Discussion
  • Read More
    Tom ScoccaHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 12:32pm

    The beautiful thing was that Sorkin started with the corruption inquiry into the hiring of the children of China's kleptocratic oligarchs. Then he noted that the American system has certain features in common with the corrupt Chinese kleptocracy. And from there, he concluded...that the cream just can't help rising to the top.

    Seems like there are rather different conclusions that could be drawn from the same evidence.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Nick DentonTom Scocca
      8/20/13 12:58pm

      Sorkin maintains that Chinese nepotism is no worse than that in the US. And can't see that how his examples look from another angle: the US is no better, no better than a country so riddled with corruption that the whole system is vulnerable. The only distinction between the US and China is that in only one does the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act apply. How about domestic legislation with the same teeth?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    A. Nonie MeusHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 2:04pm

    Devil's advocate for just one second. Take Chelsea Clinton as an example. She grew up in an environment where she was always surrounded by interesting people and resources, and one might argue she gained a degree of maturity and wisdom from her experiences. She went to an elite prep school; and then a top tier college. All of these things generally indicate a smart person who might even be qualified for some fancy well-paying jobs.

    I guess I'm wondering what, if anything, would ever remove the cloud of suspicion that none of her accomplishments are her own, and she was just "awarded" these jobs because of her connections or her famous dad. Is she morally obligated to become a rural schoolteacher or a public defender simply because any kind of lucrative 1% type of job will automatically open her to ceaseless accusations of favoritism, nepotism, quid pro quos, and so on?

    I think you can ask the same question of anybody who grew up in a wealthy or well-connected family. When I was in college, in a hoity-toity Ivy League school, I knew people who were sons and daughters of wealth or had famous names, but the vast majority of them were also smart and motivated to succeed, like everybody else there was. Just because the "smart" came from their parent's unlimited educational resources, and the "motivated" came from a sense of living up to their families' expectations, doesn't make it less valid than the same set of traits from a Nebraska farmboy, does it? There are FAR fewer idiots at these schools on legacies or on the expectation of future building naming rights than most people realize or would admit, because its such a tempting cliche.

    So then, you have a scion of some rich family who actually made something of himself (yes, with a lot of legs up) and got an education and all that without merely waiting to turn 21 and spend his trust fund on heroin. You have a person well-qualified for a wide variety of good jobs.

    I am not defending outright nepotism or favor trading among the elite, but I guess my question is, how can you ever disprove such an accusation short of finding memo to HR about how we have to hire this idiot Rockefeller kid because we need his daddy's business? How does Chelsea Clinton ever avoid questions about her legitimacy at every turn?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      InTheStillA. Nonie Meus
      8/20/13 2:32pm

      OK, now take George W. Bush off our hands, Satan. Because that heap of nepotism continues to gut a once functional country.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Pepper_AnnA. Nonie Meus
      8/20/13 6:33pm

      I get what you're saying. I think that Chelsea Clinton is an intelligent person and would most likely have gotten into the top schools without her connections

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JohnMcClanesSmirkHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 11:30am

    The impulse to refute systemic critiques with anecdotes is the mark of (A) a cynical propagandist or (B) a tiny, addle mind.

    "A culture of plutocratic nepotism and inequality undermines any notion of a meritocracy and erodes faith in our institutions."

    "Yeah... but someone I know who went to Stanford with this dude who married a Clinton and we all agree they're "intelligent". Lulz guys, bunch of moody stinkers".

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SaharaWMWJohnMcClanesSmirk
      8/20/13 11:50am

      I applaud you:

      "A culture of plutocratic nepotism and inequality undermines any notion of a meritocracy and erodes faith in our institutions."

      Smart kids of CEOs are smart and get hired, what's the big deal, unless you are one of the 99.99% of Americans who are not a member of this tiny wealthy well-connected elite and might wish to get a good job also?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RussianistJohnMcClanesSmirk
      8/20/13 11:53am

      Since I'm sure that Andrew Ross Sorkin is ... how to put this? ... "considered intelligent by virtually everyone who has spent time with him," I choose option A (though I'd imagine it also emerges out of self interest).

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    김치전!Hamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 11:32am

    Listen, fellow Poors: It has been way too long since we had a good riot. I say we melt down the bull statue and make it into pikes, then spit and brine Sorkin, Kindler, Sorrell, Rubin, and any other suit-wearing white people we find. Roast for several hours over a pile of burning tires and mortgage-backed securities.

    I call dibs on the eyeballs.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      thuggyBear김치전!
      8/20/13 12:27pm

      The cheek meat. I want the cheek meat.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    FavelaHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 11:34am

    NY Times Editor: No ‘Liberal Point of View,’ Actually ‘Cosmopolitan Outlook’ at Times

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-time…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      FavelaFavela
      8/20/13 11:49am

      I do not understand why some of my self-identified 'Liberal' friends, who are not part of this insular 'cosmopolitan' society, give this paper money. Why would you be proud to have a subscription to anything, let alone the Times, enough to tell people about it? It's hard for me to think of another case, ...maybe people who have all the Sports games available on satellite TV. Both are stupid to brag about, but where the sports tribalism identification is obvious to me, what exactly is the NYTs subscriber badge supposed to tell other people about you?

      I do not understand why they look up to, and aspire to be included into, this elitist point of view.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NonNeoNonConFavela
      8/20/13 12:42pm

      The NY Times posts lots of articles with many different view points. They assume that you the reader is an intelligent adult who can formulate your own opinions based on the information or opinion presented in the article. Maybe, just maybe, the editors fully realized the strong negative reactions readers would have to Mr. Sorkin's opinions, and that is why they in fact chose to post it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Thunder-LipsHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 12:50pm

    This reads out so very similar to the world of game of thrones its uncanny, the rich families stay rich and powerful fighting amongst themselves for every shred of power, taking casualties with little after thought, (Scaling back jobs to increase the bottom line). Look you even have to marry people from other houses.(hire them) to consumate a business deal(Joffrey hooking up with Margary). See everyone you don't need to even read the books to understand how Westeros works!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DanYilThunder-Lips
      8/20/13 3:34pm

      And if you want to work your way from the bottom to the top, you have to end up being some horrible human like Littlefinger.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LangostaHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 1:10pm

    If I ran a sports agency, I'd want to hire a guy with a network of athletes

    If I ran a magazine, I'd want to hire someone with a network of interesting people to interview

    If I ran a global investment bank, I'd want to hire someone with a network of rich and connected folks

    So what?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RussianistLangosta
      8/20/13 1:41pm

      So Andrew Ross Sorkin, who's a financial columnist for the NYT, is no-where close to being as brutally honest as you are about the primary hiring criteria for those people. That's what.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ernest LamonicaHamilton Nolan
    8/20/13 11:52am

    Does this explain Luke Russert or Chris Wallace or William Kristol or John Pohoretz? To the extreme. The last two Kristol and Podhoretz are the Sons of Sons Of Bitches. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were Facist Pigs who swore FDR was a Communist.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bugaboo550001Hamilton Nolan
      8/20/13 1:31pm

      For another example, let's follow the budding career of one Rose Kennedy Schlossberg (Mom: Caroline Kennedy, Dad: Edwin Schlossberg), who, after completing a mediocre Bachelor degree at Harvard (mom's an alumni), moved on (with Dad's help) to NYU's "ITP" new media graduate program, where she was awarded a Masters degree for an embarassing inanity called "End Times Girls Club" and then - surprise! - just got a job working for Hollywood producer David Milch (looking for the original employment ad? Yeah, well, there wasn't one).

      Any other, equally qualified young woman from the 99% would have attended SUNY and still be working at Starbucks, trying to pay off her college loans.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        RussianistHamilton Nolan
        8/20/13 11:35am

        Shorter Andrew Ross Sorkin: I cover the banking industry, but the one bank I'm not gonna cover is the Favour Bank.

        Reply
        <