By Andrew Birnbaum
The other night I had dinner with an old friend who works at a hedge fund. We had been out of touch, so he asked what kind of law I have been practicing. When I told him I represent labor unions, he opined that unionized industries seem to be the most troubled. “As opposed to the financial services industry” was my sarcastic reply. Only a few hours earlier, Bear Stearns had basically imploded.
I am in awe of the financial service industry’s ability to convince us it is nurturing the economy while it continually diverts resources from the masses to the wealthy few. Supply-side proponents warn us of the evils of becoming dependent on the government. Instead, we are supposed to be dependent on the wealthy, hoping their expenditures trickle down to the rest of us. And if rich individuals and corporations use their tax cuts to open a factory overseas, too bad for American workers. I suppose those in power might claim that people should depend on themselves, not the government or the wealthy.
The fact is, we all need help sometimes. Even the big banks, as evidenced by the government’s constant actions this past month to ease the “financial crisis“ and keep the banks afloat. If dependency on the government is such a sin, why aren’t people telling the banks to become self-dependent? Isn’t that what poor people are told to do? To pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Hey, if its good enough for skid row…
People accuse Hugo Chavez of “buying votes” by providing services to the poor, and claim the only reason he can even help the poor is because of Venezuela’s massive oil wealth. Do they think it would be a better use of the oil profits to write a check to Exxon Mobil? Or to pass legislation that favors the wealthy few instead of the majority of Venezuelans? Have things become so backward that we actually believe it is corrupt for a politician to help the people he governs?
It is uniquely maddening--the United States government does not have the same motivation to help the poor as it does to help the rich. I imagine the justification is essentially another take on supply side arguments-that if the banks go under, the pain will eventually trickle down to the rest of us. But this begs the question, how did we become so dependent on private banks that our government has no choice but to bail them out? And how did we get to a point that regulated institutions are so poorly regulated that they need to be bailed out in the first place? Just what is it the government is regulating?
A quick disclaimer-my one and only “c” in college was in an economics class. I do not pretend to be an expert in the field. But as progressive advocates, more familiar with concepts of fairness and equality than with widgets and free riders, we sometimes shy away from the economics debate. And when we do leave the discussion of widgets to others, we are not doing ourselves or our communities any favors.
I have long considered economics to be the language of suffering. And not just because I got that “c.” Rather, it seems like people knowledgeable in the field often argue that the present system is our best chance for helping the poor, and that instituting more progressive policies would only make things worse. Instead, we eliminate the estate tax and lower the wealthiest peoples’ taxes. And yet-surprise-poor people are still here. It seems pretty simple to me. Economics is just a complex set of formulas that help rich people conclude that the best way to help the poor is to keep helping themselves. And I do recognize there are rich people who donate their time and tremendous amounts of money to help those less fortunate, and I honor them. My criticism is directed at the system and its proponents, not any individual persons or class.
My friend from the hedge fund is an awesome guy. Very bright and very generous, and a great debate partner. And that is the point. We need to be engaging in these debates. You do not need a nobel prize to know that banks fail or that they are failing now. We are living through it. So anytime someone tries to explain why unionized industries, compassionate public benefit policies, or government regulation does not work, remind them what happened the first quarter of 2008. Remind them that greed is not good. That unrestrained capitalism is not the solution. That denying direct aid to those in need is not the solution. That people are homeless, people go to bed hungry, people do not have medical care, and banks still fail. Everything is connected. If we are supposed to look to widget sales to decrease poverty, then we need to ensure issues of social justice are discussed at the widget convention.
The other side does not hesitate to criticize our “unworkable” ideas. Yet they have the power, they are in control, they instituted the current policies, and their policies are failing. We need to holler and we need to be heard. We need to fight for greater equality in the distribution of wealth. We need to ensure people are rewarded fairly for their often massive efforts in the workplace. Workers make the world economy run, but it is not workers who make the world economy fail.
Gay activists used to say that silence equals death. For those of us living comfortable lives in America, our silence on economic issues does equal death. Only it is not us who are dying.
Andrew Birnbaum @ shenluk.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment