Recent reports from Rome indicate
that the Pope is calling out the nations of the world to deal with the great
problem of global economic inequality. I will reserve comment on the Pope’s
views until I can find out more about what he actually said. Today, I would
just like to focus on the way in which fragmentary news reports have argued
that the Pope had launched a full scale attack on Capitalism.
It would appear that the Pope has
been critical of a brand of Capitalism, the so-called “trickle down”
variety. According to the trickle
down theory, as the rich get richer many of the crumbs from their tables will
trickle down to the poor below. They will need servants, hairdressers,
gardeners, gamekeepers etc. American commentators have praised the Pope because
his words appear to be an attack on “greed”; the only one of the seven deadly
sins that liberals still believe exists.
Trickle down economics is kind of
a parody of real Capitalism. It is the way anti-business critics like to
denigrate the American system. These critics were brought up to visualize
anyone working for profit as Mr. Monopoly, or as Thurston Howell, the
millionaire on Gilligan’s Island, the popular but incredibly ignorant comedy of
a generation ago. But even if you look at today’s sophisticated TV fare you
will see that the villains are all successful white businessmen. Young black
men make up 70% of America’s prison population, but on the popular TV show “Law
and Order” 90% of the criminals turn out to be successful white businessmen.
Although more and more American
college students study business administration today, profit-making enterprises
are still regarded as somehow tainted in our popular culture. Working to turn a
profit seems somehow ignoble. It smacks of greed. Many college graduates would
much prefer to work for government or for so-called non-profits. Non-profits
are “good” and supposedly serve the public interest, but profit making smacks
of greed and selfishness. This attitude is seen everywhere in popular
communications media. Journalists,
movies, TV shows, and music lyrics never tire of hanging the greed label on
bankers, CEOs, and Wall St. brokers.
But recent news articles indicate
that darlings of the media and anti-business left wing politicians are not
immune to greed. Popular liberal movie stars like George Clooney and Matt Damon
each make over 20 million per film. Is that greed? I would guess that they make
more than twelve times what their stand-ins or stunt men make on their
pictures.
Recently New York Yankee star
baseball player Robinson Cano left the Yankees to sign a ten-year contract with
the rival Seattle Mariners worth $24 million per year. Did anyone in New York,
one of the most liberal blue states in the country, complain that Cano was
making too much money? On the contrary, the Yankees were blamed for not
offering Cano more to stay in New York. Certainly, no one suggested or argued
that all baseball players should be paid equally. Neither did anyone blame Cano’s
agent, the wealthy rap star JayZ, who will receive approximately 15% of Cano’s
salary for the next 10 years. Why isn’t JayZ considered greedy for making $3.6
million dollars a year from Cano’s labors?
Actually Cano won’t be able to
keep all the money. After deducting for JayZ’s share he will probably pay about
40% of his annual pay in the form of income taxes to Federal, State and local
governments. Some have suggested that New York’s high state and city income
taxes might have contributed to Cano’s move. Didn’t popular basketball star
LeBron James take advantage of Florida’s lack of a state income tax when he
moved from Cleveland to Miami a few years ago?
Pop stars and athletes are only
the tip of the iceberg, Why are today’s wealthy labor unions and their leaders,
especially the so-called public service unions, always exempt from the greed
label? They are no longer the downtrodden workers of yesteryear. Today, their
jobs are virtually guaranteed, their compensation exceeds that of the majority
of taxpayers who pay them, and their benefits and pensions are without equal in
the country. Why aren’t they considered greedy when rather than take a cut in
their pay or pensions, they would rather see newer members of their own unions
laid off?
One story in the news this past
week illustrates the free pass given to popular figures when it comes to the
greed label. The recent death of Nelson Mandela has sparked a wave of adulation
all over the world. Mandela was the face of the movement that brought an end to
the system of apartheid in South Africa. In a column over the weekend in the
Wall St. Journal Holman Jenkins Jr. revealed that Mandela was a member of the
Communist party in South Africa. Although he and his allies denied the fact all
of his life, only after his death did the deputy general secretary of the Party
reveal that “Mandela’s membership had been kept a closely guarded secret for
‘political’ reasons.”
I’m not bringing up Mandela’s
communism because I believe he helped to create a communist society in South
Africa. Apparently, it was almost the opposite. In his article Jenkins noted
that Mandala’s official party, the African National Congress (ANC), became
under his leadership “a party of revolutionaries turned business owners and
financiers.”
Jenkins cited a 2012 book, “Who
Rules South Africa?” by two respected journalists that provided some remarkable
statistics. Three quarters of the ruling Cabinet members have outside business
interests, as do 60% of the regime’s 400 members of parliament. In the impoverished
Eastern Cape, Mandela’s ancestral home, three quarters of government contracts
went to companies owned by state officials and their families. Cyril Ramaphosa,
a former militant leader and the country’s likely next president, is worth 65
Million, three times the net worth of Mitt Romney. Jenkins concluded,
One indisputable ANC success has been creating a new black business elite with a stake in preserving South Africa’s advanced capitalist economy.
George Orwell’s little classic,
“Animal Farm” ought to be required reading in all American high school
classrooms. It is less well known than his futuristic “1984” but
much more relevant today. In “Animal Farm” the animals revolt against and drive
out the oppressive farmer in the hope of establishing an egalitarian utopia. In
short order the wily Pigs turn the revolution to their own benefit and change
its motto from “all animals are equal” to “all animals are equal but some are
more equal than others.” In the chilling end, the once again oppressed animals
stare into the farmhouse window to behold the wealthy Pigs dealing with the
Farmer.
The funeral service for Mandala with the fake sign language interpretation was revealing in more ways than one. This video shows not only the fat cats but also that their words and speeches are never to be taken at face value.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment