is humanistic. Socialism at its worst is an antimeritocracy
I agreed with your post, but “socialism” really shouldn’t be used as a dirty word.
You can’t completely blame the 1%
I think I can and also those other small percentages that suffer from megalomania and put vast amounts of profits ahead of humanity.
anyone playing a game as complex as capitalism can be counted on to try and game the system as much as possible
No, just the scumbags. I’ve been honored to know many dynamic people in my life that have sacrificed loads of money for morals and ethics. I give them credit and respect for their decisions just as much I lay blame and responsibility for those who choose the other path.
I wish more Americans wouldn’t throw away things like the need for ethics and self-responsibility just because a bunch of rich people wrap themselves up in legalese and paperwork while hiding under the cloak of “corporations” and offering public relations pittances to charities.
Even Warren Buffet admits that although he pays too little in taxes, he also says that he won’t pay more unless someone makes him. Hate the game, not the player.
No, I hate the game and the player, because the players shape the game. Like many scummy megalomaniacs, Warren Buffet is pretty crafty in protecting his addiction. When chronic tax evader Warren Buffet said there should be higher taxes, he very consciously only focused on taxes that would barely cut into his own bottom line. Much of the corporate media charmingly avoided that point when “reporting” his statements.
Don’t be fooled, Warren Buffet is not your rich pal and he’d never, ever want to talk about paying for all the externalities he thrusts upon the rest of society in order to garner his ridiculous wealth. Because, if he did, he’d only be upper middle-class (if that) and he’d never, ever wish that “great evil” upon himself.
The truth is, if people like Warren Buffet were ever forced to play on a level playing field where things like externalities and ethics were part of the rules, he’d be far less “successful” than many of us.
Being a crafty cheat doesn’t make these megalomaniacs smarter than the rest of us. It just makes them inbred scumbags who have to cheat to garner wealth. People like Warren Buffet would shrivel up and die if they had to really compete with the rest of us and they know it.
Great post! Thank you!
And that “philanthropy” is usually vanity philanthropy to their ivy alma mater. Or in the case of Gates, Waltons etc. it’s often neoliberal / pro-privatization activism under the guise of “philanthropy”.
Sweden is an excellent example of a more enlightened social democracy and an economy that revolves around high taxes and provides a robust welfare state- all aspects that would result in cries of "SOCIALISM" if they were suggested here. It's probably worth noting that they also have many political parties instead of a two party system.
Agreed, and on top of screaming “socialism” they often say that since Sweden is “smaller” than the USA, little of their methodologies, ideologies and ideals could work here in the USA. Of course, that’s completely dismissing the fact that our founding fathers in the USA started small and much of their ideas are the only reason our huge country today hasn’t fallen to despotism (completely).
Pychopaths don’t care about other people, including psychopaths.
I don’t think dehumanizing them gets to the bottom of anything useful. … we hit them where we can see each other as human beings and not caricatures.
Calling a psychopath a psychopath isn’t creating a caricature. Megalomaniacs that put profits ahead of humanity are psychopathic (or sociopathic).
That is what they are.
I think one of the failings in society that enables them is that too much of society sugarcoats it for them. And, that’s just the way they like it and that’s how they promote themselves through their corporate mass media they own.
If we really want to accomplish something, it’s time to look at the reality of what they’re doing to us and why. No more sugarcoating. No more excuses for the inexcusable. No more blaming the “system” in replace of self-responsibility.
Sure, we probably can agree that a lot of them don’t demonstrate the sort of responsible forward thinking or social responsibility that this world deserves but that’s a problem with the system.
Who do you think perpetuates that system? They do. And, the blame lies squarely with them and those of us who continue to turn a blind eye and practice inaction through ignorance and apathy.
I’ve known many people throughout my life that’ve been in this same, exact “system” and they choose not to fuck over humanity for the almighty buck. They don’t make ridiculous amounts of money because of this, but no one does except for the pathetic megalomaniacs that choose wealth over greater society. I give those who makes good choices credit, while I cast aspersion to those who choose to do otherwise.
It’s time to stop making excuses for sociopaths. The “system” doesn’t force these people to be scumbags. It’s a choice.
In another world I bet most of them would be great fun to hang with
In another world, they wouldn’t be vastly wealthy in the first place because they’d be covering the vast externalities they push onto the rest of society.
That’s kind of a broad brush, isn’t it? I doubt we have very many actual sociopaths in the top fractional percent . . . arguably we’d find more of them among the recent wall street gainers.
I’m thinking we’ve got more mid-level PPDs and such than anything, as well as less predictable range of traits among the crowd that were either born into wealth or inherited. They’re in general still quite capable of functioning just like normal people, it just takes a bit more work to get them to realize that you’re one of them too.
In general, their behaviors are predictable enough when seeing them as normal human beings with a few specific leanings.
Oh, I’m hardly making excuses for them, in the roles they’re in they’re often pure forces of destruction and provide lots of negatives but no positives.
However, I don’t consider focus on their perceived inhumanity to be a route towards any useful solutions even if it occasionally feels good to rant.
There’s nothing that can be done with THEM that’s going to solve anything, other than getting them to cooperate or motivating them to help. . . and that option goes away if we don’t treat them like people.
We’re all being forced to play a big Monopoly game and everybody’s complaining because a few people have all the properties and nobody else stands a chance.
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that Monopoly’s not that great as a game, much less as a whole-life solution . . even if we take their toys away we just end up with the same mess with new people unless we also don’t play Monopoly anymore.
Even his venture capitalism was the sort that most Americans celebrate … I have no more problem with this this sort of wealth than I do with movie stars or rock stars who make big bux. … I don’t think the Occupy movement arose to protest people who got rich in the way that Perkins did
I agreed with most of your post and I agree that Perkins earned some of his money, but I quoted the parts above that concerned me. No one attains and creates the kind of ridiculously vast wealth that Perkins has today without profitably pushing aside vast externalities onto the rest of society to pay for it. It’s literally impossible.
Like every other megalomaniac, Perkins wouldn’t be nearly as wealthy if he was ethical and had to cover the externalities that he and his enablers, cohorts (and lackeys) profitably thrust upon the rest of society (especially the poor).
Perkins could give shit, he just regrets that he’s not a billionaire and that people worldwide don’t bend over to kiss his megalomaniacal ass.
I also think history is full of disasters engendered by attempts to dictate or control how things develop.
History is also full of successes. Including child labor laws, worker safety laws, consumer protection… That all happened despite capitalism, not because of it.
I would love to hear about a concept of capitalism as an engine for improved well-being that doesn’t require constant growth, or doesn’t require expanded consumption of ecological resources, or doesn’t have massive inequality built into the system.
I would think a hybrid of socialism and capitalism with many checks and balances in place to keep one side or the other from overreaching. But that would involve a lot of the population being active within and around that system of government, so it might just be a pipe dream since entertainment on television and video games has reached a point where people are often contented as long as they have access to that instead.
Bill has actually given away around half and plans to give away practically all. When you have that much it is actually quite difficult giving it away and achieving the intended effect. The Koch brothers on the other hand give with strings attached.
There have been plenty of strings attached to Bill’s charity. So much so that it far outweighs the good he done for society with charity, but that’s fairly off-topic and I’ll just refer you here instead:
Announced: $3k Mac Pro, retina iPad Mini, iPad Air, and OS X free-of-charge - #45 by Cowicide?
Most people don’t want to hear it, but that just goes to show the value of public relations indoctrination and having corporate mass media being one’s pal.
The Koch brothers on the other hand give with strings attached.
Even if and when the Koch brothers give to charity without strings attached, it doesn’t outweigh the strife they’ve brought to society by a long shot.
Megalomaniacs want it ALL. They want to plunder society and be thanked loved for it. Public relations charity bits certainly do the trick.
If you’re suggesting the billionaires actually seriously impact consumption of resources on a global basis, then please provide some figures on this, because I’m deeply sceptical.
Their main impact is the externalities they create and don’t pay for in order to collect their billions.
It’s not the money in the Koch brothers’ pockets that they hoard that decimates society (although that certainly doesn’t help), it’s the effects of their pollution they don’t pay for.
It’s the health care for workers they don’t cover and how they fund disinformation campaigns that keep a single payer system for health care at bay while keeping a draconian, wasteful privatized system in its place.
The list goes on and on and each part of that list goes into the hundreds of trillions and the human suffering is simply incalculable.
The externalities they thrust upon the rest of society are vast and the implications are downright evil.
That's kind of a broad brush, isn't it? I doubt we have very many actual sociopaths in the top fractional percent
I don’t think you understand. In order to be in that club, you have to be a sociopathic megalomaniac in the first place. One doesn’t happen without the other. I’m not talking about anyone and everyone who is wealthy, but the top fractional percent is another animal (see note) entirely.
Note: By the way, I meant “animal” in a figurative sense only. 
There's nothing that can be done with THEM that's going to solve anything, other than getting them to cooperate or motivating them to help. . . and that option goes away if we don't treat them like people.
Nowhere have I said that I believe they shouldn’t be treated like people. They just need to be treated like sociopathic people because that’s exactly what they are.
I actually think one of the problems is that we don’t treat the rich like people, we treat them like some special entity that’s above the law, self-responsibility, morals and basic ethics. Screw that.
There's nothing that can be done with THEM that's going to solve anything, other than getting them to cooperate or motivating them to helpWe don't need their help. That's just another illusion they propagate with their mass media outlets. Sociopaths aren't going to help society in meaningful ways anyway. They'll put on a show and little more in hopes that the core problems are never addressed that enable their megalomaniacal ambitions in the first place.
We're all being forced to play a big Monopoly game and everybody's complaining because a few people have all the properties and nobody else stands a chance.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m not complaining because of that. I’m complaining because of the real damage they are doing to society that goes far beyond upward mobility and owning a house in the suburbs.
Before Perkins opened his piehole, most people would have placed his achievements in the same class as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Megalomania is common among crazy-successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. If Musk lives to the age that Perkins is now, will he make equally stupid statements? He’s already more arrogant than Perkins.
To me, a person who makes money this way is far less evil than a vulture capitalist, who milks the wealth of an established company at the expense of its employees and other assets. Also less evil than the Jamie Dimons of the world, who gamble with the money of others, produce no good or service–and then get big raises to reward their failed efforts. Also less evil than people born into money who then use that money to make more money and then think they did it all on their own (the Kochs). All three of the above types are appropriate targets of distain from the Occupy movement because all three distort the concept of meritocracy.
Perkins, as was eloquently outlined in Josh Marshall’s recent essay, is a case of guy hearing how awesome he is for so long that it bred hubris. His lame apology and clarification (that we should not single out minority groups for criticism) is some sort of twisted version of the obvious. When one stereotypes any group, it is easier to hate them all. Duh. His statement about being rewarded for his “creativity” is especially troubling. Crooks and gangsters are experts at using creativity for ill will and personal benefit, while many artists use their exceptional creativity in wonderful ways but make little money from it.
Your point about giving back is the only redemption for these people. To paraphrase Jesus, this is the only way for the filthy-rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Paul Allen, and others are showing the way. Their causes are just, and the quantities given (as percent of income) are large. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, and others who give to propagate their political views and agendas. Those boys go straight to hell. I don’t know who Perkins gives to, or how much, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his money goes largely to evil Libertarian causes, rather than to do good.
In my last response, I forgot to disagree strongly with one of your points:[quote=“Cowicide, post:153, topic:20739”]
No one attains and creates the kind of ridiculously vast wealth that Perkins has today without profitably pushing aside vast externalities onto the rest of society to pay for it. It’s literally impossible.
[/quote]
Wealth is not a zero-sum game, and it IS possible to “create wealth” while at the same time not take it away from others. This is the premise behind Google’s “don’t be evil.”
Perkins’ wealth creation did good for a lot of people–and not just his lackeys and hangers-on. That’s why I was prepared to give him a Mulligan if his apology had been a bit more sincere than it turned out to be.
If you’re talking about a club that consists of actual sociopaths then I can’t argue, since it’s in the definition.
But honestly, most of these guys aren’t sociopaths and they don’t lack empathy any more than you or I do, they just apply it to a different sort of person. The rest of us are no more to them than roving Somalian pirates, trust fund babies, rednecks, Muslims, geeks, hippies, jocks, Mexicans and so on are to various groups of us.
See?
Ahh, you miss my point.
Sure, we can change the wrold without them, but it’s faster if we can use them for good, right? They still have dreams, passions, concerns, people they love, quirks, and all the rest. They want things that money can’t buy that they can never experience without help.
Of course, a big problem is ‘THEM’ is a bit broad. Everyone’s an individual, right? Give me a few hours with any five of these ‘sociopaths’ and I’ll find dreams for four of them that most of us could get behind too, and they happen to have won the lottery that has one of the pieces of the puzzle (moneys) that can help those dreams come true the most quickly.
it IS possible to "create wealth" while at the same time not take it away from others.Um, what?
Nowhere have I said that’s not possible. I suggest you go back and read my posts and steer away from fallacious arguments with me in the future if you want me to take you seriously.
This is the premise behind Google’s “don’t be evil.”
I don’t think you could have found a more laughable example considering all the evil Google has done.
Perkins’ wealth creation did good for a lot of people
Once again, nowhere have I said that didn’t happen for some people.
What you’re missing is that in order for him to become so vastly wealthy and the others he enabled to become billionaires, they had to shove the externalities they created onto the rest of society in order to garner such ridiculous amounts of money.
There’s no way in hell one can acquire that much ridiculous wealth without externalities being shoved aside for the rest of society to pick up. I’m sure you’d like examples and I don’t blame you (although you could look this up yourself if you’re so inclined), so here’s a sampling:
• Perkins partnered with Eugene Kleiner who started Fairchild Semiconductor which has created massive amounts of pollution issues that they thrust upon the rest of society.
Fairchild Semiconductor has leaked tens of thousands of gallons of toxic solvents into the ground which residents and even state officials strongly suspect caused a high rate of birth defects in the area.
Let me know when Perkins and his good buddy Eugene Kleiner are going to dip into their vast wealth to take care of all those people growing up with birth defects. Nah, just let the rest of society deal with it. Also, why put in pollution controls and cut into vast profits to do that when you can just be a bum who has others suffer the consequences?
Oh, and they’ve got a fucking superfund pollution site:
Guess who mostly pays for superfund sites? For the most part, everyone except the billionaires. Yep, society does in many more ways than one. The vast wealthy sure as hell never live anywhere near superfund sites, that’s for sure. That’s for the “others” to do.
Just pay some fines down the road and keep being a megalomaniac, right?
• Perkins seeded Genentech. Once again, they sure don’t want to cut into those profits they “earned” by not cutting corners.
Genentech overlooked 80,000 adverse reaction complaints including 15,000 tied to deaths.
Read the Reuters story.
There’s many more examples if you bother to look…
Unlike these filthy billionaires, I’ve got real work to do because I work hard for a living so you’re going to have to look up the many more examples yourself. I guess my work would be much slacker and more profitable if I lacked morals and ethics, but life’s a bitch for those of us who work for a living that doesn’t suck off society.
Perkins may live “the good life” with his 130 million dollar yacht and the whores that sail with him, but I’d rather “live a good life” where I give more to society than I take and be able to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day.
Tom Perkins and all his megalomaniacal buddies can rot in hell. They are bums who suck off society for their own gain and then want us to line up to kiss their asses. You can pucker up all you want, but the rest of us with more awareness and dignity will line up to give them a swift kick in their ass instead.
