The Old Economic Shell Game

It's amazing to me that public opinion regarding the countless "bailouts" by the government of the financial sector is rapidly coalescing around the notion that it's basically a massive redistribution of wealth from the (mostly) middle class to the (entirely) rich. This is a rare case where the "average Joe" actually figures out the agenda in fairly short order... unlike most other cases of government hoaxes and scams (like the "Global War on Terrorism") where they never do figure out that they're being had. At the same time, people in this area are already seeing the new, glittering, riverside casino which is under construction as, basically, a means of redistributing wealth from the (mostly) lower class to the (entirely) rich. You see all the "gaming" billboards dotted along the highways, and you might almost think that "gaming", formerly known as "gambling", is something that only young, attractive, prosperous people do, and that they never gamble more of their own money than they can afford to lose. But then you actually walk into a casino and it's a different story. Most of the people there just got off an excursion bus after a long, stifling ride, and they are betting more of their money than they can afford to lose, and thoroughly stressing themselves out in the process. Not to mention, a substantial portion of them are chain smokers and heavy drinkers, who look as if they will be lucky to get home again without a side trip to the ER -- and that doesn't even include bus crashes, which, for some reason, those gambling buses are especially prone to. But when they finally get back home, they'll declare that it was a "fun trip" and that they can't wait to do it again. (Plus, they'll claim that they're "ahead" when it comes to gambling... but I've discussed this delusion previously.)

Of course, the more traditional redistribution vectors, at least in this country, involve wealth going _to_ the lower class, in the form of welfare payments, food stamps, subsidies, affirmative action (a form of welfare -- there, I said it), and so on. The source of this wealth is, of course, "the taxpayer" -- a term devised to avoid pointing out that we're always talking about the middle class. Now, this form of wealth transfer is still alive and well, but "gaming" adds another stage to the pilgrimage of the humble dollar. Now it doesn't just go from the middle class schmuck to the lower class dude; it goes from there to the rich casino owners, who in turn... well I don't know. Bank it in Switzerland, maybe? It sure as hell doesn't wind up back in the hands of the middle class. We're not talking about rainwater here. But the bottom line is that the lower class doesn't feel used or exploited, because the money that is taken back from them at least represents "fun". The middle class knows damn well it isn't having any "fun", but custom and etiquette prevents them from taking it out in the form of riots and setting fires.

And I don't want to represent the middle class as perpetual victims and nothing else. They may never be in line for "direct payments" from the government (and this includes farmers -- it's the rich corporate types who get most of the subsidies), but they form the vast bulk of the actual working force of the government, i.e. of the bureaucracy. When it comes to income redistribution -- on the collecting side, i.e. the IRS, or on the paying side, i.e. HHS, HUD, etc. -- they are the foot soldiers. So in this sense they're to blame as well, since their hands are stained with the traces of confiscated income, wealth, and property.

It has often been debated whether those who work for "the machine" are as guilty as those who own and operate it. This came to a head in the Vietnam era, where the question arose, if it's OK to "out" members of the local draft board, is it OK to also "out" the clerical personnel, etc., who work for it? Or are they just poor working stiffs who deserve our sympathy for working in such a rotten place? I'm not sure if this dilemma was ever satisfactorily worked out before the draft ended, but it's a good question in ethics, in any case. The Nazi hunters seem capable of distinguishing between, e.g., people who worked as guards in concentration camps, or people who purchased and shipped Zyklon-B, and people who installed plumbing or painted walls. If you hold everyone guilty, then you're basically saying that there are no gray areas, and that seems unrealistic. You're also claiming that everyone should be expected to consider the full implications of what they're doing at all times, which is even more unrealistic. Even the Church has at least one major distinction, i.e. between mortal and venial sins, and it admits plenty of other factors as well.

I wrote the other day about the FBI agent who was killed in the line of duty, just up the Allegheny River from here. He was working a drug bust, of course (does the FBI do anything else these days?). Now, did he sign up for the agency in response to an ad that read, "Foot soldiers wanted -- to work in, and support, a wrong-headed, Puritanical, evil, cruel, heartless, oppressive, and blatantly discriminatory government program"? Doesn't seem likely. Even the fact that this guy apparently got a charge out of undercover work and out of "moving in" on targets doesn't make him entirely to blame; there are many reasons for liking one's line of work other than "because it's evil and hurts people". I mean, who knows, the scenery around Auschwitz might have been very pleasant -- assuming one could get a weekend pass. (Maybe they just liked live polka music.) Anyway, I'm not going to try and "resolve" this issue, just present it as a question that perhaps deserves a bit more "nuance" than it normally gets from, e.g., our ever-vigilant media, "agents of change", and all-around scolds.

And lest I get too far afield, I should relate all of this back to my original point. Our politicians, and the media, tend to talk as if "class" (lower, middle, upper -- AKA working, middle, rich) is a permanent condition, like eye color or shoe size, when in fact there is a considerable amount of movement up and down the economic ladder. So whenever they come out for a program that blatantly favors one class over another, they're forgetting that a given individual might be _both_, at one time or the other, and that they will remember the "disfavor" part more than the "favor" part. Plus, all the class warfare talk reveals a zero sum game world view, which also -- despite the current crisis -- doesn't accurately reflect real economic (including political and technological) history. Their excuse is, "Because I _want_ to give more to A, I _have_ to take more from B." This is a far cry from _creating_ the conditions for prosperity, i.e. for technological advances, economic freedom, property rights, and so on. These benefits fall on deaf ears in the liberal camp, because they don't satisfy the lust for "fairness". Plus, it's much easier to achieve equality by making everyone poor than by providing everyone the same freedoms, i.e. to get rich, or merely become prosperous, or stay poor, as they see fit. Plus, redistribution of wealth is a guaranteed "full employment act" for politicians, appointees, and government workers.

So, basically, the shell game that is being played with the biggest stakes ever at this point is based on class consciousness and resentment -- and the notion that "I don't care what the government does to the other guy, as long as it gives me my due." This attitude can, of course, backfire virtually overnight -- either you move from the preferred class to the non-preferred class, or government policy shifts. Does anyone remember, for example, the very first "poverty program" under JFK? It was aimed entirely at Appalachia, i.e. at middle-Southern white people. Can you imagine a program of that sort getting through Congress now? Some things really do change, and permanently. I don't have any problem with moral absolutes, but I get impatient with "class absolutes" when they are imposed by the government and the media, for purposes of political exploitation. And, sure, the concept of "class" is a very useful one sociologically; I use it all the time in the descriptive sense. But the Regime treats it more like the Indians treat "caste" -- as something that involves fate, and destiny. They also treat it as something that is based, primarily, not on income per se but on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, physical health, and so forth. So it becomes an entirely political concept, and therefore a club that various groups can take turns beating each other over the head with. This is not what I call "enlightened government". Rather than aggravating these ideas they should be doing all they can to ease and alleviate them -- by, again, providing for _real_ "equal opportunity" rather than this bogus fraud that goes by the same name. But, again, that would entail giving up political power, and how many are prepared to do that?