Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
When I awoke a short time ago my mind was in its usual morning fog that slowly dissipates as I go through my wake-up routine which includes laying out the 35 or so pills that I take to stay alive. That fog mentally is usually a jumble of wide ranging short thoughts that are later forgotten as the fog lifts after my first coffee. On the way to the bathroom for my morning ablutions I found myself thinking about the biggest news all week which had been the shutdown of the government and the crisis that ensued. Suddenly, as an idea arose that woke me from the fog. Political Theater, it is all political theater. The threatened shutdown by the Republican Congressman, led by John Boehner et. al. was merely a show whose purpose was to destroy the publicity that would have surrounded the inception of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dubbed by the conservative PR geniuses “Obamacare”. How obvious this was took my breath away and also gave me some chagrin that it took me so long to see this con job in the making, while I mulled over the ramifications of a government shutdown. As the President has said and as some Republican have opined the GOP’s great fear regarding “Obamacare” is that it will succeed. Since enrollment was scheduled to begin on October 1st, without the shutdown speculation dominating the news cycle there would have been much publicity on the beginning of people enrolling in the plan. There would have been actual discussion of the plan and not just the cacophony of misinformation deftly spread by well placed conservative rumor mongers, broadcast blaringly on FOX News and flacked by the innumerable leaders of the “Tea Party”. Our mainstream media would play their continuing game of false equivalence by blithely accepting all information as being equal and not bothering to supply context when lies are told in the service “informing” the public.
Instead we have a manufactured crisis that sends the ACA to the back pages of virtual news media and we have faux layoffs and service loss endlessly debated. Now in truth this thought make me even a little sad for those “Tea Party” congresspeople that haven’t been let in on the nature of the game, nor their role as pawns in the manipulations of some the wealthy elite in this country. As I explained awhile ago in these guest blogs: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/tea-party-and-the-myth-of-a-grassroots-movement/#more-38049 and http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/16/tea-party-a-phony-movement-mantled-as-legitimate/ the so-called “Tea Party” is not a grassroots movement, but the creation of the Koch, via an organization known as “Freedomworks” which they fund. On the Bill Maher show last Friday night one of his panel guests was the President and CEO of “Freedomworks” Matt Kibbe. From my perspective he was debunked by the panel, particularly Congressman Alan Cranston. What caught my attention though, was that Kibbe was at one point railing about how big government was run by insider lobbyists. None on the panel, or Maher, were perceptive enough to call him out on this since he is the quintessential lobbyist for the Koch Brothers. To my mind there is nothing to see here folks, move along and allow yourselves to be distracted by yet another manufactured crisis, designed to prevent you from actually evaluating the health care plan that is now available to you without adequate health care, or who are paying far too much for what should be a basic right of citizenship, health care. The Affordable Care Act is not my ideal of what American health insurance should be about because I believe in the “single payer” system used in most civilized nations. However, it is far better than what we already have and because of that should be fairly evaluated by the public. Perhaps though that fair evaluation will never get a chance since there are those who consciously work to distract us through propaganda, mythology and political theater into supporting what is in our own worst interests.
After I had written and posted this to my surprise I discovered this article in The New York Times. “A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?hp&_r=0 . A short excerpt:
“WASHINGTON — Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.
Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed “blueprint to defunding Obamacare,” signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.
It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.”
Perhaps my subconscious was channelling, but it seems that my idea through the morning fog has some weight to it.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Elaine,
As for publishing books, I think David has a take on the publishing industry that is more fantasy than fact. A friend of mine is a NYT best selling author. I collaborated with her on the book she published last year, and am mentioned in the book, so I know a little more about this than the average person. She is not broke by any means, but is also not independently wealthy.
OS – what is the name of your NYT bestselling author friend? Did she have only one book make the NYT bestselling author list?
I am very surprised by these recent posts. There are many modern examples. Not too long ago, another software developer wrote about how he took only a month to create a social media website, and then he turned around and sold the site for millions of dollars to a company. Is that exploitive or is he just lucky to find a buyer?
I had offered Abraham and Job as examples because millions of Jews and Christians consider both of these men extremely righteous men, yet they were also extremely wealthy. No matter what modern person I offer, you will probably find some way to demonize him.
Today is a busy day for me away from this blog, but here’s a quick story you might look at. A homeless woman becomes a millionaire in two years, and she didn’t even write anything. She marketed a weight loss program. Tell me if she is in your category of acquiring wealth through the evil exploitive means that you condemn. Go ahead and demonize her if you like. I’m just trying to get a handle on what you consider to be evil exploitive ways of acquiring wealth. I suspect some of you would change your tune if it happened to you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/crossingborders/2013/02/13/how-one-woman-went-from-homeless-to-millionaire-in-less-than-two-years/
bettykath: Thanks. I’ve watched Chris Rock’s skit three or four times. Unlike me, that guy can tell the truth and be hilarious. And his distinction is fair, some people out there can spend a million dollars a day and never run out.
[and Juliet]: Chris Rock is actually an example of what I consider fair-play in the wealth game; along with most entertainers (actors, musicians, sports stars, video game producers, etc). They are my go-to metaphor for the economy at large. The entertainment they offer is always a deal that we can walk away from without consequence. It is always a choice, and never anything we need to survive. It is possible an entertainer might exploit his employees, but I never worry about an entertainer exploiting their customers in the sales process. If Chris or Cher or Kobe wants to charge $2500 for a front-row seat, nobody is forced to buy or die, nobody is compelled by addiction or desperation to buy it. If they sell out and make a million a night — I’m glad, harmless entertainment makes the world a better place.
The same things goes for entertainment products and hardware, and much of the other stuff on the market. (Nobody needs an $800 chef’s knife, not even a chef.) But other products and services are borderline, or cross the line into coercion, servitude, and extortion. “Submit or die (or face lifelong disability or bankruptcy or some other catastrophic consequence)” is not a fair bargaining position in a free market, it is a violent ultimatum, and when issued by a non-governmental entity, it is coercion by threat. At least in my opinion.
It is why I lean toward a strong social safety net, the more we can ensure nobody is coerced just to have basic nutrition, clothing, shelter from the elements, education, health care and transportation, and equal and sufficient public safety and security in their neighborhoods, the less exploitation of consumers and workers we allow.
In my mind this is a major distinction between Business and Government; I think Government should be exclusively engaged in products and services that we (collectively by majority vote) do not think anybody should earn a profit by providing (because the customers cannot plausibly refuse the deal without facing catastrophe), and Business should be exclusively engaged in products and services that people can plausibly refuse to buy or engage in without suffering any catastrophic consequences.
In that sense (and this is not any philosopher’s position I know of, it is just my own thinking), and contrary to Republican lore (and some Democratic lore), Government and Business have opposite functions; or at least their domains begin at opposite ends of a spectrum; the Military and Law enforcement is at one end, a thousand forms of entertainment, harmless indulgences and luxury occupy the other end.
Elaine,
I don’t know enough about apps and software sales to know for sure, but if creating literary works is any indication, the royalty would be closer to 5-10% rather than 30-50%. If an app sells for about $3, to make anything close to really serious money, the creator would have to sell many millions of them. I have yet to hear of an independently created app that has sold like that.
And we are back to peons toiling in sweatshops to make it happen.
David,
That’s a pretty lame answer. There is no proof that Abraham and Job ever actually existed. However, for the sake of discussion, let’s say they did. They lived in a time when human slavery was commonplace and accepted. Both men would likely have owned slaves.
It is telling that you had to reach back to the bronze age to find someone to use as a response to Juliet. And even then, there is a 50-50 chance they were fictional characters, or perhaps a blend of several people, created by writers who lived years–possibly centuries–after they did. I give Abraham a better chance of being a real person than Job, whom I have always suspected was a parable rather than a real person.
As for somebody writing their autobiography and becoming wealthy. The next question is how did they become so interesting that millions would buy a book? You would have to step on somebody’s neck to achieve that status.
If you could create an app for a phone, I suppose it is possible, but how are you going to market it without taking advantage of minimum wage and part time people who have no insurance and probably no hope? And what about those people working in sweatshop conditions who make the phones?
davidm,
I’m waiting for you to explain how Juliet could become ultra-wealthy by writing her autobiography. Can you provide examples of people like Juliet who published their life stories and became multi-millionaires? How many books would Juliet have to sell to earn–let’s say–$100 million?
You need to provide more specifics on selling APPS. How much profit does an APPS creator make for eack one sold for $3.99 in an Apple store? Can you name some people who have become muliti-millionaires by creating APPS?
Tony, Thanks for another trip through economics basics. You do such a good job of explaining the complex.
Chris Rock’s explanation of the rich, those who receive big paychecks for serving the wealthy, vs the wealthy, those who write the checks to the rich. The rest of us are just fodder.
Elaine: Fun, aren’t they? I have a four year old, too. Pure joy.
BettyKath: We have a winner!
And I’m still waiting for DavidM to name a wealthy person who got that way without exploiting people.
Juliet N wrote: “And I’m still waiting for DavidM to name a wealthy person who got that way without exploiting people.”
How about two. Abraham and Job.
I’m still waiting for you to answer me about whether you would be exploitive if you accumulated wealth through writing your biography and others found it popular.
What if I accumulated wealth through selling mobile apps for the iPhone, which I sold for $3.99 in the Apple Store. If 10 million people a year bought just one app, I would be a millionaire. If I put out 10 apps a year that became popular, I would accumulate even more wealth. Is that exploitive?
Elaine,
I hope you’re not trying to discourage David from writing the story of his life.
Juliet,
I’m teaching my two-year-old granddaughter to count. I have a great time providing daycare for her. We especially enjoy reading books together.
Juliet,
Get to work right now! Put your nose to the grindstone and write the story of your life. Maybe you, too, can become as wealthy as the Koch brothers.
Nah. I’m too busy being deliriously happy, teaching my two year old to count.
davidm,
It’s highly unlikely that a self-published autobiography–or any auotbiography–would sell hundreds of millions of copies…especially if the author is unknown. Another thing to consider is the amount an author receives for the sale of each copy of his/her book. I believe the typical royalty is about 10%. Only big names/bestselling authors get large advances.
David: Have you ever heard Chris Rock talk about wealthy versus rich? I use his definition. You can Google it, if you’re unclear.
Nick: This from the person who uses “dago” in polite conversation.
David: Name one.
Juliet, You are certainly unequivocal in your stereotypes.
davidm,
Here’s a recent story about a homeless man from my neck of the woods:
Glen James, humble homeless man who returned bag of cash, is honored by Boston police
9/16/13
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/09/16/glen-james-homeless-man-who-returned-bag-cash-honored-boston-police/Cuy1OJqQ5PmGAwRxSRXKmO/story.html
A humble homeless man who returned a backpack full of cash and traveler’s checks to police said he felt “very, very good” to do it and used a ceremony honoring him at police headquarters to thank all the people who have ever given him money on the street.
Glen James said, “I don’t talk too much because I stutter.” But he handed out a handwritten statement in which he said, “Even if I were desperate for money, I would not have kept even a … penny of the money I found. I am extremely religious — God has always very well looked after me.”
The statement also said, “I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank everyone — every pedestrian stranger — who has given me spare change. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”
Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said that James’s actions were “really a remarkable tribute to him and his honesty.”
“He’s an honest guy and realized the property belonged to someone else,” Davis said.
The middle-aged man, balding, bespectacled, and thin, appeared friendly but shy and slightly overwhelmed by the attention from the media drawn to a feel-good story.
On his way out of the building after the news conference, the police department clerks gave him an ovation.
James said he had been homeless for several years. He chuckled as he said it felt good to return the money.
James’s statement also gave mayoral candidate Charles Yancey an endorsement, saying Yancey had put “a total of seven dollars into my panhandling cup. I fully endorse Charles YANCEY for Mayor of Boston. He cares!!!” the statement said.
James found the backpack Saturday at the South Bay Center in Dorchester, a sprawling suburban-style shopping complex in Boston visible from the Southeast Expressway.
After making his discovery, James flagged down a passing Boston police officer and handed over the backpack. The backpack contained $2,400 in cash, $39,500 in traveler’s checks, passports, and various personal papers, police said.
**********
Compare the story of this homeless man to the greedy pigs of Wall Street who tanked our economy and lost billions of pension dollars that working people were counting on for their retirement. Then the greedy pigs accepted/demanded huge bonuses the following year.
Maybe most of the people that I socialize with aren’t enamored of those who are wealthy.
You cannot accumulate great wealth without being willing to exploit people. I’d rather face that needle’s eye without a camel on my back, but that’s just me.
Juliet N wrote: “You cannot accumulate great wealth without being willing to exploit people.”
Many wealthy people are exploitive and selfish. Nevertheless, you can’t make the statement you just made and be accurate. There are exceptions.
Suppose you wrote a biography about your life, your trials and struggles, and how you persevered through it. Suppose that biography resonated with a lot of people, so you gave it to a publisher to sell or you published it yourself. Selling that biography, you would accumulate great wealth if hundreds of millions of people bought it. Would that make you someone willing to exploit people?
DM: you are just as guilty.
I am not guilty of celebrating their exploitation and making excuses for why the exploitation is good for them, as you are. I at least understand, when I buy, who the worst transgressors are and aim to avoid them when possible. So I may be guilty, but I am not just as guilty as someone like you that remains wilfully ignorant and demands the same predations be visited upon American citizens and dismisses the need for regulation and political action that would curtail that exploitation.
DM says: I find the spin you put on all this nauseating.
Good, if you are not as nauseated by your beliefs as I am, at least you are nauseated by something, as you deserve to be.
DM says: I have never seen people line up for jobs like that here in this country,
That is because people in this country have a safety net that keeps them from starvation. That is because in China they have no safety net, and business is booming because the “rich” you are so thankful to are “hiring.”
A one-sided market, which is what they have, is not a good thing, David. The employers have the leverage and the workers either work or starve. I know, that is what you want the world to be like, work or starve, even though it is virtual slavery, even though the value of the labor is far more than the workers receive, even though they are being exploited and their lives ruined.
There are more important things than money. The suicide nets should be a clue, not dismissed out of hand. People line up for the jobs because they do not want to die, until they work there a few years, then some of them would prefer death, and that is the reason for the suicide nets.
Are those the conditions you think should be called “freedom?” The free choice to either be worked to death or starved to death?
davidm said: “It is common for people to be more trusting of the rich, because experience tells us they are more trustworthy.”
Who,pray tell, is “us?” That is quite a generalization. That’s not what MY experience has taught me.
Elaine M wrote: “Who,pray tell, is “us?” That is quite a generalization. That’s not what MY experience has taught me.”
Maybe we are not visualizing the same people when I use the words rich and poor.
Imagine a woman driving a car suddenly getting a flat tire. She is not sure how to change the tire, and a man comes up to offer her help to change her tire. What type of man would she be more comfortable with trusting? Would it be a dirty looking homeless man or a rich man in a fresh suit of clothes?
My experience tells me she would be a little bit afraid of the dirty looking homeless man, but a little more comfortable with the rich man.
I remember a situation where one of my daughter’s and I needed a ride, and some scruffy looking poor people with a very old car offered to give us one. She was afraid to accept. She almost didn’t get in the car, despite my coaxing. She was hoping for a nice brand new car with a wealthy looking driver. I later had to explain to her that she should not look down on the poor, that I have always found them much more giving and willing to help out than the wealthy. She learned a good lesson that day.
So what’s your experience? How do you find people to be more trusting of the poor than of the wealthy and successful?
There is that . . .
DavidM: Then YOU exploit the poor, indirectly, by buying the products the “rich” get created by exploiting the poor. They don’t just create factories in places without minimum wage, which may sound innocuous to you, they create factories that virtually enslave people and cost those people their health and lives because nobody protects them.
What you engage in, for an extreme analogy to illustrate the principle, is the moral equivalent of buying child porn snuff films, when a person claims THEY did not kidnap and rape and murder the child, they just bought a video for the purpose of entertainment, which is just some numbers on a DVD. But by creating the market for the fruits of exploitation they fund and increase the problem. Sure, some psychopaths might engage in it anyway, but the profit motive knows no bounds, truly, and psychopaths will kidnap, rape and murder children for profit without qualms if people are paying for that.
You cannot wash the blood from your hands because you did not directly commit the crime. At a minimum, you should at least wake up enough to realize what the rich are doing in order to provide you those prices.
Perhaps the mezzanine level of awareness would be to recognize that does indeed harm you, indirectly, because your livelihood and ability to shop depends upon the infrastructure provided by the balance of society, and every job sucked out of America and worked overseas by effective slaves incrementally decreases the ability of our society to sustain that infrastructure; as the disparity in wealth increases we will reach a tipping point where you and I, as “nobodies,” will be no better off than the people you are so happy to indirectly exploit.
Tony C wrote: “Then YOU exploit the poor, indirectly, by buying the products the “rich” get created by exploiting the poor. They don’t just create factories in places without minimum wage, which may sound innocuous to you, they create factories that virtually enslave people and cost those people their health and lives because nobody protects them.”
Tell me how YOU avoid exploiting the poor? If you type on this blog, you are in the same boat. If you have a cell phone, computer, car, home, or ever eaten at a fast food place or bought clothes, you are just as guilty. I find the spin you put on all this nauseating. Tell me your solution or shutup.
I have paid attention to a few news programs that have toured China Foxconn factories. I’ve seen the suicide nets below the windows, and the working and living conditions. But I also have seen enormous crowds of people lining up for a chance to get one of the 235,000 jobs. I have never seen people line up for jobs like that here in this country, so whatever the situation, people there are not running away from it. They are running toward it. Some make it sound just awful how someone gets paid 25 cents an hour, but they don’t tell us how their housing only costs them $20 a month. Can things be improved? Of course. Apple just joined the Fair Labor Association, which they will pay six figures to audit their factories overseas. It really isn’t true that NOBODY protects them. You certainly are trying to do your part by making this post.
Although I have not visited these factories personally because they would not give me access, I have traveled through China. They are not this barbaric society you paint them out to be. You make it sound like our corporation CEO’s are going over there with whips and forcing people to work for us for pennies. That just isn’t happening. What is happening is that China is becoming richer and more industrialized, thanks in part to our enterprises over there, and Americans are becoming lazy and nasty toward others, preferring to lay on sofas watching television or surfing the internet or picketing Wall Street rather than working hard to earn a lot of money. Anyone who does make it successfully and earns a lot of money can be expected to be denigrated and shamed for his success by liberals. Just look at some of the recent posts from Mike Spindell that are directed at me or Nick Spinelli.
Sometimes people are “denigrated” because they’re jerks.
David,
The two billionaires you mention distinguish themselves by…. Giving back, treating employees well and knowing the people that work for him….. You don’t find that in most people in this status…..
Jill,
Like your post… Thumbs up….