Mitt Romney, wealth and frugality

[the fixer]

To start, I'm not posting this to have a political discussion. I saw this on the Post's website on Sunday and thought it was a fascinating look into Romney's lifestyle, which seems surprisingly Mustachian to me. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/for-romney-wealth-meant-both-freedom-and-a-trap/2012/09/29/2f7f9a80-0895-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html

Some choice bits:

Americans have elected many rich elites as president, starting with George Washington. But Romney’s wealth, estimated to be between $190 million and $250 million, is inextricably bound up with two cultures that are mysterious and misunderstood by many people: high finance and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[...]

In one year, he and his wife, Ann, gave away far more money — $4.2 million — than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, according to the 2011 tax return he filed two weeks ago. But he has resisted calls to release more tax returns, citing a wish to keep his charitable contributions private as one reason. “It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church,” he told Parade magazine.

That's about 2% of his assets that he donated in a year. I used to think there was no justification for having more than about $4 million, but combine this with MMM's post on charitable giving and I can see a somewhat legitimate purpose for making all that money: you can give it away over time.

Romney duct-tapes the holes in his gloves, duct-tapes the gap in his campaign bus ventilation system. He rinses and stacks the dishes at the sink before loading the dishwasher after family holiday meals. He picks up his own dry cleaning, pulls his own suitcase, eats at burger joints, counts his change.

While other rich people flaunt their acquisitions, the Romneys tend to flaunt their frugality. When another one of his sons fetched free wood pallets advertised on Craigslist, broke them down and used the discarded rough planks to repanel his “man cave,” his wife proudly chronicled the do-it-yourself project with photos and text on her blog.

When Romney goes to the movies, he pops a bag of his own popcorn at home, stuffs it into his wife’s purse and sneaks it into the movie theater so he doesn’t have to buy a snack he considers overpriced.

The candidate has thoroughly incorporated the modern instantaneous connectivity of his iPad into his now-frenetic life, but he downloads only free applications, friends say. He is so rigid about this that he continued to revise his speeches through a cumbersome process of text changes in e-mails, complaining all the while — but refusing to buy Apple’s Pages word-processing program because it costs $9.99. Finally, a senior staffer told an aide to buy it and download it onto Romney’s iPad when he wasn’t around.

There's lots more in the article, including some pretty anti-Mustachian stuff that's already been covered by other media outlets. I bet he just has a very anti-Mustachian wife that likes horses and huge houses.

[arebelspy]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Since the politics part is already going to inflame people, why not add another: religion.  ;)

I tend to feel that Mormons in general have a more Mustachian, less consumerist attitude.  But that's based on anecdotes, not data, so I can't say with any certainty.

[TLV]

I'm a Mormon, as is most of my extended family, so right there I can say that there are mustachians and anti-mustachians among Mormons as well.

[Donovan]

My fiance and her family are Mormon and her sister is actually attending BYU...and I'd say that the religion is filled with all types of people, just like most other large groups :P

[rugorak]

Anecdotal evidence from the few mormons I know from work, they aren't all frugal. In fact some are plain wasteful. It just all depends on the person I think. Same could be said about other religions too. Compare a Mother Theresa with a pope for example.

Hard to tell how frugal he is. Some comments he has made seem very anti-mustacian to me. And obviously examples of both in the article as well. Also hard to tell how much is real and how much is manufactured by the political machine (all sides have them). And an example is the fact he didn't take all his charitable deductions so his tax rate would stay above 13% when previously saying he wasn't dumb enough to not take advantage of all the breaks that were allowable by law. Not trying to start up a political fight, just saying seeing truth through politics is very difficult.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/no-virginia-mitt-romney-did-not-pay-14-1-in-taxes-in-2011-as-he-claims-he-paid-less.html

[Jamesqf]

Seems to display Romney's usual obliviousness to how most of the world lives.  For instance the closing comment about giving away his inheritance: I bet he didn't give away the connections that let him get the make-millions-doing-nothing-much job at Bain.  I do think almost anyone could have done as well at that job, if they were given the chance.

[Bakari]

What I don't understand is, if he is reasonably frugal (at least by millionaire standards), and only gives away 2%, what does he do with all the rest?
There's the horses, mansions, and campaigning, and the kids get a 100M trust fund if they keep working - still leaves a whole lot unaccounted for. 

I used to think there was no justification for having more than about $4 million, but combine this with MMM's post on charitable giving and I can see a somewhat legitimate purpose for making all that money: you can give it away over time.

That would be true, I think, only if anyone ever gave away much more than they kept, so that they were left with no more than $4 million (actually, that seems excessively high to me, but I'll go with your number).
Giving away $4mil - and keeping $200mil - just doesn't seem very charitable to me.  Charity should be judged by how much you keep for yourself.
This: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/addressing-panhandlers/msg25942/#msg25942 is generosity.

[grantmeaname]

I bet he just has a very anti-Mustachian wife that likes horses and huge houses.

For the record, Ann didn't take up horseback riding until she was diagnosed with MS and needed a form of exercise to maintain strength.

It totally amazes me that she has MS and the Romney campaign still can't present her to the public as someone likable.

[JJ]

Giving away $4mil - and keeping $200mil - just doesn't seem very charitable to me.  Charity should be judged by how much you keep for yourself.

I think it is not only unfair, but also impossible, to judge someone else's charity or generosity. $4M out of $200M in a year may seem like a small percentage but we don't know his game plan.  A big vision (if he has one - like I say, we can't know) can take a decade or two and a $B or two to realise.  Someone who has given away $4M in a single year is most likely operating at a totally different level to what most of us are capable of even conceptualising.

[tooqk4u22]

Giving away $4mil - and keeping $200mil - just doesn't seem very charitable to me.  Charity should be judged by how much you keep for yourself.

I think it is not only unfair, but also impossible, to judge someone else's charity or generosity. $4M out of $200M in a year may seem like a small percentage but we don't know his game plan.  A big vision (if he has one - like I say, we can't know) can take a decade or two and a $B or two to realise.  Someone who has given away $4M in a single year is most likely operating at a totally different level to what most of us are capable of even conceptualising.

And the fact of the matter is that he still gave $4MM, which he didn't have to. 

Also, given his history at Bain it is possible that a good chunk of his assets are in illiquid but cash flowing investments.

Also, like JJ said maybe there is a bigger plan ala if Warren Buffett gave away his 1st million there wouldn't have been $40B later to give away. 

Also holding on to the money and perpetually giving away that amount is a lot like a charitable SWR - the gift that can keep on giving. 

[PaulM12345]

Does that $4.2 million including tithes to the Mormon Church? I don't consider that kind of giving to be in the same category as spending on actual donations because 1) It is mandatory for church members; and 2) While the church is a non-profit entity, those donations are going to support a religious institution, not a direct charity. I know the LDS have good programs, but I believe that the bulk of their funding does not go to these activities. (Not trying to single out the Mormons here -  I would feel the same way if donations were for the Catholic church or other religious institutions)

Also, even if he tapes his gloves or whatever, it's hard to read a statement like, "He’s seeking to triple the size of the couple’s $12 million San Diego beachfront home and include an underground garage with an elevator lift" and consider him frugal.

[Jamesqf]

I bet he just has a very anti-Mustachian wife that likes horses and huge houses.

For the record, Ann didn't take up horseback riding until she was diagnosed with MS and needed a form of exercise to maintain strength.

Though one doesn't need a single million, let alone multiple millions, to own & ride horses.  I know a good number of people who do it on incomes in the $50-100K range.

It also still amazes me that people claim horse riding is exercise.  I'll often get off mine and run/trot with her for half a mile or so, just to get my pulse above resting rate.

[igthebold]

What I don't understand is, if he is reasonably frugal (at least by millionaire standards), and only gives away 2%, what does he do with all the rest?
There's the horses, mansions, and campaigning, and the kids get a 100M trust fund if they keep working - still leaves a whole lot unaccounted for. 

One simple way of thinking about it is our old friend the safe withdrawal rate. Assume your whole purpose in life is to give away money.. you don't take any expenses yourself. It turns into a simple endowment. You wouldn't withdraw beyond the SWW because you wouldn't want to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

So, he donates 2% of his assets, spends 2% of his assets acting like a rich dude. Not that unfeasible.

Now, does he really need to spend that 2% of his assets? No, he could live off $30K/year, but in the end it's not so much my business.

[tooqk4u22]

Also, even if he tapes his gloves or whatever, it's hard to read a statement like, "He’s seeking to triple the size of the couple’s $12 million San Diego beachfront home and include an underground garage with an elevator lift" and consider him frugal.

