Comments on: Vikram Pandit’s $350 glass of wine

By: mtmjr77

mtmjr77 — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:31:42 +0000

Justify it all you want… the bottom line is that it is shameful. I can afford it but I would not do it. There are 40,000 homeless people in New York City. I will try to look at the bright side… at least he didn’t go to the vomitorium after drinking the wine.

By: Jimadj

Jimadj — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:36:25 +0000

RROR- who paid for that episode of overkill? Why the usual- the taxpayer, or as Patik would prefer, the American Bhangi.

Patik hasn’t actually ever DONE anything in his life, has he, other than sucking on the wine bottle, sucking on the poor, and sucking on anything that he thinks will get him another sip of wine, money or greed. Kind of the indian version of ‘white trash with money’, don’t you think? lol.

By: rror

rror — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:36:41 +0000

Let the wine trickle down.

The vineyard took the restaurant.
The restaurant took Pandit.
Pandit took the Citi shareholders and customers.

I wonder who actually paid for that episode of overkill?

By: HBC

HBC — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:42:41 +0000

I’ll have whatever he thinks he’s drinking. Only difference is, I’ll actually drink it and be quite prepared to face any consequences.

By: maynardGkeynes

maynardGkeynes — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:15:58 +0000

Assuming a typical restaurant markup, the $350 bottle was probably closer to a $125 bottle at retail. I think the guy is entitled to a $125 wine now and then, given that I feel that I am, and I’m not running Citibank.

By: KidDynamite

KidDynamite — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:13:16 +0000

do restaurants really do that? take leftovers and re-sell them to other people?