Buffett: Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionaires

[Darth Wong]

A lot of the problem is cultural. Japan, Canada, and European nations are not overrun with corporations which pay obscene monies to their executives, but they generally don't have special rules to discourage that sort of thing. Instead, people just don't seem to try to do it in the first place. But in America, there seems to be no shame. I don't know if this is contagious; a lot of American cultural ideas do eventually spread to other countries.

The rise of the large multinational conglomerate is indeed starting to drive this - executive compensation has to be seen as competitive with American executive pay.

And Americans wonder why the spread of their culture around the world is not always seen as a good thing.

[TheHammer]

A lot of the problem is cultural. Japan, Canada, and European nations are not overrun with corporations which pay obscene monies to their executives, but they generally don't have special rules to discourage that sort of thing. Instead, people just don't seem to try to do it in the first place. But in America, there seems to be no shame. I don't know if this is contagious; a lot of American cultural ideas do eventually spread to other countries.

The rise of the large multinational conglomerate is indeed starting to drive this - executive compensation has to be seen as competitive with American executive pay.

And Americans wonder why the spread of their culture around the world is not always seen as a good thing.

I think you'd find most Americans to be just as disgusted as you are by executive pay. Most of us don't have delusions of some day being these CEOs living the high life, nor do we think its right that this happens. So I don't really think its "American Culture" so much as opportunistic assholes taking advantage of a system set up to benefit themselves.

[PainRack]

I think you'd find most Americans to be just as disgusted as you are by executive pay. Most of us don't have delusions of some day being these CEOs living the high life, nor do we think its right that this happens. So I don't really think its "American Culture" so much as opportunistic assholes taking advantage of a system set up to benefit themselves.

Would the term American corporate culture be acceptable then?

[kaeneth]

A lot of the problem is cultural. Japan, Canada, and European nations are not overrun with corporations which pay obscene monies to their executives, but they generally don't have special rules to discourage that sort of thing. Instead, people just don't seem to try to do it in the first place. But in America, there seems to be no shame. I don't know if this is contagious; a lot of American cultural ideas do eventually spread to other countries.

The rise of the large multinational conglomerate is indeed starting to drive this - executive compensation has to be seen as competitive with American executive pay.

And Americans wonder why the spread of their culture around the world is not always seen as a good thing.

You do realize not even all Americans see the spread of our culture as a good thing right? Especially that of our corporate culture which many of us disapprove of?

[Darth Wong]

You do realize not even all Americans see the spread of our culture as a good thing right? Especially that of our corporate culture which many of us disapprove of?

I'm aware that a minority of your population disagrees with the "what's good for corporate shareholders is good for America" mantra. However, that's all it is: a minority. Until it becomes a majority, the problem remains.

[Simon_Jester]

I can see where that comes from.

This corporatist culture does seem to dominate America; at some point it becomes irrelevant to the rest of the world whether it's 10%, 20%, 50%, or 90% that's opposed... given that it seems to be doing the same things anyway.

When plague spreads out of a foreign country into yours, are you really going to care that the people of the foreign country aren't all in favor of plague?

I think the percentage of Americans who, on balance, disapprove of corporate shareholders running everything is actually fairly high. It's just that they don't analyze the situation in those terms. Compare to cases where some country getting colonialized wound up with foreigners buying up 80% of the land (as happened in Algeria). It's not like anyone in the country really wanted to sell all the land to foreigners... but no one asked them if they wanted to do that. The only decisions the average person actually saw were small-scale ones, the sale of this or that specific plot to some specific person.

Likewise, a lot of Americans who, if asked "should large corporations own everything and reduce everyone to subservience on minimal wages," would say "no." And yet they are faced only with individual policy decisions... which just so happen to have the cumulative effect of bringing this about. Compare to the infamous frog in a pot of boiling water if you like.


But, again, this is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether this corporatist culture is 'American' or not. While Americans weren't the only people involved in its spread, it's still associated with the US to the point where it's fair to call it that.

[Darth Wong]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

Even the so-called liberals seemed to retort with the counter-argument that "the insurance companies will do fine with the new competition as long as they're run well": an argument which seems to implicitly subscribe to the assumption that we need to ensure the financial health of those companies. No one came out and said "fuck the goddamned insurance companies; let them all go bankrupt".

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, that's true.

[The Romulan Republic]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

Even the so-called liberals seemed to retort with the counter-argument that "the insurance companies will do fine with the new competition as long as they're run well": an argument which seems to implicitly subscribe to the assumption that we need to ensure the financial health of those companies. No one came out and said "fuck the goddamned insurance companies; let them all go bankrupt".

There's a perfectly good reason for liberals to not want more companies, insurance or otherwise, to go under: the already very high unemployment rate.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, theoretically it should more or less average out... but the temporary dislocation would still be real.

Of course, the liberal solution to massive unemployment, combined with the US's other problems, would be to finance a burst of infrastructure construction (CCC-style, if possible; it's not like we don't have a boatload of construction workers out of jobs because of the housing bubble), provide funding to keep teachers at work, and so on.

[Darth Wong]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

Even the so-called liberals seemed to retort with the counter-argument that "the insurance companies will do fine with the new competition as long as they're run well": an argument which seems to implicitly subscribe to the assumption that we need to ensure the financial health of those companies. No one came out and said "fuck the goddamned insurance companies; let them all go bankrupt".

There's a perfectly good reason for liberals to not want more companies, insurance or otherwise, to go under: the already very high unemployment rate.

That's a stupid argument. Government insurers would hire people too, and would not extract so much money from the economy or find so many excuses to deny coverage in the process, because they would be non-profit organizations with a legal mandate to provide universal coverage. You've been watching too much American TV. You've bought into their bogus pro-corporate politics.

[Darth Wong]

Well, theoretically it should more or less average out... but the temporary dislocation would still be real.

Well, the people who specialize in finding excuses to deny coverage or rescind policies would be out of work permanently. I can't see how that would be a bad thing.

[Darth Fanboy]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

I'm not going to say that you are mistaken, but in my experience concerns about "what will happen to insurance companies" are not nearly as highly prioritized as those related small to mid sized businesses having to add to their costs (which is bullshit propagated by right wingers) and those relating to having to spend more on tax (despite the glaring evidence that medical expenses in the US can be and are crippling to many families already and create a further drain on resources). Most of the concern about insurance companies just comes from people who want to appear as if they are protecting jobs and keeping taxes lower for the public and I don't think it is really as pervasive of a sentiment as you might think.

[Darth Wong]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

I'm not going to say that you are mistaken, but in my experience concerns about "what will happen to insurance companies" are not nearly as highly prioritized as those related small to mid sized businesses having to add to their costs (which is bullshit propagated by right wingers) and those relating to having to spend more on tax (despite the glaring evidence that medical expenses in the US can be and are crippling to many families already and create a further drain on resources). Most of the concern about insurance companies just comes from people who want to appear as if they are protecting jobs and keeping taxes lower for the public and I don't think it is really as pervasive of a sentiment as you might think.

As I pointed out above, what really struck me was not just the use of that argument, but the nature of the rebuttals to that argument. Instead of saying "fuck the insurance companies", they tried to say that the insurance companies would do fine.

[Darth Fanboy]

It makes more tactful sense to back off easily and not risk giving the opposition any political ammunition for now and gradually sway public opinion. Holding back a bit prevents the inevitable spin and its unfortunate that it is so much easier to tell a lie than it is to retract one, playing it wrong sets progress back. (Playing things right is beyond this current version of the Democratic Party in my opinion).

I would like to see the underlying problem of hefty lobbying dealt with as well, but if wishes were fishes...

[Eulogy]

As I pointed out above, what really struck me was not just the use of that argument, but the nature of the rebuttals to that argument. Instead of saying "fuck the insurance companies", they tried to say that the insurance companies would do fine.

Sheeple need to get used to the idea that corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such. They are legal entities created to be servants, not masters.

This whole bullshit line of thought is similar to a worried mother trying to reassure herself that her boy in Iraq will come back as someone who is not maimed or cold salsa. This is serious wrongthink; companies should have less rights than people. But these brainwashed morons don't understand that companies being treated like people is a bad thing.

[TheHammer]

When you phrase the question in a sufficiently perjorative manner, many Americans seem to be hostile to big corporations. However, I was watching the 2009 health care debate and I was struck by the way the American people seemed to find the "but what will happen to insurance companies" argument to be a compelling reason to oppose the "public option".

I'm not going to say that you are mistaken, but in my experience concerns about "what will happen to insurance companies" are not nearly as highly prioritized as those related small to mid sized businesses having to add to their costs (which is bullshit propagated by right wingers) and those relating to having to spend more on tax (despite the glaring evidence that medical expenses in the US can be and are crippling to many families already and create a further drain on resources). Most of the concern about insurance companies just comes from people who want to appear as if they are protecting jobs and keeping taxes lower for the public and I don't think it is really as pervasive of a sentiment as you might think.

As I pointed out above, what really struck me was not just the use of that argument, but the nature of the rebuttals to that argument. Instead of saying "fuck the insurance companies", they tried to say that the insurance companies would do fine.

The concern you saw wasn't for "insurance companies" it was for the people who work for those insurance companies and who have invested in them. Its easy to say "Well government will take over and hire people" - But as with any merger, there are bound to be layoffs for redundant positions such as your lower level managers, claims personnel etc. There really were no solid answers in that regard, hence the questions. Second, for people with signficant investment in those companies they'd be looking at serious losses with potentially no compensation - that hits your big investors as well as those investing via 401ks etc. In that viewpoint, wondering "what about insurance companies" seems perfectly reasonable. If the government plan were to destroy those companies with no contingency for the people who work for or invested in them, then that's something to be concerned about. Granted, Republican misinformation contributed greatly to this concern.

The reality is, most Americans only wanted two things from Insurance companies - that they charge a reasonable rate, and that they behave in an ethical fashion in regards to covering the healthcare they are being paid to cover. A lot of companies fall short of those expectations, to where they essentially would charge high rates and then go to great extent to deny claims. The HCR act was a good step towards rectifying that, although I do feel further steps are needed.

[TheHammer]

I think you'd find most Americans to be just as disgusted as you are by executive pay. Most of us don't have delusions of some day being these CEOs living the high life, nor do we think its right that this happens. So I don't really think its "American Culture" so much as opportunistic assholes taking advantage of a system set up to benefit themselves.

Would the term American corporate culture be acceptable then?

I suppose you could say that, although "American Corporate Culture" is in many ways foreign to mainstream "American Culture".

[Simon_Jester]

This whole bullshit line of thought is similar to a worried mother trying to reassure herself that her boy in Iraq will come back as someone who is not maimed or cold salsa.

...Huh?

Talk about brainwashed sheeple-morons aside... that mother is probably right, if you look at the casualty statistics.

[Darth Wong]

As I pointed out above, what really struck me was not just the use of that argument, but the nature of the rebuttals to that argument. Instead of saying "fuck the insurance companies", they tried to say that the insurance companies would do fine.

The concern you saw wasn't for "insurance companies" it was for the people who work for those insurance companies and who have invested in them.

Yeah yeah, this is the classic line of the corporate apologist: "I'm just concerned for the innocent employees of these big companies, and the little old ladies who invested in them!" By this logic, we shouldn't even step in to stop corporate fraud or monopolies, since they generate profits, which benefits those employees and investors. It's nothing but a clever rhetorical bait-and-switch, used to sell bog-standard pro-corporate policies in the guise of concern for workers.

Its easy to say "Well government will take over and hire people" - But as with any merger, there are bound to be layoffs for redundant positions such as your lower level managers, claims personnel etc. There really were no solid answers in that regard, hence the questions.

There's a solid answer: FUCK 'EM. These people are making a living by screwing other people on a service that is required for life. The government insurers SHOULD hire fewer people than all of these damned insurance companies, and while some of these bloodsuckers might lose their jobs (and some of your oh-so-precious investors might lose money in their portfolios), more than a hundred million of their fellow citizens would benefit.

Second, for people with signficant investment in those companies they'd be looking at serious losses with potentially no compensation - that hits your big investors as well as those investing via 401ks etc. In that viewpoint, wondering "what about insurance companies" seems perfectly reasonable. If the government plan were to destroy those companies with no contingency for the people who work for or invested in them, then that's something to be concerned about. Granted, Republican misinformation contributed greatly to this concern.

Why is it something to be concerned about? Those investors assumed the risk that the US government might follow the lead of every other first-world nation when they bought their shares. Investment entails risk, and the government should not be screwing over its citizens in order to take the risk out of investing. Hell, the entire rationale of allowing people to make large sums of money while sitting on their asses (with special favourable tax treatment, no less) and demanding ruthless corporate behaviour is that they are being rewarded for assuming risk. But no, we can't have that, can we? Instead, they continue to make money passively, but at every opportunity, the government is expected to sacrifice the publc interest in order to reduce or eliminate that risk: the very risk which is used to deflect criticism of those investors.

The reality is, most Americans only wanted two things from Insurance companies - that they charge a reasonable rate, and that they behave in an ethical fashion in regards to covering the healthcare they are being paid to cover. A lot of companies fall short of those expectations, to where they essentially would charge high rates and then go to great extent to deny claims. The HCR act was a good step towards rectifying that, although I do feel further steps are needed.