Agreed - there is no way you can claim being frugal just because you tape your gloves or wash your own shirt while having a $12MM house let alone it being tripled and I am sure his home in Mass is worth several million and the maintenance, repairs, utilities, and taxes for these homes is probably quite significant.  Talk about sweating the small stuff.....no sense minding the pennies if you are ignoring the dollars. 

[AJ]

What I don't understand is, if he is reasonably frugal (at least by millionaire standards), and only gives away 2%, what does he do with all the rest?

I'm not sure why we're looking at the 2% number. Don't we usually look at charity as a percentage of income rather than as a percentage of net worth? Romney had $13.7 million in income in 2011 and gave away $4.2 million of that - or about 30%. Could he give more? Sure, but 30% really isn't that bad, IMHO. I certainly don't give anywhere near that amount of my income, and it has never occurred to me to even calculate my giving as a percentage of net worth. It seems like a round-about way to tweak the numbers to make it look like he isn't giving very much. When you see a percentage that someone donates, you think income not net worth.

[Sylly]

Seems to display Romney's usual obliviousness to how most of the world lives.  For instance the closing comment about giving away his inheritance: I bet he didn't give away the connections that let him get the make-millions-doing-nothing-much job at Bain.  I do think almost anyone could have done as well at that job, if they were given the chance.

I agree with the first sentence. I even agree there's some truth to the second. However, I'd add that it's still admirable give away the tangible inheritance. Was he privileged? No doubt. Life isn't fair. Some people get a head start by virtue of to whom they are born, and similarly, with what gifts. I strongly disagree with the last sentence. Romney may put his foot in his mouth way too many times, but I do believe he's an intelligent man. To claim that "almost anyone" could do what he did either severely underestimates his capabilities, or you have a very high view of the general populace's intelligence (I don't).

[Sylly]

Agreed - there is no way you can claim being frugal just because you tape your gloves or wash your own shirt while having a $12MM house let alone it being tripled and I am sure his home in Mass is worth several million and the maintenance, repairs, utilities, and taxes for these homes is probably quite significant.  Talk about sweating the small stuff.....no sense minding the pennies if you are ignoring the dollars.

I don't know, I think there's a wide spectrum of frugality. I also think appreciating the value of a dollar is a significant part of it. While I can't fathom having multiple homes, let alone multiple multiple-million dollar homes, or make an off-the-cuff $10k bet, I don't think this necessarily contradicts the frugal habits. It may be that family comfort is a luxury he's willing to splurge on.

The anecdote below, for example, gives me the impression that while he's willing to forego convenience for himself, he's not going to impose his strict frugality on others (especially since he can afford it). At least, since I'm personally much more willing to splurge on others than give in to unnecessary spending on my part (even if it's a fraction of the cost), that's the lens I'm viewing this through.

Earlier in the campaign, before he received Secret Service protection this year and began using a chartered plane on the campaign, Romney flew coach and even refused to pay the $10 to Southwest Airlines to earn early boarding. But he had no objections to letting one of his top strategists buy a better boarding position — and expense it.

[Jamesqf]

To claim that "almost anyone" could do what he did either severely underestimates his capabilities, or you have a very high view of the general populace's intelligence (I don't).

Neither of those.  I have no particular knowledge of Romney's capabilities*; I just have a pretty low estimate of the intelligence needed to make large amounts of money in something like Bain Capital, IF a person can somehow manage to get on board.  It's like Bush the Younger having made large amounts of money off that sports team: not at all hard to do, IF you have the connections, but nearly impossible otherwise.

*But various anecdotes, from the dog on the car roof to this recent not knowing why airplane windows don't open, doesn't give me much reason to think his intelligence is all that great.  Then we could get into the whole thing about actually believing that story about Joey Smith and his magic spectacles :-)

[Done by Forty]

I like those anecdotes about Romney.  Good for him -- I think it's compelling that someone with so much wealth still exercises his frugality muscles and avoids waste.

Agreed on his giving, too.  Giving away 30% of one's income is admirable.  I'm not doing that.

[the fixer]

I think it's fair when evaluating someone's motives to think of their religious contributions as charitable, because that's how they see it. And if you're financially independent, I think viewing those contributions in terms of assets instead of income is the right way to go about it.

Take his total net worth of about $200M, then subtract all the illiquid and low-return assets like his real estate. He could safely live on 4% of the remainder, but I'll bet he's super-conservative and would only be comfortable with 2.5-3%. $4M is a huge chunk of that money.

Another way to think about it is division of labor. If Romney had devoted himself to going on missions for the rest of his life, maybe he'd just be average at it. But if what he's really good at is making and managing money, he can do way more good in the world by paying others to do the charitable stuff for him. If he gave a $100M lump sum to his church, unless they know how to manage that money it wouldn't do as much good as a steady stream of $3-4M/year for the rest of Romney's life; that makes it easier for a nonprofit to budget that income and use it productively year in, year out. Besides, a nonprofit would probably incur a larger amount of expenses managing a large one-time contribution; by donating annually Romney is basically working as a financial advisor to his church for free.

The dichotomy between his houses/horse and the frugal habits pointed out in the article is pretty strange. My best guess is Ann likes to live large, having also come from wealth, and Romney indulges that because he can afford it. If that's true, it seems like a good way to keep the marriage healthy; why let money ruin your relationship with the person you love when you can easily afford those things? It's along the same lines as letting his campaign staff expense a better airline ticket.

[grantmeaname]

If he gave a $100M lump sum to his church, unless they know how to manage that money

Every nonprofit with more than three employees understands how endowments work. The church's corporate structure is not simple, and they have 14M members. The notion that they wouldn't know what to do with a large donation is laughable.

[igthebold]

The dichotomy between his houses/horse and the frugal habits pointed out in the article is pretty strange. My best guess is Ann likes to live large, having also come from wealth, and Romney indulges that because he can afford it. If that's true, it seems like a good way to keep the marriage healthy; why let money ruin your relationship with the person you love when you can easily afford those things? It's along the same lines as letting his campaign staff expense a better airline ticket.

I'm really delving into the philosophical here and I realize I'm about to act like Mustachianism is some sort of codified thing, but it seems to me that Mustachianism is a system of contingent "ought-tos." Given you want financial independence, you must do X, Y, Z. If you do not do X, Y, Z, you are doing it wrong.

But here we are, criticizing someone who, by definition, is outside the reach of Mustachianism. He's already independent, giving to charity, and spending within his means. If you want to criticize anything beyond that you have to go to some other system, and from what I've seen there are a ton of other systems represented on this board.

So perhaps the disagreement here is just a disagreement of value systems and we can leave it at that. As such, it's not productive to criticize someone along those lines for the general public. It might be valuable for each of us to learn from his situation, but it's hard to see what.

OK. Bring on the, "but Mustachiansim means X to me," replies. :)

[arebelspy]

Well said, ig.

I think people would view certain spending as "wasteful," and that's the issue they have with it.

It's a few levels up from them on Jocob's Wheaton Eco scale for spending, so it seems wasteful.

You're correct in that many tenants of Mustachianism are hit (live below means, donate to charity, etc.), but it's not how they would spend it, so it's wrong to them.  Again, a different set of values, like you say.

[Sylly]

I just have a pretty low estimate of the intelligence needed to make large amounts of money in something like Bain Capital, IF a person can somehow manage to get on board.

I disagree with that assessment, but I suppose I'll agree to disagree.

not knowing why airplane windows don't open, doesn't give me much reason to think his intelligence is all that great.

Independent of politics, I don't like the trend of attacking the person instead of the policies. So one correction, and I'll leave this issue alone:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/mitt-romney-joke-joking-airplane-windows.html

In general, I'll also get behind this:

You're correct in that many tenants of Mustachianism are hit (live below means, donate to charity, etc.), but it's not how they would spend it, so it's wrong to them.  Again, a different set of values, like you say.

[PaulM12345]

But here we are, criticizing someone who, by definition, is outside the reach of Mustachianism. He's already independent, giving to charity, and spending within his means. If you want to criticize anything beyond that you have to go to some other system, and from what I've seen there are a ton of other systems represented on this board.

Just to clarify, I wasn't criticizing Romney's lifestyle (as Mustachian or not) in my above comment (I can think of a lot to criticize him for politically but his having a big house is not something I care about). I was simply stating that it is a stretch to call someone frugal when they spend so much money on their lifestyle. Warren Buffett, if I recall, has lived in the same house for decades. I would call this frugal (although I don't know anything else about his life). I feel like frugality is a global quality - you have to look at the big picture, not just individual behaviors. To use an extreme example, someone who spends lavishly on food, housing, gambling, private jets, etc. but then buys the generic version of ibuprofen at the drug store isn't frugal, even if they think that makes them frugal.

[Jamesqf]

not knowing why airplane windows don't open, doesn't give me much reason to think his intelligence is all that great.

Independent of politics, I don't like the trend of attacking the person instead of the policies. So one correction, and I'll leave this issue alone:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/mitt-romney-joke-joking-airplane-windows.html

Correction?  I think the appropriate term is "damage control".  The comments at that link address the question of whether he actually was joking, and whether joking in such a circumstance would be something a reasonable person would do.

However, I have to say that I don't agree that trying to evaluate a person's intelligence from their actions is in anyway an attack.  We're trying to decide whether this guy is a) fit to be President; and b) would be likely to do a better job than the incumbent.  Isn't his general intelligence, and his reactions to unexpected events, a legitimate target for scrutiny?

Then too, there's the bias of the writer of that article, when he says "...a guy as obviously intelligent as Romney...".  Now I don't know what his standard of intelligence is, but I haven't seen anything from Romney (or the other guy, FTM) that's persuaded me of his obvious intelligence.

[tooqk4u22]

Now I don't know what his standard of intelligence is, but I haven't seen anything from Romney (or the other guy, FTM) that's persuaded me of his obvious intelligence.

So glad you included the bolded bit (god forbid he doesn't have teleprompter in front of him) - I agree they are both terrible and I wish a third party could gain some traction as I believe most of us/general population resides somewhere in the middle.  But I am not hopeful because while we reside in the middle we generally vote on the side of a single issue and not the collevetive platform.

[PaulM12345]

(god forbid he doesn't have teleprompter in front of him)

Every politician uses teleprompters. Anyway, there won't be any teleprompters at the debate tonight, so if you think that's a measure of intelligence (I don't), we'll see how intelligent/unintelligent each candidate is in a few hours. (actually I won't see it, I'll hear it - I'm so frugal I'll be listening to it on my old-school radio. There, I brought this back on topic!)

[igthebold]

Just to clarify, I wasn't criticizing Romney's lifestyle (as Mustachian or not) in my above comment (I can think of a lot to criticize him for politically but his having a big house is not something I care about). I was simply stating that it is a stretch to call someone frugal when they spend so much money on their lifestyle. Warren Buffett, if I recall, has lived in the same house for decades. I would call this frugal (although I don't know anything else about his life). I feel like frugality is a global quality - you have to look at the big picture, not just individual behaviors. To use an extreme example, someone who spends lavishly on food, housing, gambling, private jets, etc. but then buys the generic version of ibuprofen at the drug store isn't frugal, even if they think that makes them frugal.

That's a good point. People who brand themselves as frugal ought to have a more holistic view of what frugality is. Co-opting the term or idea for populist purposes does seem disingenuous. But that's usually how populism ends up in the US context. Everybody wants to be a Lech Walesa or Mao Zedong without actually leading the working-class life they led that lent them the ethos they used to gain power.

On a lighter note, anyone seen the Patriot Game?

[arebelspy]

I agree they are both terrible and I wish a third party could gain some traction as I believe most of us/general population resides somewhere in the middle.  But I am not hopeful because while we reside in the middle we generally vote on the side of a single issue and not the collevetive platform.

Then vote a third party!  Please!

Encourage everyone you know to do so as well.  We have two parties only because a third party hasn't got 5% of the vote in the previous election(s).

[warped]

Now I don't know what his standard of intelligence is, but I haven't seen anything from Romney (or the other guy, FTM) that's persuaded me of his obvious intelligence.

Mitt Romney attended Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, at the same time, graduating from both.

That's why people state he's obviously intelligent.

He also co-founded Bain Capital.

Much of his wealth is in an IRA. (Interesting story - how does one get $100-200 million into an IRA?)

[grantmeaname]

Much of his wealth is in an IRA. (Interesting story - how does one get $100-200 million into an IRA?)

Get one that's 'independently-directed', then put in a stake in a company with low book value that then shoots up 10000%.

[grantmeaname]

Then vote a third party!  Please!

Encourage everyone you know to do so as well.  We have two parties only because a third party hasn't got 5% of the vote in the previous election(s).

Not voting is a perfectly valid form of political participation that sends a message of low political efficacy. If you don't want to deal with the whole lot (not that that's necessarily tooqk's stance), isn't voting for none of them an effective way to convey it?

And we would likely have two parties anyway, given the winner-take-all apportionment of electoral college votes.

[PaulM12345]

Grant, the problem is that a lot of people don't vote out of apathy, not as a form of political participation. So even if your aim is to communicate lack of efficacy, you get lumped in with the folks who could care less. The message it sends is "I don't care" or "continue to do as you like", rather than "I protest this system". So I think rebel's suggestion of a 3rd party is a better protest vote. Hell, write in "Mr. Money Mustache", like your signature says!

It's hard to see how not voting as a statement will lead to improvements in political systems. It can only lead to less accountability.

[Daley]

So I think rebel's suggestion of a 3rd party is a better protest vote. Hell, write in "Mr. Money Mustache", like your signature says!

We mustn't forget Vermin Supreme. I personally look forward to getting a free pony and seeing the establishment of zombie-based alternative energy if he's elected.

[grantmeaname]

Grant, the problem is that a lot of people don't vote out of apathy, not as a form of political participation. So even if your aim is to communicate lack of efficacy, you get lumped in with the folks who could care less.

Political efficacy is not just the commonsense addition of the two words. It's the sense of the electorate that the government reflects and responds to their views. With that in mind, your statement doesn't make any sense unless you lump me in with the apathy crowd, which I'd argue is painting with too broad a brush.

Hell, write in "Mr. Money Mustache", like your signature says!

I've thought about it.

It's hard to see how not voting as a statement will lead to improvements in political systems. It can only lead to less accountability.

With the winner-take-all elector all college apportionment, I don't see how a third party vote is any different.

[arebelspy]

With the winner-take-all elector all college apportionment, I don't see how a third party vote is any different.

Because you have to start somewhere.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, a party that receives five percent of the popular vote qualifies for federal matching funds for the next election.

We only recognize two parties currently because only those two parties get 5% of the votes.  Ross Perot picked up 18% in 1992, but officially ran as an Independent, so his Reform party did not benefit from it in 1996.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated.

Yes, we have a winner take all system, and despite what one may think of it, we have to live with it.

That doesn't make a third party vote a wasted one.  Because if it can hit that 5% threshold, then it starts gaining traction and hits the 15% and participates in debates and then maybe we don't just have a two party system.  Winner take all is irrelevant to that.

[Jamesqf]

Now I don't know what his standard of intelligence is, but I haven't seen anything from Romney (or the other guy, FTM) that's persuaded me of his obvious intelligence.

Mitt Romney attended Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, at the same time, graduating from both.

That's why people state he's obviously intelligent.

As I said, different standards of intelligence.  While a person CAN get into Harvard and obtain a degree by being intelligent, it's also possible (and probably a lot easier) to get in by having a father who's a Governor and Cabinet Secretary, and has lots of money.  Now if he'd gotten a BS from MIT, or even BYU, I'd readily concede that he's fairly intelligent.  But business and law degrees don't actually require any great intelligence.

Using Harvard as a standard of intelligence is probably not a good idea for other reasons: recall that George W. Bush graduated from Harvard Business School, while Obama graduated from Harvard Law.

[AlexK]

It's funny that people bring up Romney's wealth like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer to have someone who can't manage his own finances run the country?  I want the rich guy on my team.

Voting for Gary Johnson.

[Sylly]

Now if he'd gotten a BS from MIT, or even BYU, I'd readily concede that he's fairly intelligent.

Wait, what? I get MIT. But BYU, especially since they're owned by LDS?

[Guitarist]

Now I don't know what his standard of intelligence is, but I haven't seen anything from Romney (or the other guy, FTM) that's persuaded me of his obvious intelligence.

Mitt Romney attended Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, at the same time, graduating from both.

That's why people state he's obviously intelligent.

As I said, different standards of intelligence.  While a person CAN get into Harvard and obtain a degree by being intelligent, it's also possible (and probably a lot easier) to get in by having a father who's a Governor and Cabinet Secretary, and has lots of money.  Now if he'd gotten a BS from MIT, or even BYU, I'd readily concede that he's fairly intelligent.  But business and law degrees don't actually require any great intelligence.

Using Harvard as a standard of intelligence is probably not a good idea for other reasons: recall that George W. Bush graduated from Harvard Business School, while Obama graduated from Harvard Law.

So are you saying our current and last presidents were not intelligent as well?

[TLV]

Now if he'd gotten a BS from MIT, or even BYU, I'd readily concede that he's fairly intelligent.

Wait, what? I get MIT. But BYU, especially since they're owned by LDS?

What does BYU being owned by the LDS church have to do with that? Sure, it's no MIT, but it's accredited and certainly no worse than your average state school. If anything, the required religion classes on top of the regular coursework make it harder.

(Disclaimer: I graduated from BYU with a BS in electrical engineering.)

[Guitarist]

Perhaps there is a belief that being Mormon somehow benefits someone at BYU?

[Sylly]

What does BYU being owned by the LDS church have to do with that? Sure, it's no MIT, but it's accredited and certainly no worse than your average state school. If anything, the required religion classes on top of the regular coursework make it harder.

(Disclaimer: I graduated from BYU with a BS in electrical engineering.)

I don't mean to knock BYU (I don't have any knowledge of the quality of the school either way), but in the context of Jamesqft's

As I said, different standards of intelligence.  While a person CAN get into Harvard and obtain a degree by being intelligent, it's also possible (and probably a lot easier) to get in by having a father who's a Governor and Cabinet Secretary, and has lots of money.  Now if he'd gotten a BS from MIT, or even BYU, I'd readily concede that he's fairly intelligent.

..where having graduated from Harvard graduate schools could be dismissed as being due to family influence and wealth, one can claim the same 'possibility' with being a member of a multi-generational LDS family and graduating from BYU. Not saying BYU definitely does this, but I suspect any university has some sort of legacy admission process. Why highlight it in Harvard and not others?

[TLV]

Perhaps there is a belief that being Mormon somehow benefits someone at BYU?

Oh, it does for sure. Tuition is lower for Mormons there than for others, similar to in-state tuition at state schools, because BYU is funded in part by tithes. I don't see what that has to do with the earlier comments though.

having graduated from Harvard graduate schools could be dismissed as being due to family influence and wealth, one can claim the same 'possibility' with being a member of a multi-generational LDS family and graduating from BYU. Not saying BYU definitely does this, but I suspect any university has some sort of legacy admission process. Why highlight it in Harvard and not others?

@Sylly: I see what you mean now. I was looking more at "difficulty of graduating once admitted" than "difficulty of being admitted" (and personally I disagree with Jamesqf - being admitted could be a result of connections, but doing both law and business graduate degrees simultaneously has got to be a huge course load, albeit requiring a different skillset than STEM majors.)

I am surprised, though, that anyone would think BYU's undergraduate admissions were anywhere near as competitive as Harvard's graduate admissions - 60%+ admissions rates (and much higher historically) vs. ~10%.

[Jamesqf]

It's funny that people bring up Romney's wealth like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer to have someone who can't manage his own finances run the country?  I want the rich guy on my team.

It's not his wealth, it's the way he obtained it.  As with G.W. Bush, the opportunities that made his money were pretty much handed to him through family connections.  As was the case with Bush, I think this has given him the false impression that he does know how to manage money, and by extension, the economy.

Voting for Gary Johnson.

Me too, probably.  Both he and Romney are fairly rich, but look at the difference in the way they made their money.

PS: To clairify, I don't object to either inherited wealth (Kennedy &c) or self-made wealth.  What I object to are the ones who really inherited their wealth, but pretend (maybe even to themselves) that it was all self-made.

[Jamesqf]

So are you saying our current and last presidents were not intelligent as well?

Yes.  I don't think anyone is going to argue about Dubya's intelligence.  As for Obama, if he is, why have we seen no evidence that he's been using it?

[grantmeaname]

I'll argue about Dubya's intelligence. Sure, the media caricature of Dubya is a dumbass, but have you ever met the guy? Do you have any clue as to his real intellectual ability, or are you basing your assessment of his person on sound bites and spin?

You could argue Carter was dumb too, based on his media appearance, but the man was a nuclear engineer...

[velocistar237]

These are politicians, who have to relate to the average person, so they can't be far from average themselves, or at least, they can't appear far from average, in order to get elected. (See Jacob's post.)

[Jamesqf]

I'll argue about Dubya's intelligence. Sure, the media caricature of Dubya is a dumbass, but have you ever met the guy? Do you have any clue as to his real intellectual ability, or are you basing your assessment of his person on sound bites and spin?

No, I'm basing my assessment of his intelligence (and Obama's) on the policies he followed, or failed to follow, during his term in office.

I always thought Carter did a fairly decent job, and would have done even better if he hadn't faced so much opposition from the Washington establishment.  Not great, but the country would be a lot better off today if we'd stuck with a lot of his policies.  And he was also pretty Mustachian in outlook

"Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns"