There is a group of people that do not see wealth they have made or inherited or found as something that is due to them wholly because of their efforts or the result of having good genes. God may have provided this wealth as an opportunity to lead change for the better. It is a power that they can use to help those who need help because others lives did not go so well. If they do not believe in a God then they look at this wealth as a responsibility and opportunity to do something good in the world in addition to creating more wealth. These people see themselves as part of a huge tapestry of humanity. They may see themselves as a leader, but also as a part of the whole of mankind. Humanity that is good, bad, or indifferent. They want to help weave this tapestry into a better pattern and see their wealth and power as a tool in that direction. They look for problems to solve outside their daily professions or sometimes within their professions. Wealth is, of course, a hugely indefinable thing. Someone who earns $30,000 in his first job may think that driving for Meals on Wheels and paying for the gas and car maintenance out of his tight budget the least of a contribution he can make to those who do not have an income or cannot get out to get food. A man like Tom Steyer who is a hedge fund manager worth 1.6 billion sees his opportunity in funding (hugely) environmental programs to keep people on the planet healthy while fighting the corporate energy companies that do not care about climate change, even though the CEO's believe it is happening.
The second group of people are those that see their wealth as their right. It is due to them because they were born into a family of amazing hard-working and smart people. OR they got their wealth because they knew how to work the system to their benefit. They were SMART. They do not think there is such a moral measure as a "fair" deal. You win or you lose and that is your opportunity or your failure. They are part of the good gene pool and they think those in the poor gene pool cannot really be helped. It is a Darwinian view that most are poor because they are stupid, lazy or weak. The losers are drug addicts, criminals, or not able to adapt to our changing world fast enough. This second group put their money into more growth or put it away in offshore banks where the socialist governments cannot "tax them to death." They can be the man who makes $30,000 in his new job and spends a portion of that hard-earned money on a few guns to keep him safe from the "others" that do not fit into his gene pool such as that loser neighbor next door who is some weird religion and untrustworthy by his odd behavior. They can also be the billionaire who runs for office and is not interested in being part of any group...Republican or European allied network or ANYTHING. The billionaire who owes his power only to himself and never sees himself other than a leader of others. He is smart enough to decide who wins and who loses and it sure as hell is not going to be him on the losing side.
Then, of course, there are a bunch of folks in between walking the tight rope trying to balance being good with being safe and with being financially secure and with keeping someone from killing them for disagreeing with them. At least that is my take on it right now. Maybe I am oversimplifying.
Nope, I think you're right. Though I did keep waiting for the phrase "...like Trump" to appear. I guess he's a special class.
ReplyDeleteI think we are a mix of the two extremes where sometimes we feel lucky and sometimes-- hey, we worked for it. It helps to get perspective to know those who worked for it and it all went bad through no fault of their own. I was thinking about this with the recent publicity given Zuckerberg's speech at Harvard where he seemed to see what he had as luck, while he is doing all he can to keep amassing more wealth. He fights against nationalism as he profits from the poor around the world acquiring his systems and advertising on them. We see it in most of the billionaires, who know how to talk the talk while they continue to pile up more money than they can ever use in any way. Gates is an exception as he works with his wife to fight malaria, a scourge around the world. When he gave computers to the schools though, not sure he was being generous more than making people figure we all need them-- which is where we are. With kids not knowing anyway to get info without a computer. And then we look at our own lives and what we do in terms of sharing or helping others and it's where the real emphasis has to be-- not on the oligarchs, other than to make sure our laws do not continue to benefit them at the expense of everybody else (and this didn't begin with Trump nor end under Obama, who is currently reaping the financial benefits of his eight years of 'work' *s*
ReplyDeleteZuckerberg created something himself...even if it came out a misogynist attitude to women as he was very young and nerdy then. I do not think he is forcing his product internationally. Certainly he is not forcing his systems on them and I think he is still young and naive about the world he sells to and how countries use his social system. It is not like he invented a new type of car. We are all learning the pros and cons of this. I am sure that he is generous in his donations considering he is learning along the way.
DeleteI also do not see giving speeches as cashing in, although some Presidents have made millions giving speeches. Once a leader you always want to share your ideas and missions in life. I do not think we will have to worry about that with this President.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI was going to reply to all of this but figured this is taking on an issue where I really don't need to upset people or express my opinion more than I already had. I deleted it and will probably have a better day for doing it :)
ReplyDeleteI know. Electronic communication over emotional subjects is dangerous and difficult. i respect your moderate tone, and we may never agree on some of this stuff.
DeleteIt's too bad there isn't a place where moderates, liberals and conservatives can actually discuss these issues without getting angry. What I've seen with Facebook is pretty much everybody who agrees continues being friends and those who disagree are pushed out by the rancor at their opinions that differ. I suspect, from what I've observed, it'd take moderates, who either hang left or right, as the only ones who could agree to disagree and keep putting forth ideas. The far left and far right have made up their minds and often totally disrespect anyone who differs. It's not a good time for open, divergent dialogue ;)
DeletePut me on the side that says we are here to serve G-d and others through love, wherever that fits.
ReplyDeleteAnd put me there with Mesymimi: that since all is transient except for my own individual actions, I will work to make them the best I can. Interesting post.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are oversimplifying. Making broad generalizations always is over simplifying. But there is also a lot of truth in what you write.
ReplyDeleteI think many of us are in that big "other" third group. We strive to be good and caring and sharing, but we also want to be protective of what is our own. We change as experiences impact us and tip our balance one way or the other.
Analyzing the meaning of the words "Conservative" and "liberal" also adds an interesting angle to the discussion.
Some people are good at wealth creation, and some are good at things that generate no wealth. The starving artist comes to mind. Genes plus environment make us what we are, and we don't have much choice about it. It's kind of a deterministic world.
ReplyDeletethat about sums it up. either you are compassionate or you aren't and those who have suffered need are usually more compassionate than those who have never suffered at all. extreme wealth is greed and greed is a mental illness. I don't understand the person who already hase more money than they can spend and yet spends their lives creating more wealth.
ReplyDeleteNo, this is a good framework for thinking about rich people.
ReplyDeleteBeing a socialist deep down, finding fault with rich people would be easy. But I don't for they have a purpose in life. It is seen in art, in craft, and in the great European buildings, we strive to obtain the best, I suppose you would call it aspiration, the desire to create. Of course the 'smart' really acquisitive greedy people need to be pulled down a peg or two. ;)
ReplyDeleteWell goodness. He did get you stirred up. The first two paragraphs are interesting, but that last one drops you into the marshmellows and leaves you there. Yes, generalizations that are about right.
ReplyDeleteI've been rich, and I am now very poor. Thanks to G, I am poor with class. Sometimes it will be interests or talents that bring you out of a bad situation. That's enough...Rain thinks so nicely today.
I am boring and stay away from politics and religion on social media.
ReplyDeleteYou are not boring...do you mean bored?
DeleteI've arrived late for this discussion. Interesting perspective on material wealth and those who have it versus those who don't. We can get a generalized picture of people and think about any exceptions. Had me thinking about the characteristics and actions of materially wealthy nations versus those that are not. I've thought life would be so much more pleasant if all of us could be comfortable civilly disagreeing with others on various topics. But then, when another's actions or decisions impinge adversely on our individual life not reacting emotionally may be too much to expect.
ReplyDelete