By their very nature, for-profit organizations will always try to give you less than you pay for. That's how they generate profit! It's one thing to do this with iPods, but morally speaking, it is quite another to do this with health care. This basic approach of pitting for-profit health care providers against regulators is only going to make health care like taxation: a giant bog of complicated regulations and loopholes which will only get more convoluted over time due to lobbyists on one hand and Band-Aid fixes on the other, which clever corporate lawyers will always find a way to slither through.

For decades, we've been hearing that government is congenitally incompetent and irretrievably inefficient, and that the private sector could crush any government organization with ease. The fact is that while this can sometimes be true, it is not a categorical truism, and the Republicans secretly knew it, which is why they insisted that the government not be allowed to compete with the private sector.

[Surlethe]

These people are making a living by screwing other people on a service that is required for life. The government insurers SHOULD hire fewer people than all of these damned insurance companies, and while some of these bloodsuckers might lose their jobs (and some of your oh-so-precious investors might lose money in their portfolios), more than a hundred million of their fellow citizens would benefit.

When they talk about simplifying the tax code, flat tax apologists always point to the droves of tax lawyers employed to find loopholes in the Byzantine tax code and say, "Think about how much better off the economy would be if those people could devote all their time and energy and intellect to producing something!" It's funny that you hint at the same argument, because I'd bet the same flat tax apologists would have a problem with its use in this context.

[TheHammer]

As I pointed out above, what really struck me was not just the use of that argument, but the nature of the rebuttals to that argument. Instead of saying "fuck the insurance companies", they tried to say that the insurance companies would do fine.

The concern you saw wasn't for "insurance companies" it was for the people who work for those insurance companies and who have invested in them.

Yeah yeah, this is the classic line of the corporate apologist: "I'm just concerned for the innocent employees of these big companies, and the little old ladies who invested in them!" By this logic, we shouldn't even step in to stop corporate fraud or monopolies, since they generate profits, which benefits those employees and investors. It's nothing but a clever rhetorical bait-and-switch, used to sell bog-standard pro-corporate policies in the guise of concern for workers.

Its a big step to go from saying there should be regulation and government oversight of corporations, which I'm in favor of, and putting them out of business.

Its easy to say "Well government will take over and hire people" - But as with any merger, there are bound to be layoffs for redundant positions such as your lower level managers, claims personnel etc. There really were no solid answers in that regard, hence the questions.

There's a solid answer: FUCK 'EM. These people are making a living by screwing other people on a service that is required for life. The government insurers SHOULD hire fewer people than all of these damned insurance companies, and while some of these bloodsuckers might lose their jobs (and some of your oh-so-precious investors might lose money in their portfolios), more than a hundred million of their fellow citizens would benefit.

Just because someone works for an insurance company doesn't neccessarily mean they are a bloodsucker. Granted, many of them probably are, but for the most part they are just people trying to make a living. If the government is going to step in put all of those people out of work and take over a multi billion dollar industry then its not unreasonable to have ask the question "what about the companies" in that industry. The answer to that question didn't have to be "They'll be just fine" or "fuck 'em", it simply needed to be a course of action to compensate people who did invest in the industry, and a plan to handle the people who will invariably lose their job.

Second, for people with signficant investment in those companies they'd be looking at serious losses with potentially no compensation - that hits your big investors as well as those investing via 401ks etc. In that viewpoint, wondering "what about insurance companies" seems perfectly reasonable. If the government plan were to destroy those companies with no contingency for the people who work for or invested in them, then that's something to be concerned about. Granted, Republican misinformation contributed greatly to this concern.

Why is it something to be concerned about? Those investors assumed the risk that the US government might follow the lead of every other first-world nation when they bought their shares. Investment entails risk, and the government should not be screwing over its citizens in order to take the risk out of investing. Hell, the entire rationale of allowing people to make large sums of money while sitting on their asses (with special favourable tax treatment, no less) and demanding ruthless corporate behaviour is that they are being rewarded for assuming risk. But no, we can't have that, can we? Instead, they continue to make money passively, but at every opportunity, the government is expected to sacrifice the publc interest in order to reduce or eliminate that risk: the very risk which is used to deflect criticism of those investors.

Investment risk is one thing, but the notion of an elected government stepping in and essentially seizing an industry is something else entirely. If it is to be done, there should be some sort of compensation. Even when governments follow the practice of eminent domain, and for the public good seize private property, the owner of that property is still compensated.

I'm not defending the practices of insurance companies. When they are posting record profits at the cost of denying people care they are entitled to it makes me sick. But there is more than one alternative to fixing the problem. Government regulation of the industry that stops the despicable practices they use to fuck people over would be effective in that regard. Some of that was built in to the HCR legislation.

The reality is, most Americans only wanted two things from Insurance companies - that they charge a reasonable rate, and that they behave in an ethical fashion in regards to covering the healthcare they are being paid to cover. A lot of companies fall short of those expectations, to where they essentially would charge high rates and then go to great extent to deny claims. The HCR act was a good step towards rectifying that, although I do feel further steps are needed.

By their very nature, for-profit organizations will always try to give you less than you pay for. That's how they generate profit! It's one thing to do this with iPods, but morally speaking, it is quite another to do this with health care. This basic approach of pitting for-profit health care providers against regulators is only going to make health care like taxation: a giant bog of complicated regulations and loopholes which will only get more convoluted over time due to lobbyists on one hand and Band-Aid fixes on the other, which clever corporate lawyers will always find a way to slither through.

For decades, we've been hearing that government is congenitally incompetent and irretrievably inefficient, and that the private sector could crush any government organization with ease. The fact is that while this can sometimes be true, it is not a categorical truism, and the Republicans secretly knew it, which is why they insisted that the government not be allowed to compete with the private sector.

I know the system is fucked up. But it was always too big to be something that could be fixed overnight. By no means do I view recently passed HCR as the final evolution of healthcare. However, it was a big first step. The final iterations of this will I feel lead to the end of the insurance industry, but there needs be a plan in place to deal with the investors and employees of that industry. That plan can not be to simply say "fuck em".

[Vendetta]

Its a big step to go from saying there should be regulation and government oversight of corporations, which I'm in favor of, and putting them out of business.

If there's an unequivocally better way of doing what those companies do (purchasing healthcare), then why shouldn't they go out of business?

US healthcare is the least cost effective in the western world, just about every other healthcare provision system produces better results for a smaller percentage of GDP.

What are the insurance companies doing that justifies their business model?

[Darth Wong]

Its a big step to go from saying there should be regulation and government oversight of corporations, which I'm in favor of, and putting them out of business.

Of course that's a big step. The amount of public interest involved in the case of health care is huge, and it justifies such a big step. Moreover, because the public option was deleted, this health care reform bill actually forces people to buy their product; not only does it fail to eliminate these parasites, but it actually forces people to enrich them.

Just because someone works for an insurance company doesn't neccessarily mean they are a bloodsucker. Granted, many of them probably are, but for the most part they are just people trying to make a living. If the government is going to step in put all of those people out of work and take over a multi billion dollar industry then its not unreasonable to have ask the question "what about the companies" in that industry. The answer to that question didn't have to be "They'll be just fine" or "fuck 'em", it simply needed to be a course of action to compensate people who did invest in the industry, and a plan to handle the people who will invariably lose their job.

Why? Every single day that these companies are in operation, they are hurting people. Why should we take our time to avoid pain to the people who profit from this injury, rather than hurrying to reduce the pain to the people who are suffering from it?

Investment risk is one thing, but the notion of an elected government stepping in and essentially seizing an industry is something else entirely. If it is to be done, there should be some sort of compensation.

Funny ... this is exactly what the South said about slavery, almost to the letter.

I know the system is fucked up. But it was always too big to be something that could be fixed overnight. By no means do I view recently passed HCR as the final evolution of healthcare. However, it was a big first step. The final iterations of this will I feel lead to the end of the insurance industry, but there needs be a plan in place to deal with the investors and employees of that industry. That plan can not be to simply say "fuck em".

Yes it can. Let the heavens fall, but fuck 'em.

Also, take note of Surlethe's post just before yours. He points out (quite rightly) that conservatives have absolutely no problem with the idea of eliminating other kinds of economically parasitic jobs.

If anything, all you're doing is exemplifying the problem I described before: pro-corporatism is so deeply entrenched in America that people have internalized it, and you are demonstrating that syndrome in action: you are trying to manufacture reasons why the elimination of economically parasitic jobs is a bad thing when they're corporate, even though it's almost universally agreed to be a good thing when they're public.

[ThomasP]

Its a big step to go from saying there should be regulation and government oversight of corporations, which I'm in favor of, and putting them out of business.

If there's an unequivocally better way of doing what those companies do (purchasing healthcare), then why shouldn't they go out of business?

US healthcare is the least cost effective in the western world, just about every other healthcare provision system produces better results for a smaller percentage of GDP.

What are the insurance companies doing that justifies their business model?

I like this point, because it hints at one of the most laughable ironies of the (allegedly) free-market, pro-business crowd: corporations themselves wouldn't exist without the fiat of government regulation.

Yet in the same breath as they decry state interference, they'll go to bat for corporate interests. It's stunning how the popular discussion never seems to acknowledge this contradiction, blatant as it is.