Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When it comes to standard of living I can’t complain. Between a pension and social security I live comfortably, though definitely without luxury. I have no investments and minimal savings so that I in essence live from check to check, as do most Americans less fortunate. Would I like thousands in the bank, of course? Would I like to travel overseas, as I never have, of course I would. It would also be nice to have a luxury auto that accommodates my long legs, 72” 3D plasma TV and many other accoutrements of our consumer society. I know I’d enjoy them, but frankly I am content with what I have and do not begrudge those with far more material things, savings and income. In this respect I am decidedly a creature of what has been known up to now as the “Middle/Working Class”. It is a vanishing citizen category that I identify with most closely and is gradually through conservative policies being driven down towards underclass status.
In addition, my entire working career was spent dealing with those people who can be roughly characterized in American terms as the “Underclass” due to poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, mental illness, criminality and addiction. I know first hand the depredations suffered by this portion of our citizens and this knowledge via experience, is something not shared by most Americans. My work exposed me to the basic unfairness of our system and I must admit my experiences fill me with rage towards those who lack empathy for the ignored and maltreated. Some say that this disparity is merely the result of lack off effort on their part, or of the natural result of lack of ability. Those that do are basically people ignorant of how the American system works and the fact that the putative “race” towards the top is a fixed affair, in all of its’ aspects. Since this is a legal opinion blog I would be giving its purpose short shrift was I not to mention that inequity of result has been a standard of our legal system since our Country’s inception. With a few exceptions used to demonstrate the opposite, the truth is as Leonard Cohen states so eloquently “Everybody knows the game is rotten”.
To me it is a fact that inequality is inherent in our system. Please indulge me to look at what I find most perplexing in this state of things and why I think it exists. Why does it seem that many people, who have received so much benefit from the fruits of this nation, are so begrudging of having those less fortunate at least live more comfortable lives?
The tax cut that G.W. Bush bestowed on the wealthy came at the point that we had balanced the budget and were on the cusp of two wars. For those this tax cut benefited most, the gains were minimal compared to their incomes. Given that now the same party that pushed these tax cuts, causing the huge deficits, are now declaiming from sea to sea that we are drowning in deficits, yet refuse to let these cuts die. What is going on here? Their propaganda of course is that tax cuts stimulate the economy, in the face of the fact that the mass of Americans suffered economically under Bush II and that reality has proven their claims fallacious. The mythology of small government, tax cuts for the wealthy and tax relief for business is proffered by both parties, in thrall to the 1% and to the multinational corporations paying them campaign dollars. Bill Clinton played this game, as did Al Gore as they helped move their party rightward and then were “shocked…..shocked I tell you” that the elected officialdom in this country became more and more creatures of the extreme right wing and almost destroyed them. Barack Obama, has adopted Clinton/Gores adoption of the “government is the enemy theme”, put forth by a washed up movie star, repackaged as a “Potemkin President”. That Reagan recently polled as the “Greatest American President” is evidence of the effectiveness of the money expended on political propaganda, used to destroy the faith of the American people in its government and putative democratic processes.
After many years of being a political junkie and a partisan of a humane world, I have come to see that the various economic theories, the various political “Isms” and philosophies are mere chimeras used to gull the majority of people into acting in their own worst interest. While I can discern the logical methodology being used to complete the domination of the people, the purpose of doing so by ensuring that the lives of the middle/working classes and the poor become ever more horrible is more elusive to define. Although via my training in Gestalt Psychotherapy, I was taught to forget about the “why” and concentrate on “how” and what, nevertheless I need to discern the motivation because it seems so damned illogical to me. If you have enough of “everything”, so that what you don’t have ceases to be of importance, why want it all? You can only have so much wealth, own so many homes, drive so many extravagant autos and bed so many beautiful people. When does it become enough? When do you throw crumbs to the unwashed masses, so that they won’t rise up in distress and rage to overthrow you?
In my mind there are two strains that follow the motivation of those in power and seeking more. These two strains may overlap, or remain separate in different people, but in tandem they explain to me the why of this illogical behavior of destruction. The first strain I would call Narcissism, but not as narrowly defined as in the psychological sense. The Narcissist faction would include those born to be elite and those who struggled to enter the elite. The world is literally their oyster. They deserve it all. They are in their minds of a finer cut of cloth than the masses and so are entitled to be put on a pedestal of privilege.
The Narcissists require that they appear decidedly different from the masses. In a nation living in political and economic equality how would they stand out? In a nation not concerned with materialism, the advantage of their wealth would make them ordinary and “ordinary” is intolerable to the Narcissists.
This is a historical tendency best illustrated by sumptuary laws:
“In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.”
With the rise of the bourgeoisie, the merchant classes, the nobility whose wealth was land-based found that these “merchants” were becoming as wealthy as them and could dress in equal finery. Thus people on first glance could not differentiate who was “noble” and who was “common”. This was intolerable to the nobility, who in their narcissism felt their elite status was threatened. Indeed, the sumptuary laws in the end proved futile, as the merchant/banking classes succeeded to exceed royalty and nobility in wealth and bought titles, previously won hundreds of years before by combat. The merchant classes having equaled and in some cases replaced nobility, now became imbued with a similar narcissistic need. They had no desire to, nor could they “win their spurs” in battle. They could, however, become patrons of intellectuals who were more than willing to develop philosophies that would begin to exalt the benefits bestowed on the masses by this new elite and their necessity for the maintenance of a stable society. The end result was the same; however, wealth, privilege and most importantly status were maintained. “Winners” and “Losers” were once again apparent.
Today in America, among the modern Narcissists we can count the Bush Family, the Koch Brothers, the Mars family, the Walton’s, Mitt Romney and their Court Jester, Donald Trump. Having inherited everything they have, having been advanced far beyond their capabilities, they need to stifle the empty suspicion in their guts that they are not worthy. So they latch onto paeans to selfishness made up of empty concepts of political philosophy. The masses, so undeserving, are not entitled to any assistance. Their lives are meaningless in their scheme of things except as servants and canon fodder for wars that vicariously elevate Narcissists to noble status. The masses must be distracted by entertainment, cowed by embarrassment and kept economically helpless. At the same time the insecurity of the masses must be enforced by the propaganda of the “American Dream”, so that even with modest success they are deemed failures in the scheme of things.
The second strain that I see as being the underpinning of American class warfare is what I call the “Hucksters”. These are the opportunists, many of them sociopaths, who have intuitively understood that a large percentage of humanity wishes to follow rather than lead. Their followers, identified as “Right Wing Authoritarians” in the book I mentioned here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/ by Bob Altemeyer, are people who are slavish to the “wisdom” of authorities they listen to, excluding other viewpoints. These slavish, authoritarian personalities are not just denizens of the right wing either. Left or right the “RWA’s” as Altemeyer calls them, look for simple answers to the complex problems we humans face. They prefer the solutions that lead them to casting blame upon groups identified as “the other”, they want easy answers to issues of great intricacy and if cruelty and violence are deemed part of the solution, more the better.
The Hucksters have learned how to manipulate the RWA’s, through political philosophy religion and/or bigotry. A huckster may or may not even believe what they are selling, because to them the sale and their advancement towards power are the end game. When they do believe in something they are willing to sacrifice those beliefs in the service of the maintenance of their own status ala Bill Clinton. The current public examples of the Huckster are Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and perhaps even Barack Obama.
This is my explanation of the phenomenon we see repeated repeatedly in human history of the elite abusing the mass of people in the service of their own glorification. They have always been able to do it as shown by that earliest of human edifices the Pyramids. No doubt the thousands that slaved for years to create these edifices believed that the fortune of their Pharaohs was tied to their own and in this foolish belief we see the power that falsehood has in driving human activity. My point in the end is that the real impetus for the politics, policies and beliefs that seem to impel us to action, are merely the extensions of human egos at all levels of notoriety. Nevertheless, knowing this and imbued with the cynicism this knowledge causes, I still retain my idealism. My desire is to work to perform tikkun olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning “repairing the world”, despite its seeming futility in the face of rampaging ego-centric behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam That is why I write here, for given my rage at the unfairness at the heart of our society, I must do something.
You’ve presumably now read my take on why the seeming selfishness of the “Haves” has driven our world, when the wealth of it is such that all humans can live a good existence, even while the elite flourish. What is your opinion? Perhaps you can add to my knowledge with your perception of other motivations driving this irrational need to have it all at the expense of those with less?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.
Anon nurse,
That is one scary story about Goldman Sachs, from someone on the inside. I am guessing the hit jobs are being written about him right now.
anon nurse, I was getting ready to post that link. lol
“Where’s the incentive to play fair and do well, when what we see rewarded at the highest levels of society is failure, stupidity, incompetence and meanness? If this is what winning in our system looks like, who doesn’t want to be a loser? Throughout history, it’s precisely this kind of corrupt perversion that has given birth to countercultural revolutions. If failure can’t fail, the rest of us can never succeed.” -Matt Taibbi
Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail
The bank has defrauded everyone from investors and insurers to homeowners and the unemployed. So why does the government keep bailing it out?
By Matt Taibbi
March 14, 2012 10:55 AM ET
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-20120314
Excerpt:
“In a pure capitalist system, an institution as moronic and corrupt as Bank of America would be swiftly punished by the market – the executives would get to loot their own firms once, then they’d be looking for jobs again. But with the limitless government support of Too Big to Fail, these failing financial giants get to stay undead forever, continually looting the taxpayer, their depositors, their shareholders and anyone else they can get their hands on. The threat posed by Bank of America isn’t just financial – it’s a full-blown assault on the American dream. Where’s the incentive to play fair and do well, when what we see rewarded at the highest levels of society is failure, stupidity, incompetence and meanness? If this is what winning in our system looks like, who doesn’t want to be a loser? Throughout history, it’s precisely this kind of corrupt perversion that has given birth to countercultural revolutions. If failure can’t fail, the rest of us can never succeed.”
Thanks for sharing that, Mike. S. Some of them are so very good — it’s an art form, of a sort.
I’ll keep reading the Baker book — with any luck, I’ll finish it before you post!
Mike S.,
I’m a little worried about Greg Smith, in the aftermath of his op-ed piece but he’s high-profile enough that he’ll probably be okay, at least in the short term. Some of these corporate types can be pretty vicious and vindictive, as we know…
I downloaded an excerpt of Baker’s book and haven’t yet finished it, for what it’s worth — I’ve also found it to be, as you said, “distressing and depressing.” Distilling it will be a feat, but I’m certain the article will be worth the wait. I’ll look for it down the line. No pressure… 😉
Over the years, I’ve lost a little money to people who turned out to be sociopaths. I was delighted when one of them ended up in federal prison for a few years. I’m guessing that he did pretty light time, though. A Club Fed gig, I believe.
AN,
In my first job with a non-profit, after I retired from Civil Service I created a ran a larger program dealing with the housing and care of dually diagnosed,
patients being released from mental wards. Once the program was up and running, I was forced to hire a Deputy Director, who had done a favor for the bosses family. I accepted him, trusted him and befriended him. Even got him a raise. What I didn’t know was that he was undercutting me behind my back. My suspicions were aroused when I met with his former therapist, who had been cheated out of thousands by him and warned me of his sociopathic tendencies. Unfortunately, within two weeks the Agency was in a fiscal crisis and they laid off three of the highest paid managers, of which I was one.
They gave my friend my position without a raise. Within two months he had been fired for sleeping with a client and for completely mismanaging the finances of the program. He was so good at his sociopathic abilities that to this day I remember him fondly, despite what I now know.
Mike, Sorry… I posted more of the article than I’d intended. Looking forward to your posting on Russ Baker’s book.
Some insights about the 1%?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?emc=eta1
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
By GREG SMITH
Published: March 14, 2012
TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
…and the article continues
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
(Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.)
AN,
Nothing to apologize for, great catch. Read the whole article and while I can’t say I’m surprised, it certainly is a sobering recounting of what may of us expected. I’ve never had any spare money for investments, but know many people who are investors and have always been amazed how many are so trusting of their brokers and financial adviser’s. The same people who would talk about the lies of car salespeople, will speak of their brokers in worshipful tones. Anyone who stands to make money off of your money must be viewed with skeptical eyes.
As for the Russ Baker book, writing the article is a slow slog for me, there is so much that is distressing and depressing in the book that translating it into 2,000 words is a heavy chore.
Sunny Peneka,
I agree with you that this was a fine posting from Mike.
Mike, Thank you very much for such a fine posting and all of your follow-up comments.
Blouise, Thank you for sharing the story of the man…so profound.
raff,
It was a chance meeting … never saw him again. But it was one of those off-hand comments that bumped my point of view to a different level.
Interesting fellow Blouise!
Mike:
the difference is that there are probably laws in place which require the land to be returned to a decent condition. Something I agree with by the way. The quarry industry also repairs the land once the quarrying is finished, they make parks out of them typically.
