I must say the Occupy Wall Street movement does the heart good. Something about pent up righteous anger, which can seem to occupy no space at all and is hence all too easily ignored, finding outward expression in the classic fashion of taking to the streets.
Does the head good, too, to see this physical manifestation of a logic that’s been there the whole time, but about which we seem recently to have been so confused. Namely, that our lives are significantly defined by an economic system which , whatever its virtues, rewards and punishes contrary to the values of the huge majority of the people it’s supposed to serve.
Even if, as the 1% prefer to think, the cream did rise to the top and the free market system rewarded the most virtuous—industrious, creative, useful, caring—it’s not a good system which systematically discourages and /or impoverishes the 99%.
But does the cream rise to the top?
It seems to me that the only question, as congress debates daring to restore a progressive income tax is: Do the wealthy deserve their wealth?
We take pleasure in the common notion that the rich “can’t take it with them,” w ith the implication that in the next world it’s a whole new ball game run according to much more equitable rules. But do those who get to enjoy it in this world deserve it in the first place?
The logic of capitalism, which we learn early in life, sounds good: market freedom in theory motivates anybody and everybody with a little “get-up-and-go” to produce needed goods and services and reap free market rewards. ( The implication is that no one would bother to get out of bed in the morning without a shot at becoming a billionaire.)
But we’ve known for a long time that, Horatio Alger and Ayn Rand to the contrary, that’s not how it works. There are those born with silver spoons in their mouths. Some of the most successful capitalists have been called Robber Barons. Every Christmas time we revive the cautionary tale of Scrooge.
As illustrated by many well-publicized examples since 2008, it’s not the cream—the virtuous, creative, inspired, caring–but rather the venial, selfish, ruthless, silly, eminently undeserving, that all too often rise to the top, as least as the top is defined by economic success.
Imagine arguing with a straight face to your child that the most secure route to financial success was teaching, or writing the great American novel, or social work coming up with a great invention to solve a great human need or caring for the sick. Such perfectly natural and idealistic goals are, to put it mildly, unreliably rewarded by our economic system.
Basic myths of the 1% to the contrary, the system is based on and more often than not rewards values counter to most of our basic value systems, Christian,.humanistic, democratic.
Warren Buffett , who no doubt has a knack for working the system, doesn’t brag about it and implies that more worthy than accumulating it would be to give it away to to people engaged in more noble pursuits.
I was recently in the hospital for a few days and was nursed by perhaps a dozen people, all of whom (as I think Buffett might concur) should in a fairer world be rewarded far beyond those who spend their time buying and selling on Wall Street. As Buffett suggests, those who spend their time focussed on the accumulation of wealth and its toys, should at least not be encouraged by the tax system.
So: power to those taking to the streets in critique of this troubling, troubled beast of capitalism. If capitalism really is the best conceivable economic system, we’ve known for along time it must be kept on a short chain. For most of our history we’ve had to correct for its grave shortcomings with progressive taxes, unions, social safety nets; democratic government itself. We are way overdue for the next large correction.
No Comments