Wall Street shocked, shocked that Dems are hostile towards them

posted at 11:36 am on February 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Wall Street turned out in force to support Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, many of us wondered why the nation’s financial wizards had decided to fund the redistributionists, populists, and class warriors. It appears that they have also begun to wonder that themselves. The New York Times reports that the same wealthy backers that helped Obama raise more money than any other presidential candidate have decided to switch horses for the midterms:

If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase.

Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama’s from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago’s Democratic dynasty.

But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts. …

A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on its political action committee’s contributions or relations with the Democrats. But many Wall Street lobbyists and executives said they, too, were rethinking their giving.

“The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

Wall Street fund-raisers for the Democrats say they are feeling under attack from all sides. The president is lashing out at their “arrogance and greed.” Republican friends are saying “I told you so.” And contributors are wishing they had their money back.

It didn’t take too much of Hopenchange for Wall Street to see the light, did it? Just a year of redistributionist policies, confiscatory tax proposals, and their constant demonization at the hands of Obama and Democratic Party leaders has convinced them that they made a bad investment.  While Wall Street deserves some of the blame for the financial collapse, they know better than anyone that the root of the financial crisis came from government intervention in the lending market and the insistence of Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securitize risky mortgages while passing them off as safe quasi-government bonds.

Of course, they also knew that last year and decided to play along with the man who seemed destined to win the general election.  Perhaps by supporting his campaign, they thought they could convince him to contain the angry rhetoric.  Instead, Obama has fueled the “pitchforks and torches” campaign by constantly demonizing the investor class as the villains who created the Great Recession.

Now, the scales have fallen, and as one executive told the Times, “If the President wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican, he is doing everything right.”  However, they only have themselves to blame for backing the raging populists and helping them to positions of power.  What else did they expect from that strategy?  For their shock, shock! that redistributionists and populists are hostile to Wall Street, the entire class gets a Captain Louis Renault Award.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

the stoopid frakkers couldnt place their bet on Hillary who was their own Senator and had a demonstrated record of you know, supporting capitalism…fools

ginaswo on February 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM

wear it proudly fellas. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

ted c on February 8, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The New York Times reports that the same wealthy backers that helped Obama raise more money than any other presidential candidate

This fact should always ALWAYS contain and asterisk and mention that BO’s record was aided in large part by small donars, locations unknown (including foreign), and total amounts uncounted due to having zero FEC standards applied to his money collecting web-machine.

Youngs98 on February 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

super smart power

la.rt.wngr on February 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Now, the scales have fallen, and as one executive told the Times, “If the President wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican, he is doing everything right.”

This just proves that they don’t do their homework. Hillary would have been just as progressive as Obama, perhaps not as quickly, but she would have been. Progressives have taken over the Democrat party.

deidre on February 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

This wasn’t the beginning of a beautiful friendship they though it would be eh?

Rocks on February 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

the stoopid frakkers couldnt place their bet on Hillary who was their own Senator and had a demonstrated record of you know, supporting capitalism…fools

ginaswo on February 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM

I laughed out loud.

PappaMac on February 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

What exactly are they afraid of? Their money helped elect this fool and now they’re afraid?

Knucklehead on February 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Yes, once your squeeze gives you the herpes, there might be a diminution of affection.

Akzed on February 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Who actually thought Wall Street types were smart?

tarpon on February 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM

So, it took a year for “the smartest guys in the room” to get it, huh?

Star20 on February 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM

All those people that thought Barry O’s campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric to fire up his base, and didn’t believe he would actually do any of the things it seemed he proposing are waking up with one hell of a hangover.

So many people thought he was just spouting talking points and once he got in office he would govern differently. Suckers.

He has no frame of reference for such a position of responsibilty. A resume as thin as his wouldn’t even get him hired as a junior consultant in a Fortune 500 company. Hell Chelsea Clinton, who got a 6 or 7 figure job as a consultant after graduating college has a better resume.

I only hope the next Ronald Reagan is waiting in the wings, because just like after Jimmy Carter, we are going to need some really big shoulders to put things right, and I don’t want some McCain clone winning in a landslide.

Just A Grunt on February 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Remember, these geniuses are in charge of your retirement funds.

Rhinoboy on February 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM

I still find it hard to grasp that there are intelligent adults who didn’t see through all of the BS of the Obama campaign.

Smart enough to do billion dollar deals, but rubes when it came to sizing up an obvious charlatan’s complete lack of character.

You bought a warehouse full of snakeoil from this jackass and you didn’t see this coming?

No wonder so many investment funds are in the toilet. A dartboard is more reliable than Wall Street.

NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM

These guys are too rich and powerful (read “smart”) to pay attention to Joe the plumber.

FOWG1 on February 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM

many of us wondered why the nation’s financial wizards had decided to fund the redistributionists, populists, and class warriors.

. . . because they thought they could make a deal.

Adam Smith reported this kind of behavior over 200 years ago.

Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Hmmmmm. If a lowly gal like me, from small town USA could see thru the muck,and identity Obama and company as socialistic, redistribution, anti American, anti capitalist chips on their shoulders communists….how could those brillian minds on wall street not have seen it?

I dunno. I just can’t believe this many people didn’t see this? Is that even possible?

capejasmine on February 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM

How about Morgan Stanley? There are way to many connections to them in the WH and the Fed.

Cindy Munford on February 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Wall Street shocked, shocked that Dems are hostile towards them

Then they are stupid beyond belief and fools to boot.

Physics Geek on February 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I can’t believe that they came right out and said this. Globama will not be pleased.

Key West Reader on February 8, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Up to this point, centrist Dems have had little or nothing to say about the left-wing total takeover of their party. Now, with elections looming and the thought of their political careers coming to an abrupt halt, they’re squeaking like a mouse, feigning surprise and indignation, all simply to save their political hides.

You can tell the world you’re going to “tax the rich”, but don’t complain when the “rich” decide your political career is over and the big bucks they invested in you are as dried up as….Well, you get the idea.

GoldenEagle4444 on February 8, 2010 at 11:56 AM

The East Coast elitists thought he was one of them. He went to Haaarvard. He won’t upset the gravy train. Well, he really is who we thought he was, at least if you were paying attention to actual evidence as apposed to listening to the fawning media.

LakeLevel on February 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I think that the more people like Palin come out and speak bluntly about what this man is doing to our Nation, it will encourage others to be candid about how they feel as well. And the Race Card ain’t gonna work, skippy.

Key West Reader on February 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

What part of “spread the wealth” didn’t these idiots understand?

rbj on February 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Wall Street historically sides with the Democrat machine. They learned long ago that, despite the bluster, the left can be counted on to make those lovely back-door deals that keep the financial leeches fat and sassy. And don’t forget about all that money they print up for “bailouts” and sweetheart public-sector deals.

It is a measure of Osama Obama’s total incompetence that he can’t even keep Wall Street happy with the way he plays traditional machine politics.

MrScribbler on February 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Dartboards easily beat most investment advisors. They are paid well for being good salesmen. As for Wall Street in toto, hopefully they are learning a generational lesson — you cannot trust a Dem. To them, you will always be a fatcat when they need someone to Demonize.

Scapegoat city.

GnuBreed on February 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I guess they found out that it hurts when you shoot yourself in the foot.

mchristian on February 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM

No wonder this bho, team, and the d’s are all bent out of shape about the SC decision on corp. giving. Poor babies aren’t getting any money!
L

letget on February 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Can’t trust big government,
can’t trust big business, either.

blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM

In the words of Joe Cocker: Cry me a river.

tru2tx on February 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM

I don’t think the Wall Street guys are stupid – just unscrupulous. The cosiness between big business and big government is, unfortunately, all too common (just look at Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs). So, when the big government goes for re-election, and they need to appear populist, the shareholders of the big banks are aghast, so the banks need to take “token” measures to satisfy them. That’s all there is to it, folks. It’s all an elaborate charade.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM

And these are the guys who advise the rest of us on how to invest our retirement money? Yikes!!

Cicero43 on February 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM

When Wall Street turned out in force to support Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, many of us wondered why the nation’s financial wizards had decided to fund the redistributionists, populists, and class warriors.

It goes beyond the fact that they live in a world populated by Limousine Liberals and Country Club Republicans. Statism makes up a large portion of Wall Street’s income e.g. treasuries, union pension funds, college endowments, state and local municipal bonds.

And since those customers are inherently political-and powerful- whereas private investors are not, it’s less risky and more profitable to support the statists rather than oppose them.

In short, Wall Street is less about Capitalism than Opportunism. But they don’t fully appreciate the fact that these customers don’t like them and actively work to harm them.

“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” – Vladimir Lenin

RadClown on February 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Cry me a river. These guys didn’t support Obama because of some ideology or patriotism… I’m betting they did so based on greed, or because they thought they were going to get some huge reward, i.e. the Maddox victims. Mr. President must have promised them something he didn’t deliver. Imagine my shock.

scalleywag on February 8, 2010 at 12:15 PM

can’t trust big business, either.

blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Big business can’t force me to buy their products.

Whereas I can be forced into Obamacare, so really there’s no contest there.

NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM

These big corps. don’t want to pay for healthcare

blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Let me just add to the Wall Street pile-on: You people are d*mb-a$$es. You ask for it. Now suffer.

WarEagle01 on February 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Big business can’t force me to buy their products.

Whereas I can be forced into Obamacare, so really there’s no contest there.

NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM

no doubt

i was debating a collegiate aged person about “corruption” in government and private industry.

all i said was
corruption in government has a lot more staying power. it’s “half life” is a lot longer.

blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM

“The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House”.

I wonder how long it will take the msm to out this person?

Johan Klaus on February 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM

They thought they could buy him.

But Obama is priceless.

profitsbeard on February 8, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Has anyone ever asked The Obama if he plans to do anything about the CEO pay and bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives?

jeffn21 on February 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM

<blockquote>”Just a year of redistributionist policies, confiscatory tax proposals, and their constant demonization at the hands of Obama and Democratic Party leaders has convinced them that they made a bad investment.”

Can we say that one man’s “market of ideas” is another’s refuse at the curbside? How many times does one have to feel their hands bitten off, before you stop putting them into the “lions cage of liberalism”?

Rovin on February 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM

If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase.

I’ve always wondered, if these types are this incompetent at something so basic, as determining where a politician stands, how competent can they possibly be at managing a single person’s portfolio?

Who in their right mind, would trust JPM?

MNHawk on February 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

In their defense, they didn’t realize he wasn’t lying when he was taking their money, shaking their hands, and promising that “I will take care of you.” He just used a different meaning for the term “taking care of” for these particular donors than is usually meant by politicians.

He was telling the truth when he was campaigning as a “Taking care of Wall Street Fat Cats” kind of guy. But how were they to know? All Democrats say this and it’s not like any of them mean it.

Lily on February 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Big business can’t force me to buy their products.

Whereas I can be forced into Obamacare, so really there’s no contest there.

NoDonkey on February 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Actually, if we think more about this, it is not quite true.

Obama claims (or, rather, claimed before the public option died) that the public option would just be *another* option – but we know better, than when the public option comes aboard, the private companies will be pushed out because of costs.

Similarly, a big business with lots of cash in hand can effectively out-price competitors (think of AT&T and IBM) by a variety of techniques (like outsourcing and taking temporary loss) which is impossible for smaller companies to emulate. Eventually, the big company is the only one which remains standing. There is a reason why monopolies thrive in industries like retail and technology.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM

“The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

So Wall Street learned a lesson the LGBT community (among others in the Democrat base) has consistently failed to comprehend.

TC@LeatherPenguin on February 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM

There is a reason why monopolies thrive in industries like retail and technology.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM

this is also true

i simply look at big businesses equally suspiciously as i do big government

im all about small to medium business — especially since they are the largest employer of the american people

blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM

So, it took a year for “the smartest guys in the room” to get it, huh?

Star20 on February 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Yup…smart and wise are two different things.

Patrick S on February 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I only hope the next Ronald Reagan is waiting in the wings, because just like after Jimmy Carter, we are going to need some really big shoulders to put things right, and I don’t want some McCain clone winning in a landslide.

Just A Grunt on February 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Can you just imagine Obama’s dilemma? He can’t figure out if he wants to be Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton—-Or remain a defiant institutionalist, subordinating Marxism in the name of providing for the proletariat.

Rovin on February 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Contributions to Barack Obama… in the Hundreds of millions.

Getting their man elected… Billions of dollars in government money to bail them out.

Getting egg in Wall Street’s faces because he wasn’t the savior they thought he was… Priceless.

There are some things that money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s Capt. Louis Renauld.

newton on February 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I’m so tired of the populist crap. All the hatred toward successful people gets real old.

search4truth on February 8, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Obama fails to deliver Hope; now needs some $$change to fund Democrat elections…

TN Mom on February 8, 2010 at 12:45 PM

search4truth on February 8, 2010 at 12:43 PM

I think the issue is more about *how* they became successful than the success factor itself. Most populists (both on the right and left) expect people to achieve success through sheer hard work and determination, and therefore do not pay credit to those who, in addition to hard work and determination, were also pushing the limits of law (to put it mildly) to outgun opponents.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people. Remember, these are the wizards of smart.

jukin on February 8, 2010 at 12:51 PM

All the hatred toward successful people gets real old.

search4truth on February 8, 2010 at 12:43 PM

The hatred is toward the ‘experts’ with as much expertise as a fencepost, the powermongering corporatists, and the various lobbyist groups that have almost totally stolen our representatives.

Dark-Star on February 8, 2010 at 1:00 PM

It may be time for the Wall Street types as well as any Captains of Industry out there (John Galts only, please) to have a symposium with Obama and instruct him on basic animal husbandry: That would be how the cow eats the cabbage!

kens on February 8, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Well, you know, sometimes you have to hit donkeys over the head with a 2×4 for them to learn. Are we learning yet?

Pablo Snooze on February 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Wall Street has no excuse. Info about Big Zero was there, his shady communist connections revealed long before the elections. Yet they finance him, I hope the worst will came over this morons.

On the bright side, all this idiocies committed by US government have affected all world markets, and people without economic background like me can speculate the stock market. Just buy after 0bambi talks, sell before it does.

Rookie on February 8, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Similarly, a big business with lots of cash in hand can effectively out-price competitors (think of AT&T and IBM) by a variety of techniques (like outsourcing and taking temporary loss) which is impossible for smaller companies to emulate. Eventually, the big company is the only one which remains standing. There is a reason why monopolies thrive in industries like retail and technology.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Is this so? Can you actually name these alleged monopolies?
You can’t because there are none. AT&T used to be a monopoly, but only because govt created and protected that monopoly.

Likewise the so called predatory pricing that you reference above, when tried in the real world, never works.

The only way to create a monopoly is for the govt to step in and create it for you.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 1:31 PM

The only way to create a monopoly is for the govt to step in and create it for you.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 1:31 PM

I suppose if you count when a corporation becomes rich enough to buy influence from the gov’t.

Dark-Star on February 8, 2010 at 1:33 PM

IBM was never a monopoly. Not even close.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Let’s not all forget that the House and Senate Dems were complicate in this big fraud. In fact, they started all the bills and were crying louder than anyone about the fat cats. I wonder how the donation machine is working for them?

hip shot on February 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I suppose if you count when a corporation becomes rich enough to buy influence from the gov’t.

Dark-Star on February 8, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Which is what I said.
The solution is to not create a big govt that has the power to keep companies small. It is to not give govt the power to create monopolies in the first place.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM

“The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

Middle class taxpayers have known this for decades. These guys are bitter because their investment isn’t yielding as much as they thought

I think the term is Political Capitalists…Privatize the gains, Socialize the losses.

Palin needs to give an entire speech detailing the nature of these people. Every time a Left/Dem says do it for the poor, these people know that largesse is coming their way.

r keller on February 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM

As instapundit likes to say, who’re the rubes now? Dumba55es. I have a cow college degree and I saw this coming.

juliesa on February 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM

There may be murmurs of disaffected Wall St execs but I don’t see the evidence that Wall St is abandoning the Democrat party en masse.

As some have already said, they’re opportunists before they’re capitalists. Furthermore, they won’t bet against a populist until the population itself turns against the populist. That may be happening now but it isn’t fully materialized.

There is a long way to go before Wall St embraces Republicans.

hisfrogness on February 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM

You lay down with dogs, you wind up with fleas…

liquidflorian on February 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM

IBM was never a monopoly. Not even close.
MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Really? Look at the software services industry (not to be confused with SAAS, I am talking about the support and maintenance of software systems like on mainframes) – and tell me if there are any creditable competitors to IBM (other than some Indian software companies, which, too, are gradually being acquired by IBM). How does IBM manage to do it? An excellent international outsourcing operation which ensures 2 things:

(1) most labor extensive maintenance jobs get shipped overseas

(2) the jobs that need personal interaction are, in most cases, done by internationals coming in on H1B or L1 visas and work for IBM for *half* of the national wage for software professionals. IBM’s hand is clean, because the work is done via “consultant” companies.

I would like to add that I am *not* passing a judgement or IBM or even saying that monopolies or big corporations are wrong. What I am saying is, they are as good or as bad as a big government.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Similarly, a big business with lots of cash in hand can effectively out-price competitors (think of AT&T and IBM) by a variety of techniques (like outsourcing and taking temporary loss)

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010

Did you write that on an IBM Selectric typewriter?

chimney sweep on February 8, 2010 at 1:51 PM

When the popularity dries up, the money is never far behind.

Done That on February 8, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Wall Street has learned from Sir Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”

crushliberalism on February 8, 2010 at 2:15 PM

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Aren’t you the same bozo who was lecturing us several months ago that all the major universities are liberal because all highly intelligent people are liberal? Why yes, I think you are.

Django on February 8, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Now, the scales have fallen, and as one executive told the Times, “If the President wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican, he is doing everything right.” However, they only have themselves to blame for backing the raging populists and helping them to positions of power. What else did they expect from that strategy?

In a surprisingly ironic twist of events, Wall Street seems to have taken a serious lesson from the successes of the Tea Party movement. At first, after what the Dems/Inside The Beltway movers and shakers did to Microsoft’s Bill Gates, causing him to buckle and start playing footsies with them to avoid more legal hassles and financial drains, Wall Street thought that they, too, could curry favor with the Dems. Only to be demonized and thrown under the bus, and largely made the Dems scapegoat, as Ed pointed out, for the blame for what’s being termed The Great Recession.

But Wall Street isn’t totally oblivious to what’s happening on Main Street. And they were paying attention when first NJ and VA were lost by the Dem’s overreaching attempts at power grabs and demonizing willing strawmen. Then WS saw what happened in MA, with the Tea Party movement fueling Scott Brown’s major win.

Now WS is putting into practice what they’ve witnessed happening on Main Street, joining in what has become a growing uprising. Everyday people who believe that Big Government has gotten out of hand have risen up to take back America from the shamsters and con artists and power brokers, and especially their perceived leader, President Obama, who it would seem is nothing more than a polished grifter.

Heck, Obama’s even alienating his favorite shills: the progressive factions of the MSM! What could make for better entertainment in our dysfunctional world today?

KendraWilder on February 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Reap what you sow fools!

FloridaMike on February 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Django on February 8, 2010 at 2:25 PM

What the heck? Please point to a quote – otherwise don’t throw out comments like this.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM

chimney sweep on February 8, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Please read my comment at 1:49pm to see *where* I think IBM has a monopoly – not really in typewriters …

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Really? Look at the software services industry (not to be confused with SAAS, I am talking about the support and maintenance of software systems like on mainframes) – and tell me if there are any creditable competitors to IBM (other than some Indian software companies, which, too, are gradually being acquired by IBM). How does IBM manage to do it? An excellent international outsourcing operation which ensures 2 things:

(1) most labor extensive maintenance jobs get shipped overseas

(2) the jobs that need personal interaction are, in most cases, done by internationals coming in on H1B or L1 visas and work for IBM for *half* of the national wage for software professionals. IBM’s hand is clean, because the work is done via “consultant” companies.

I would like to add that I am *not* passing a judgement or IBM or even saying that monopolies or big corporations are wrong. What I am saying is, they are as good or as bad as a big government.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Why should I have to prove that IBM isn’t a monopoly, when you have already admitted they aren’t.

Regardless, mainframes are a dying industrial sector. It’s not unusual for a single company to dominate either a rapidly emerging sector, or a dying one.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Please read my comment at 1:49pm to see *where* I think IBM has a monopoly – not really in typewriters …

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 3:13 PM

The comment on typewritters indicates why a temporary dominance by a single company, or by several companies, is never a problem.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM

What the heck? Please point to a quote – otherwise don’t throw out comments like this.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Unless there’s another “peter_griffin” registered here, it was you.

Django on February 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM

So when does a monopoly mean a monopoly of the *entire* economy? Any segment of the industry can be monopolized, and my example was concerning the monopolization of the software service business by IBM. Your point about the dying nature of mainframes is more to the point, but that still does not absolve IBM of monopolist tendencies.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Django on February 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Please point me to the quote – there is no way I can ever make such a comment, so unless you can provide any evidence whatsoever, you don’t have credibility.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM

These are the same people who bought into the idea that it would be a really great idea to loan money to people for homes who couldn’t afford them, then invested in bonds backed by these loans and thought everything was OK. Obviously they never paid attention in their business classes in college.

MeAlice on February 8, 2010 at 6:53 PM

So when does a monopoly mean a monopoly of the *entire* economy? Any segment of the industry can be monopolized, and my example was concerning the monopolization of the software service business by IBM. Your point about the dying nature of mainframes is more to the point, but that still does not absolve IBM of monopolist tendencies.

peter_griffin on February 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Where the heck do you get this entire economy nonsense? Noone has ever claimed that.
A monopoly by definition is one company controlling an entire industry.
And yes, it does have to be 100% of the industry.
And no, IBM never had monopolistic tendencies. Back in the day when mainframes were a going industry, there were 3 or 4 companies that were all competitive in that industry. Ever hear of Crays? When the desktop came into being, the mainframe industry started dying. As for major servers, which is what has come to replace the mainframe, once again, there are 3 or 4 major players, one of which is IBM.

So once again, you have failed to demonstrate that IBM is, or ever has been a monopoly. Nor outside of vague contentions, have you shown that IBM ever did anything to try and create a monopoly, beyond competing fiercely with it’s competitors.

MarkTheGreat on February 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM