|
Edited on Mon Mar-30-09 02:28 AM by lostnfound
Tim Geithner is on Meet the Press as I write this, saying that 'we are a nation of laws' as a reason why the multimillion dollar bonuses must be paid to Wall Street even though they are receiving bailout funds. You the reader probably see the hypocrisy of this, for we are not a nation of laws when it comes to enforcing the laws that were broken by Cheney & Bush when they authorized the use of torture. The extent to which our government prefers property over people -- whether in selective prosecution of crimes against property or people, or in foreign 'policy' -- is not often admitted, however.
US support for Central and South American dictators who favored large property interests are a persistent example. For a hundred years or so, our government has pretty consistently been fervent in its defense of the right of the wealthy to protect their property. Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" outlines the list of corporate-property reasons for early covert wars. William Blum's "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" carries it through into a comprehensive look at what our government has been willing to do for the sake of property. I have always been troubled by the contrast between stated US ideals and the horrors that government-supported entities have engaged in -- the terrorizing of peasant activists and union organizers, the attacks and assassinations of people who work to politically empower the poor. We claim to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in reality, liberty and happiness pursuits are usually equated to property, and only property is worth defending. We do not lift a finger when paramilitaries slaughter an impoverished activist and her family, and the paramilitaries may have even been trained at the School of the Americas, but a threat to tax the products of a banana plantation may "necessitate" an invasion.
Another pretense in our culture has to do with the ability of those with cleverness and courage to eke wealth out of our 'free market economy', attainable via some fantasy idea of a level playing field. In this fantasy, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and if you have a few dollars, you can invest them wisely and turn them into a fortune. My libertarian associate, a trust fund baby, has been indoctrinated in his youth (by those from whom he will inherit his future) that their family's wealth is the result of hard work and good stewardship of their resources, and perhaps there is some truth in that. But his last dollar is 'riskable' whereas his 10,000th dollar may not be.. If he had only $10,000 to his name, could he or would he risk putting $5,000 of it into a stock market gamble or into a new business, and what would be the outcome? If he has a 1 in 5 chance of quadrupling his money, but a 1 in 5 chance of losing it entirely, he would be foolish to risk his safety net, unless he has an assurance of recovery. Such a $5,000 investment is likely a good bet if he has $100K or more to 'play with'; or if he has safety net upon safety net. Pat yourself on the back for coming out ahead on your investments..
What are those safety nets? There's the trust fund. There's the professional education, which he earned, but which was largely funded by his dad. There's connections, were he desparate for a job, though he chooses not to use them. And if he were ever desperate, if he thoroughly failed, there could be the phone call of last resort.
The marginal value of another dollar to a person who is living hand-to-mouth is knowing where the next meal will come from or how to avoid getting the electric shut off. Food money is hard to risk, for the penalty is high in losing it. The marginal value of another dollar to the high-net-worth individual is as a tool to acquire still more dollars. Of COURSE you can use those last dollars in this way -- that's what they are there for. He would have been raised to think it was foolish to put all of his money in a low-interest bearing savings account, for example. He's been equipped to earn more.. Of course, now isn't a good time for the wealth-without-work of the stock market, and if he was smart enough or lucky enough to put it in a safer place before the crash (from his advisors, or from his cousin the banker, etc, who are still more parts of the 'safety net'), he can congratulate himself on good stewardship of his resources. More likely, the losses that are happening now in the stock market ARE affecting him, but if so, it is possible for him to ride it out for a while, without needing to eat his lunch money in the meantime.
The value of the first dollar that a person has in his pocket is far different than the value of the last dollar that some other person has in his stock portfolio, but we are steeped in a culture that pretends otherwise.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
