Why Hate on Henry Kravis?

This video has been bouncing around the net. It's an appeal to socialism and an argument against the free market. Naturally I hate it, but dear readers, you have a right to know what the people who are trying to make the world a worse place (read: progressives) do in their spare time. This Claremont Conservative doesn't take day off when it comes to defending truth and excellence. (Yes, I did steal the CI's tag line.)

The latest from the progressive movement is this anti-Henry Kravis film. Henry Kravis is a wealthy Claremont McKenna alum who lives the high life after working like a dog. Kravis is a success story, if ever there were one. And yet this filmmaker would take it from him if he got his chance. Watch.



Not to be outdone, Robert Greenwald, the weasel who runs Brave New Films, held a contest encouraging people to send in video responses for his War on Greed segment. The winner advocates stealing all of Kravis's stuff. (Notice the studio makes no secret of its fascist ideological underpinnings. It unapologetically harkens back to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Social engineering, however noble its intentions, always ends badly. One hopes that the studio is simply ignorant of the book's message, though I doubt it.)

But while we're on the subject of contests, let me propose one of wits, not of emotionalism. I will make a Youtube rebuttal to this propaganda piece. If anyone wishes to join me when we get back to campus, they would be much appreciated.

I encourage you all to watch Greenwald's drivel carefully and critically so that you might see the socialism of the Left in full force. They actually try to blame the rich for the programs that they themselves advocate! The progressives, as usual, try to pull a fast one.

For starters, notice that Kravis fills a niche in the market and supplies jobs by the capital he ends up freeing. Blaming Kravis for having the sense and the wherewithal to help businesses (and by proxy, people) become more efficient is like blaming the Patriots for elevating the quality of football this season. This calls to mind the old phrase, "Don't hate the playa, hate the game." Of course, progressives who obsess about "good" capitalism versus "bad" capitalism, fair trade versus free trade, also hate the game!

Unsaid in this piece are the risks that Kravis, as with all businessmen, incur. Yes, Kravis takes on a lot of debt to rehabilitate these companies and yes, many of his expansions are tax write-offs. Instead, the film asks unintentional questions. Maybe if the companies didn't hire that dead weight they wouldn't need Kravis and crew to come in and overhaul it all? What's wrong with making companies, who pay enormous taxes from their earnings, more profitable? You see the workers Kravis fires, but you don't see the companies he grows or the workers they eventually hire. The progressive obsession with short term loss over long term gain is really missing its mark.

Yes, it's sad when employees are fired without anywhere else to go, but good workers, in an age of globalization, train themselves so as to be irreplaceable.

Brave New Films ignores the simple reality: Kravis took a risk and supplied a need. KKR employs 500,000 people, though he does fire people to streamline a company. By freeing up that capital and increasing the profits of those companies, those companies can turn around and invest more in their companies and hire more people.

This piece of socialist drivel then goes on to argue that Kravis pays fewer taxes than firemen, teachers, etc. Yes, and the reason for that is the very policy that Greenwald and other progressives argue for! Progressive taxation, which forces the rich to pay more than their fair share of taxes, is the reason the poor get hurt so badly. Yes, the rich, who use their influence to gain favors from Washington, fight hard for the tax exemptions in the code. And who wouldn't? When you are getting up to 37% of your money from the government, wouldn't you want to fight to keep as much money as you can?

You might argue, as this film does, that the trick is to close those loop holes that allow the rich to keep their money. Yet doing so undeniably hurts the poor who cannot get jobs that the rich provide. The rich, if they feel squeezed, will be less inclined to grow their businesses, and the poor, therefore, won't be employed. It's market forces at work, baby. What's more, if you allow the rich to keep more of their money, you'll allow them to contribute to charitable donations to nonprofits. Kravis and Day have done just that. On that note, maybe we should film all the students who get to attend Claremont McKenna due to Kravis et al.'s largess.

Now, this film ironically ends up making the case against progressive taxation. The only solution is the flat tax in which every citizen, irrespective of income, pays the same tax rate. You'll notice that one of the interviewees advocates just that, but of course, Greenwald cuts him off before he makes that statement. Progressive, indeed.

Your thoughts?