Bill, You make for good reading. Don't know if you have seen this on Steven J. Kaplan's Gold Mining Outlook. Words like collusion come to mind after reading it.
ROBERT RUBIN REDUX: There have been so many tributes to Robert Rubin's performance as
Secretary of the Treasury that it is necessary to submit an opposing view, if only for balance.
Consider what would have happened had Mr. Rubin decided to stay at Goldman Sachs: 1) MR.
RUBIN WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF--According to the New York Times, Robert
Rubin as a 5% owner of Goldman Sachs would have seen his stake in that company worth about
$1.5 billion dollars. Even if his stake had been reduced to 3%, this would mean $900 million dollars,
which when added to his current net worth of $100 million would make him a billionaire, or ten times
as wealthy as he is now. 2) THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
OFF--With Mr. Rubin jump-starting the U.S. economy, and prolonging its expansion, President
Clinton has felt that he can say or do almost anything and still receive strong public approval, thus
encouraging him to go down various paths which he is now beginning to regret. Had the economy
not performed as strongly, the President surely would have been forced to devote more time and
attention to properly managing world affairs. 3) INVESTORS IN U.S. STOCKS WOULD HAVE
BEEN MUCH BETTER OFF--If the Dow Jones Industrial Average had only gone as high as, say,
3700 instead of 9700, there would not be the current army of uninformed investors in U.S. stocks
who are about to lose 85% or more of their wealth in the bear market, since the drop from top to
bottom would be only half as much in percentage terms, and more importantly, far fewer people
would have decided to take the fatal plunge. The ensuing recession(s) in the first decade of the next
century would also have been much less severe, since most households would have still had enough
money in safe investments to cushion the bear market's negative wealth impact.
|