I dont have rose colored glasses, I hope the sharks restrain themselves and and dont rape the people and the land. But when McDonalds is paying $18/hour, I doubt people are thinking about the aftermath.
I was down in Huston in 1988, it was terrible. PhDs were carrying luggage at hotels. The oil bust was going on. But Huston came back and with 11 billion barrels of oil, it is going to be a very long time before the gravy train gets to the station.
I think things are different today, for one, in Mark Twain’s day there wasnt a sense of social responsibility (there I said it) which, I think, exists today. Now it may be due to some sort of marketing scheme but who cares if the end result is good.
“You bitch about the 1% and then you bitch about McDonalds paying $18/hour. You bitch about people making a shit ton of money because the land is supposedly “exploited”. I bet the people in North Dakota arent too worried. Money can fix a whole lot of problems.”
Bron,
I think making $18 an hour at McDonald’s is wonderful. I’ve also been to the beautiful but desolate of humans land of North Dakota. You’re right the people of N. Dak. are probably tickled pink now because in the miasma of an oil boom the money flows. Like all booms though it eds with a whimper and what happened is that most people derive little benefit afterwards. That is history, but I’m afraid you are unable to see things as they are with your rose colored glasses of free market capitalism.
Having spent time in the Dakota’s and having met the nice people there, I hope this works out for them. Knowing history and human greed the sharks will make out well, draw money away from there without developing or rehabilitating the land and leaving most people worse off then when it began. Read Mark Twain’s experiences as a prospector. Things are not any different today.
Blouise,
Beautiful!
Mike S.,
I once met a man in a Union Hall where he and I, along with a few hundred others, were waiting to get our “marching orders”. We struck up a casual conversation about life’s circumstances during the course of which he said, “About ten years ago I realized I had entered the middle class because I no longer had to steal to feed myself and my family.”
I gave him a questioning look so he continued, “Today I own a small house, a car, and my three kids are all attending college and living at home. My wife has a job and next month we are taking our first vacation ever. I haven’t had to steal anything for years and years.”
I jokingly replied, “Now somebody can steal from you.”
What he said next amazed me and I have never forgotten it. “That’s okay. Poor people only steal what they need. They leave the rest untouched. It’s the rich, who need nothing, who will take everything you’ve got.”
“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your DESTINY.”
(Unknown but probably taken from the Dhammapada Sayings of the Buddha.)
You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.
Mike Spindell:
The land is kept pretty pristine. They dont muck it up much.
And if the economy was good everywhere, well then they could move and find another job couldnt they.
Short sighted exploitation is giving hundreds of millions in government subsidies to green energy companies with no possibility of a viable company at the end. How many times has this administration done that?
How long is short sighted? I think the Bakken field will last for at least another few years what with an estimated 11 billion barrel reserve estimated and that will probably increase as time goes on. Probably decades.
I dont know Mike, I’ll take 18 dollar/hour jobs at McDonlds. Now that is a living wage.
I think you guys just dont want people doing well, it sure appears that way. You bitch about the 1% and then you bitch about McDonalds paying $18/hour. You bitch about people making a shit ton of money because the land is supposedly “exploited”. I bet the people in North Dakota arent too worried. Money can fix a whole lot of problems.
I bet the people of North Dakota are pretty happy right now. Contractors are probably busting their asses building houses and apartments and condos for the new workers and all the restaurants and other small businesses that will service the oil field workers. It is all so bloody marvelous, all those people making money and being gainfully employed and not relying on government. Bloody fuching marvelous.
Hopefully Washington, DC wont fuch it up for them.
“Free” markets and free people, a winning combination.
Just one of very many indicators that belie Hedgehog’s optimistic view.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/middle-class-really-three-decade-slump
Thank you, Bob.
Bron,
When the N.Dak oil boom is over and the land pillaged and ugly. Those who went there for the quick buck will no doubt move again. Leaving behind people who will be glad to be getting their minimum wage at McDonald’s. You call that “free market”, I call it sort-sighted exploitation.
ID707:
in North Dakota they are paying $18/hour plus a signing bonus at McDonalds. Do they do that in Sweden?
Just another example of how a dynamic economy helps the poor. You dont need minimum wage if you have a good economy.
Too bad the rest of the country couldnt drill for oil and build pipe lines. Why should only one state benefit when all the rest could as well if government would get out of the way.
Well done Mike.