Thursday, August 30, 2012

Romney Turned Down $30M Annual Salary...Opted for Power

By, Chris Rossini

From The New York Times:
Not long after Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race in early 2008, a titan of New York finance, Julian H. Robertson, flew to Utah to deliver an eye-popping offer.

He asked Mr. Romney to become chief executive of his hedge fund, Tiger Management, for an annual salary of about $30 million, plus investment profits, according to two people told of the discussions.

For Mr. Romney, who had spent the previous decade in public life forgoing any paychecks, the position promised to catapult him back to the pinnacle of American business and into the ranks of the stratospherically rich. Several friends and relatives urged him to accept. “Let’s put it this way,” said Mr. Robertson. “He could have made a lot of money.”
But Mr. Romney was uninterested. His mind — and his heart — were elsewhere, still trained in the raw days after his political defeat not on Wall Street but on the White House and an urgent quest: to be understood by an electorate that had eluded him.

Classic example of the law of diminishing returns.

At a certain point, even $30 million per year can lose its luster.

Unfortunately, on Mitt Romney's scale of values, being productive dropped below using government to remake the world in his own image.


  1. Phil Giraldi: "Unfortunately, on Mitt Romney's scale of values, being productive dropped below using government to remake the world in his own image."

    Yeah, I want politicians who are in it for the money, even after their election (sarc). What is your ideal? A politician who regards the Presidency as the best paying job he can get, and a steppingstone to even greater riches? Is he someone like Senator Harry Reid?

    What is your evidence that Romney wants to build a cult of personality, rather than guide the US to a better future for his grandchildren? Guide, according to principles which he has lived and announced.

    1. Romney could have stayed in the productive (private) sector of society. Instead he chose the coercive (public) sector.

      Whatever principles he has lived, he could have expressed without using the force against others.

      He chose power.

    2. "What is your evidence that Romney wants to build a cult of personality, rather than guide the US to a better future for his grandchildren?"

      Do you REALLY have to have this pointed out to you? you're kidding right?

    3. To Chris Rossini,
      You reply, but you merely repeat your claim. Yes, all politicians seek power. You seem to prefer the poor ones, as if giving up further wealth out of office makes that politician a worse bet. What is your evidence?

      To Mike,
      If you are going to call me ignorant, then please treat me that way. Help me learn. What is your evidence?

    4. I don't speak for Chris, but I don't think you get his point. To my mind, he is showing that even though Romney could have made a lot of money doing something productive in the private sector, he chose to seek power over others in the non-productive public sector. Now maybe you could justify that if Romney's goal was to take a position of power only to destroy power centers and return them back to the free market, but clearly he is vying for power to rule over others.

      My ideal politician is a non-existent politician, but barring that I would settle for a politician like Ron Paul who wants to eliminate power centers from existence.

  2. My mistake. I reply above to Chris Rossini.

  3. Andrew: No one is saying a poor politician is more preferable at all. However instead of being motivated by monetary profit which would at least provide the benefit of production in the *private* sector, politicians like these are motivated by power (which is actually a psychic form of profit praxeologically speaking)

    No one is saying he wants to have a personality cult. "Remake the world in his own image" is the bottom line despite any supposed good intention, of anyone who thinks their use of force is justified to *make* the world better place for their kids.

    And there's no 'guidance' in the voluntary sense. It doesn't make sense why we're forced to pay taxes for mere guidance. There is only force. The official GOP platform recently published already contains several examples force. Even in rhetoric, being "pro-business" instead of being pro-free-market is another use of force.

    Very few seek these positions to try to dismantle the system, or at least use it defensively (veto's, voting against) and try to educate others on why as Ron Paul as done

  4. I understand that choosing the better politician is like playing the game, "what would you choose if you absolutely had to choose: cutting off your hand or your nose?" Unfortunately, we are stuck in reality, without the option to say "I would rather play a different game".

    Chris Rossini blames Romney for giving up private, productive production and profits to become President. President is not Romney's most lucrative choice.

    If one's view is that US politics is ALWAYS an evil undertaking, then Romney would be more useful in the private sector rather than joining that evil, and we would be better off putting a less capable guy into power. That is an argument about the best allocation of human resources. That leads to the policy: elect the most stupid to office so they can't do as much damage. Unfortunately, politicians are capable of immense damage regardless of their stupidity.

    Remaking the world "in his own image" is different from "according to a different philosophy". I think everyone in this discussion wants to have a governing philosophy different from Obama's. And Obama can be criticized for additionally wanting to create a cult of personality.

    Two possibilities. (1) Romney is power-mad because he would give up a lot of money to be President. Or, (2) Romney has a balanced sense of what he wants to accomplish, willing to settle for $260 MM in personal wealth, foregoing another $300 MM, to have a great effect on his society.

    I don't see the evidence for (1). Romney's instincts and experience seems to be much better than Obama's, and that is the current choice. An argument against Romney at this point is an argument for keeping Obama. I don't see it.

    To npcomplete. I see your position as "US politics is ALWAYS an evil undertaking", unless the politician campaigns on tearing down the evil of government. I want a limited government too, but we don't get the choice "Limited" at this time. Maybe we can get "somewhat limited" at the moment and work for the better result. Romney to me is the better choice for that.