Hahaha. no kidding.

I'm enjoying the discussion. If it's not interesting to someone, go find another post or post something yourself.

Yeah! What she (she? right?) said!!

I think questioning motivation is relevant here. We already agree that the action was wrong. The only left here worth speculating about is why would someone in his position purposely chose a course not in his self-interest.

..... I'm not assigning anything to anyone...and I really couldn't care less what he does with his money. Just trying to amuse myself whilst I work on my eBay listings...perhaps I'll amuse myself by posting another recipe then... sigh. (I wish my tone/inflections/intent (whatever) wasn't always taken seriously in here. The art of sarcasm seems to be lost on ye in thee Gulch...that makes me a little sad.)

Come on folks, there is plenty to do around here without trying to engage in mind-reading.

I already see way too much of that (i.e., assigning motives) from the other side. Let's not do it here, please.

I think the weird idiot is starved for attention so he donates his money away to get some....but look what he's been able to accomplished? There is now a new species of monkey named after him....Wow! (Head slap!) Now I'm wondering if his Father purposely removed him from making company decisions before he died or something. "Here's some money son, DON'T TOUCH THE BUSINESS...go amuse yourself somewhere else." Sheesh.

although now that I said that about the billionaire assuaging guilt, it might well be a self esteem ploy. After all, you could hardly give money to a campaign whose principals are" earn it yourself" if you just inherit. No, feels much better to give to a campaign who tells people "they didn't build that"

It is the total lack of understanding about how an economy works coupled with a strong desire to assuage perceived guilt or it is evil. either way, I applaud the CEO for assigning the blame where it belongs. The billionaire is just a dupe. A stupid dupe.

Yes...that was my point.

"Which is less despicable?"

Doesn't this amount to splitting hairs?

I agree and I don't know HOW the gov misses this point. Well, actually I don't think they "miss" it at all....they gain allegiance by taxing and punishing those evil rich bastards (who pay for everything and create jobs). As your posting comment says..."right out of Atlas Shrugged..." Gives me the willies.

Both cases are outrageous. There are probably 100s of real examples of this. I found the CEO's comments about the tax vs. job creation goals great.

Which is less despicable? James who IS still involved in the company (and holds some responsibility to keep the company going, but doesn't), or Stryker who has no involvement or responsibility in a company that is funding his life and whims?

In this case, the heir is not associated with the company-he just enjoys the fruits of his ancestor.

OK, I get it now.

James inherited (like Stryker, in the article, which was my point), Philip mooched from Hank, but they both funded the enemy. James is closer to a Styker (ha...no pun intended), than Philip.

Uh, don't you mean Philip Rearden-esque?

Wow, very James Taggart-esque.