"Greed" is definitely the buzzword of the day. Whether you're talking retention bonuses, sub-prime mortgages, or Ponzi schemes, greed is what we've got going on.
The irony, as you point out, is that while we've been completely swallowed by the fallout of a system that is governed by greed, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that unleashing just a little more avarice will put us back on track. If drenching your house in gasoline makes it prone to fires, surely the proper remedy is more gas.
Market worship is one of the greatest scams of modern times. When times are bad enough to make it on the local news, we all become a little more aware of the dangers of unbridled capitalism. However, what we fail to realize is that fundamentally, nothing has changed. What we're witnessing is just a shift in the ratios inherent to the status quo. When prosperous people outnumber the poor 10:1, then times are good. When it's the reverse, times are bad. But if you're that 1 that is poor in both situations, is there any difference? How can we morally justify our willingness to qualify prosperity in disregard of the casualties?
Capitalism is the cult of concentration. The goal is to get as much disparity as possible in order to maximize the leverage. The trick, when economics meets politics, is to keep just enough people prospering so that they remain wonderfully indifferent to the suffering of others. At best, however, it's disingenuous for our society to pretend as though capitalism has only started hurting people because of some bad bankers. We're just uncomfortable because fewer of us are still perpetrators.
As you guessed, your last paragraph is most interesting to me. I don't quite understand how you're limiting the greed in your system, though. Truly, I think the only way to do that, and something I'd support, is to eliminate disparity. Greed is only a problem when people believe they can hold onto the piles of money they take from others. If you were not allowed to have more than your share and the rule is enforced, the incentive to stomp on others is removed.
So, what were you planning to do, Mr. Economist?
PS -- I think we can both agree that Obama is not a socialist, no matter how much I might hope for it.
The irony, as you point out, is that while we've been completely swallowed by the fallout of a system that is governed by greed, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that unleashing just a little more avarice will put us back on track. If drenching your house in gasoline makes it prone to fires, surely the proper remedy is more gas.
Market worship is one of the greatest scams of modern times. When times are bad enough to make it on the local news, we all become a little more aware of the dangers of unbridled capitalism. However, what we fail to realize is that fundamentally, nothing has changed. What we're witnessing is just a shift in the ratios inherent to the status quo. When prosperous people outnumber the poor 10:1, then times are good. When it's the reverse, times are bad. But if you're that 1 that is poor in both situations, is there any difference? How can we morally justify our willingness to qualify prosperity in disregard of the casualties?Capitalism is the cult of concentration. The goal is to get as much disparity as possible in order to maximize the leverage. The trick, when economics meets politics, is to keep just enough people prospering so that they remain wonderfully indifferent to the suffering of others. At best, however, it's disingenuous for our society to pretend as though capitalism has only started hurting people because of some bad bankers. We're just uncomfortable because fewer of us are still perpetrators.
As you guessed, your last paragraph is most interesting to me. I don't quite understand how you're limiting the greed in your system, though. Truly, I think the only way to do that, and something I'd support, is to eliminate disparity. Greed is only a problem when people believe they can hold onto the piles of money they take from others. If you were not allowed to have more than your share and the rule is enforced, the incentive to stomp on others is removed.
So, what were you planning to do, Mr. Economist?
PS -- I think we can both agree that Obama is not a socialist, no matter how much I might hope for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment