Ken Griffin vs John D Rockefeller

I’m not sure what to make of Andrew Samwick’s defense

of Kenneth Griffin, against the deprecations

of Paul Krugman. Krugman’s point is that Griffin makes more,

as a multiple of average earnings, than even John D Rockefeller

made in 1894. Samwick’s defense is that Griffin is not a monopolist, and is

"confident, contrarian, and accurate". He concludes:

I spend a lot of time around college students. I spend a lot of my energy

trying to get them to display those three characteristics. Krugman seems to

think that one "Kenneth Griffin" is overvalued at 4.5 "John

D. Rockefellers." On the contrary, I think it’s a buy.

I’m not sure that Krugman considers Griffin overvalued, per se. It’s just that

if you’re making over a billion dollars a year, you can certainly afford to

pay more in the way of taxes than someone scraping by on a few hundred thousand.

In reality, however, Griffin pays less in taxes than the upper-middle

classes, not more. In other words, the question isn’t how smart or valuable

Griffin is – it’s whether society has any interest in him keeping more

of his income than people much poorer than himself.

I’d also like to point out that if you compare the net worth of Griffin

and Rockefeller, I daresay that Rockefeller would still come out comfortably

on top. Income is a lot, but it isn’t everything.

This entry was posted in pay. Bookmark the permalink.