The Paradox of “Humble Origins”

There was a slide show on the Internet a couple of weeks ago, and the subject was the “humble origins” of the people who are now seen as being, basically, in charge of everything – especially your fate, your future, your pocketbook. These are, as Tom Wolfe put it, the “masters of space and time”; they have somehow, mysteriously, ascended to the heights of material, secular power – which means they are masters of everything that counts in this totally materialistic world, where merit is measured solely by one's portfolio. Truly, the “prosperity gospel” has never been as widely recognized as the ultimate truth as it is at this moment – the rich are, by definition, meritorious, and everyone else is, basically, a schmuck. And, I should note, this attitude stands side-by-side with the concept of the “noble poor” -- but the difference is that the rich, by and large, got to where they are through their own efforts, which, in America, is still considered a valid basis for “extra credit”. The poor may be noble, but they are victims as well, which means that any “merit” they have is not so much individual as collective – and we see this in the politics of victimization, where people are defined by their race/gender/ethnic group/sexual preference rather than as individuals. Whereas when it comes to the masters of space of time, it's all about individualism, and heaven forbid it should ever be attributed to race, gender, or ethnic group – although, truth be told, it never hurts to be a male WASP, especially if you don't have any other competencies (think: George W. Bush).

And there are paradoxes even within the ranks of the rich and powerful. Some can be shown to have gotten to where they are through sheer talent, ambition, and social dominance – and possibly a bit of sharp dealing as well. But even within these ranks there are the hangers-on... the underachieving sons... the left-behind brothers... you know the type, like the guy who wound up shot in the rowboat in the “Godfather” sequel. Family ties are important... but they are not the last word. At some point, the ones with ambition have to leave the losers behind... and we have seen this any number of times in politics as well as business and finance. Every family has its “dreamers”, and the way they are dealt with is worth at least one large volume. The paradox, of course, is that these “dreamers” may, in fact, be the most moral members of the family in question – but that is part of their problem, and the reason why they have to be put away. What I'm saying is that the Regime is not immune to the awkward effects of DNA and “diversity”. The robber baron of yesterday may give rise to the Medieval poetry major of today; there are many stories of this sort. And what happens when said poetry major comes into his inheritance? Well, they don't – I mean, not really. Because by that time the vast fortunes accumulated by the strong, “alpha-type” parent have been placed into the competent hands of a “trust”, and that trust is administered by the coldest, most hard-hearted human beings on the planet. So wealth has a curious way of becoming self-perpetuating in the sense that it becomes immune to human foibles – it becomes an entity unto itself. Can anyone claim that the major “foundations” are dependent, for their management and guidance, on the whims of any one descendant of the original family? The ones that are – or were – are quickly liquidated. Only a competent “management team” that shares, or defines, the values of the controlling elite, is capable of keeping a given locus of wealth alive and well. This, of course, is both the plus and the downside of membership in the elite – you have all the privileges but you also have to conform to the standards and mores of the group. Otherwise, you are cast out – and in these times, idiosyncratic, non-conforming wealth is a rare thing, if it exists at all. All of the rich have membership, or at least a courtesy card, with the controlling elite – if not, they are quickly and firmly dealt with.

Having said all this, we go back to what I call the paradox of humble origins – the fact that, indeed, many of the people who can be said to be “in charge” came from backgrounds that were not at all promising. They were, in other words, indistinguishable from the vast mass of individuals who had opportunities... but at some point those opportunities were taken up with vigor by a few, and passed by by all the rest. So what can be said about the rich? Well, by American standards, they are, by definition, the most meritorious, superior beings in the country, if not in the world. Because in America, merit is defined by one thing, and one thing only: net worth in dollars. And this is not simply a “materialistic” phenomenon; it goes back to the very origins of Protestantism and its notions as to what constitutes merit – or a “sign of grace”. At some point, the Sermon on the Mount got turned on its head, and, as Dickens points out in a number of his novels, wealth – or at least prosperity, or comfort – was accepted as the chief sign of favor from God, and the poor were considered... well, if not cursed, than surely forsaken. This is why there was such ambivalence about the merits of material charity in the 19th Century – with an attitude perhaps not much different from the Hindus, the notion was, maybe the poor, on some level, deserve their state... and certainly the rich deserve theirs, because they are, demonstrably, more ambitious, more persistent, and more resourceful than the vast majority of humanity. Totally forgotten was “Blessed are the poor...” and so on.

What I'm saying is there is nothing new about this attitude – it has been with us almost from the start. And in one sense, it is uniquely American – I mean, Europe at least had a dissenting voice in Rousseau... and I suppose we did as well, in Thoreau. But the American "meme" has always been one of infinite opportunity, expansion, "progress", and devil take the hindmost. Admittedly, there have always been people who claimed that being poor was not, by definition, a shameful thing. And yet, the main force of the American mystique has been in the opposite direction – that there is nothing wrong with being born poor (the “born in a log cabin” idea), but to stay poor, with all the opportunities surrounding you on all sides – well, that's a disgrace. And again, there is an ambivalence – the “poor” are treated with great gobs of charity, but along with it comes paternalism and condescension – and mainly, mechanisms for insuring that the poor stay that way (at least by definition). (The liberals are absolute masters at this -- but the "conservatives" are starting to catch on as well.) In simplistic terms, we need the poor in order to feel rich. The poor, like the incarcerated, have a role to play – and that is to make the rest of us feel better... more resourceful... more ambitious... more energetic. The society matron who spoons out chicken soup once a month at the homeless shelter is greatly edified by the experience; it is now confirmed, without a doubt, that she is not only lucky but also full of merit. And the only price she has to pay for this assurance is her failure to always stay upwind of the homeless.

So... now that it has been established to everyone's satisfaction that only money counts, we confront, once again, the paradox of humble origins. And the main question is, if the majority of the elite come from humble origins, why do they seem to have so much trouble empathizing with the poor... or the ordinary, the struggling, the non-privileged? Why, in other words, do they seem to spend every waking moment plotting ways to enhance their own wealth at the expense of everyone else? Don't they look at the faces of the working class and see their own – or at least those of their parents? Why do they delight in enslaving everyone who does not share their ambitions or talents? And – do they differ, in this respect, from those who were born to wealth?

Now, when it comes to the “silver spoon” crowd... well, to begin with, it's notorious that the scions of wealthy families are notorious underachievers – not all, but a great number. Is this because the talent for making money is simply not one of those things that can be passed down from one generation to the other? Or does it have to do with some sort of Freudian syndrome – the dominant, powerful father vs. the submissive son who simply can never quite measure up? Much has been said, for example, about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush in this regard. Are the sons of the powerful fathers doomed in this respect? But there are plenty of stories that seem to contradict this – stories of sons who, while not dominant in the raw, primitive way their fathers were, have nonetheless made their mark and vindicated their heritage. They have earned, in other words, what they were born to. In many cases they have achieved more than their fathers – at least in some other areas of endeavor. (My favorite example is Avery Cardinal Dulles, the son of John Foster Dulles.)

The least one can say about those “born to the purple” is that, if they have the least bit of insight, they will realize that their rank in life is based largely on circumstances they had absolutely nothing to do with. This – shall we say -- “royal humility” is a rare thing, but not unheard of... and one might even count it as a factor in, for example, the Kennedy brothers' apparent concern for the poor and underprivileged over the years. (Some might call it “liberal guilt” as well. I challenge anyone to define the difference when it comes to cases like the Kennedys.) In any case, I say this is all to the good – better than a wealthy family spinning off nothing but worthless playboys who spend all of their time on yachts, in sports cars, and in Monte Carlo casinos. But there is another facet of all this as well, which is a common lack of ambition – at least in the material sense. If you're born with, and inherit, more money than almost anyone else has, what possible motivation do you have for making more? Sure, you're going to hang on to what you have – thanks to an army of advisors – but spend time plotting to get even more? This does not seem to be a priority activity among those who were born wealthy -- and, frankly, that's a good thing. I always say, vote for the rich man because he's less likely to be bribed.

But those who are from “humble origins” -- ah, that's a different matter. These are cases where a person starts out indistinguishable from tens of millions of other “unwashed” -- and yet, by hook or crook, manages to surpass them all and become their master. Now what is his mind set? Some would say he is the perpetual “arriviste” -- the nouveau riche – and as such, feels a kind of perpetual inferiority to those whose ranks he has recently joined. He's in the same position, in other words, as the guy attending his first “upper-crust” social function, wearing the first tuxedo he's ever owned. Even if he could buy and sell half the people there, he still feels inferior – an outsider. This is the popular conception, but I say that it is, by and large, totally in error. The “self-made man” in the company of the silver-spoon, prep-school crowd has every reason to feel superior – at least by American, egalitarian standards... for he did it all on his own, with no help from name, family, breeding, race, creed, or anything else. Because while money is the sole measure of merit in our society, it still counts as to how one obtained it. “Trust fund babies” are considered... well... a bit decadent and superfluous – and so many of them are! (I've met a few.) These are people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, might qualify – based on their own merits – for a day-labor job, but not much of anything else. Who are they compared to a guy who grew up in Hell's Kitchen and made his first million by the time he was 30? In the American scheme of things, they are so much chaff in the wind... and he is rock-solid (and market-wise). They might have grown up in “the Hamptons” and attended “The ____ School”, and the Ivy League, but this rough-and-tumble guy from Delancy Street could eat them for breakfast... and they know it, and he knows it, and they know he knows it, and he knows they know it, and.... et cetera.

So then, how does one define “merit” in this society? Is it only about bank balances, or something more? Because Americans do have an ambivalence towards wealth, and “royalty” -- they admire it, but resent it at the same time. Even if “any boy born in a log cabin can become president”, it makes more sense in a way for some boy born in a mansion in Westchester County... it satisfies our atavistic longing for rank and hierarchy. But the “self-made man” -- ah! There is the ideal American type. He does not carry the burden of inherited wealth that is so inimical to the American ideal... but at the same time he is wealthy; he is the Horatio Alger story come to life. And as such, he is the ideal candidate... not only for political office, but for any other position of esteem we choose to elevate him to. (And in case you're skeptical as to the sheer force of this idea, I invite you to attend any Amway rally. You will go home a believer, trust me.)

But what does the “self-made man” think of himself? -- especially in contrast to the vast majority who were left behind in the race to the top? He thinks – and I'm speculating here, I admit, but I'm willing to bet that I'm right most of the time – that those others are all wimps, cowards, and underachievers... and that they deserve to be left behind in the dust, and that he deserves to be placed on high and made a judge over them, and a sealer of their various and pathetic fates. Yes – he of humble origins is now the strong man, and his attitude toward the bulk of humanity is that if they had had any ambition, they would be sharing the throne... but they didn't, and they don't, and that's all there is to it. They have, in other words, chosen their lot, which is to be slaves, serfs, servants... that's all they are good for, while he, on the other hand, has shown his mettle and is suited to be their master, because... who better? If he is superior to them in every way that counts, isn't it only right, and just, that he should be their master and judge, and they should be his subjects and slaves? Isn't that the way the world has worked, from time immemorial? Wouldn't it be a gross distortion of nature to try and arrange things any other way? (They don't read Nietzsche, but if they did they would find a kindred soul.) So he is secure in his position, and in his self-assessment... and the masses are, well... they can take it or leave it, basically. It they take it, they will enjoy the peace that comes with a life sentence... and if they leave it, they will be hunted down like the renegades they are, and suitably dealt with.

Now, you will notice, in all this, that at no point is there any mention of morals, or ethics, or righteousness... or of charity... and certainly not of “egalitarianism”, or “democracy”, or “the people” (except in the role of slaves). These are ideas that have now been firmly relegated to the ash heap, in the light of the “final solution” to the problem of the undeserving having any freedom... and of the “bourgeoisie” and “kulaks” having any resources (or anything to leave to their children). We have arrived at the same point as any primitive tribe on some South Pacific island when Captain Cook showed up – one strong man, a bunch of goons, and everyone else in a state of slavery. But, as it is all writ very large, the “strong man” is now called “the Regime” -- i.e. a cabal of strong man, working in unison... the “goons” are called “congresses, parliaments, and administrations”... and the “slaves” are called the working class and the “middle class” (or what is left of it).

And when it comes to “humble origins” -- this is not an insurance against tyranny. In fact, it is, if anything, a natural conduit to tyranny – due, for certain, to the human condition and to our evil nature. All it takes is a bit of power, or money, and then come the comparisons of our own lot to those of the rabble... and then comes a warm feeling of merit (deserved, of course) and superiority... and then comes the notion that, by rights, one should not only enjoy one's own prosperity but should be entitled to rule over the rest of humanity... and, with the resources to make it so, comes tyranny. Thus, from humble origins comes much evil... and it is not the fault of poverty, nor of wealth per se, but of plain fallible human nature and concupiscence.

How does one define a true saint? A person of humble origins who remains humble no matter what riches life sends his way. And how many of those do we see among the pantheon of the world's elite in our time? I have yet to find one – and is it because it's impossible by definition? I would say, not impossible but wildly improbable. It is an exclusive club... and no one is admitted who does not share the world view of all the rest.

World's Largest Pie To Be Served At Some Point

On the "watch list": "40 wealthy individuals and families" who have pledged "to give at least half their wealth to charity" -- in the newly-established tradition of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Apparently Buffett strong-armed, er, persuaded, a number of his fellow billionaires to make what he and Gates call the "giving pledge".

Now, the cynic might say, sure, they can "pledge" all they want, but what happens when it comes down to cases? Or, what happens if they die first; do their heirs honor the pledge, or do they sue the trustees and the estate, etc.?

Another type of cynic might say, sure, but won't most of that wealth go to support "foundations" which are thinly-disguised strategems to not only preserve accumulated wealth, but to add to it if possible? And there is certainly ample historical basis for this suspicion.

And someone who is aware of the history of various rich people's legacies will say, how do they know that whoever winds up running the trust, or foundation, or whatever, will spend the money as they would have wanted? The landscape is dotted with foundations begun by ultra-conservative individuals that are now dedicated to the aid and abetting of the most blatant forms of liberalism in politics, academia, art, and so forth. You might say that the only a way a rich person can dispose of his wealth as he sees fit is to really and truly dispose of it, while he's still alive -- no trusts, no foundations, no nothing. Just spend it all and die with a dime in your pocket.

And maybe this is the intent of Gates, Buffett, et al -- but again, I'm going to contain my enthusiasm until I see what actually happens, and where this money actually goes. For one thing, I have a funny feeling that a huge hunk of this dough is going to go to support "family planning" and "population control" -- which is the way the wealthy of the West have, for many generations now, tried to subdue the unruly, unwashed, and disgustingly-fertile denizens of the "third world". Another possibility -- a remote one, I admit, but you never know -- is that some of the wealthy have heard the cry of the poor and disenfranchised... and it has them scared. After all, and as the illegal immigration controversy demonstrates, the third-world rabble is only a few hours' bus ride away from anywhere in the U.S. -- including the gated, well-guarded estates of the American nobility. Maybe they've been reading about the French Revolution. Or the Russian one. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" -- and the "crown" of our time is the vast fortunes that have been made in business and finance... much of it legitimate, no doubt, but much of it the result of sheer pillage. Of course, the radical populist or collectivist (and I assume there's still a difference) will be totally disinterested in the difference between the two -- but for my money, so to speak, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with accumulating great wealth, as long as it's done legitimately and, ideally, with plenty of charity to go along with it. And I suppose that the very least one can say about the Gates/Buffet altar call is that it at least appears charitable, and might in fact do some good. But we also have enough experience with these things to know that ulterior motives are never to be dismissed.

How to Be Rich

I have just been on a pilgrimage to one of my favorite places in all the world, namely Boldt Castle in the Thousand Islands -- and it got me thinking about wealth, and what it can and cannot do. It is a popular pastime these days to think about “the rich” in purely political terms, and as predators and exploiters, basically -- and admittedly this is what many of them are, and do. And I suppose to a certain degree this has always been true -- people attain wealth through force of arms, political influence, family connections, and so on, and then spend the bulk of their time trying to protect it or increase it even further. In the case of our modern barons of industry -- businessmen, inventors, master marketers, and the like -- their wealth is considered, in this age of democracy, to be a bit more legitimate, a bit more “earned” (i.e. deserved) than that acquired in the old, pre-Industrial Revolution days. Whether this is actually so depends, I would say, on the specific case. If a moderately-successful businessman multiplies his fortune many times over through political influence, bribery, and a government-granted monopoly, one has a right to ask what part of it is really his and what part is the rightful possession of others -- those less aggressive, less corrupt, less influential. The pure case of a fortune made through success in the free market, with the laws of supply and demand allowed to operate without adulteration by government, is becoming increasingly difficult to find -- although it is still perfectly possible, at least in theory, to acquire great wealth simply by supplying people with the goods and services they want, need, and are willing to purchase via the free market.

Now, in the case of Mr. George Boldt, he made his fortune primarily in the hotel business, which is arguably among the least coercive of enterprises. No one absolutely has to stay in a hotel, and no one is ever forced to stay in one, or stay in any particular one -- so I think one could say that his wealth was, by and large, legitimate, i.e. not ill-gotten. But the point I’m trying to make is not so much about the “how” as about the “what” -- i.e., what one does with one’s wealth once one makes it. This is why I entitled this post “How to _Be_ Rich”, as opposed to “How to _Get_ Rich”. If I knew the latter, I’d be rich myself -- and I’d probably be a bit secretive as to the “how” (unlike all of these clowns who crank out “how to make a million” books -- on closer inspection, it seems like most of them have made their million by selling those books).

So what did Mr. Boldt do with his money? Did he turn it over to those countless charities whose mission seems primarily to “give a man a fish” rather than teaching him how to fish? Or -- worse yet -- did he turn it over to some unfathomably corrupt arm of the United Nations, the way some of our contemporary million- or billionaires are fond of doing? Well no -- he was much smarter than that, and had better taste. He built a castle -- or let’s say he _began_ building a castle, but stopped work on it when his wife died (since it was going to be a present for her). The structure, i.e. the building itself, was indeed built, and many of the furnishings had been purchased; but these were put in storage when the construction was halted. And yet the castle, and its various outbuildings -- spectacular in their own right -- remain, as a testimony to -- some would say -- ambition, grandiosity, conspicuous consumption, and folly. But I would, without necessarily arguing with those points, prefer to emphasize the positive. The castle is a monument, of this there is no doubt -- but a monument mostly to imagination, a sense of history, good taste, and -- yes -- romance.

And this gets us to the heart (no pun intended, but the castle is on Heart Island) of the matter. There is much that is being built in our time that is indeed a monument to ambition, grandiosity, conspicuous consumption, and folly. Do I have to mention the “tallest building in the world” race that is currently going on? Or Las Vegas? Or Donald Trump? But how much is being built these days that represents a healthy imagination, or a sense of history, or good taste? And as to romance… well! That motive seems a bit passe in this era of divorces that come along like clockwork, long before the wedding is paid for. There is, one could argue, a certain amount of imagination and creativity in some of what is being built now -- but much of it is of a decadent and/or deconstructionist sort. Imagination combined with a sense of history is virtually nonexistent, as is good taste in the classical sense. (A notable exception is the work of Thomas Gordon Smith.) And yet Boldt managed to accomplish all of this -- with the help of a top architectural firm and an army of skilled craftsmen (another resource that has practically disappeared at this point). (Imagine, if you will, trying to build a Chartres Cathedral now. I don’t think it could be done at any price, and in any amount of time.)

And I have to emphasize that I’m not trying to juxtapose the offenses of the “nouveau riche” with the tasteful products of “old money”. Boldt was nouveau riche, in the literal sense -- born and raised in modest circumstances in Prussia, on an island in the Baltic. But he had those things that the wealthy of our time largely seem to lack -- a baseline of his own good taste plus the intelligence to hire other people with good (or even better) taste. What we have now, in the equivalent area of operation, is an army of hacks working for philistines -- and the results are painfully obvious.

But -- you might say -- all of this is beside the point. He could have been “doing good” with his wealth rather than spending it all on “selfish” things. Well, for one thing, don’t forget that his “selfish” projects employed hundreds of people for many years -- they were the “economic stimulus act” of their day, on a slightly smaller scale. And if the castle had been completed and occupied, it would have employed at least scores of people on a full-time, permanent basis. This is “trickle-down economics” with a vengeance. The rich don’t just sit there on a pile of money like Scrooge McDuck -- they spend it on goods and services and thereby employ large numbers of people of all occupations and skill levels.

Plus, I daresay that Mr. Boldt did, indeed, donate to various charities in his time, either out of conviction or because it made for good “P.R.” But what’s the difference if it happened? And overall, he wasn’t much different from all of the other barons (robber and otherwise) of his time -- only that he managed to build the biggest, and that it has survived to this day, in which it is being restored for the viewing pleasure of the general public -- who, I daresay, enjoy wandering through its halls and over its grounds much more than they would enjoy knowing that the same amount of money had been turned over to some sketchy charity, or hapless U.N. agency, or -- even worse -- rolled into a “foundation” that seems to operate largely in secret and no one is sure whether or not its intentions are good or evil. (Not mentioning any names here… )

But there’s another point to be made. You can give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish -- but either way, all you wind up with is a man with a fish. You don’t wind up with higher civilization, or learning, or the arts, or anything else that benefits mankind (or even a small fraction thereof) in any way other than the purely material, on a subsistence level. Now, this is not to say that charity -- the corporal works in particular -- do not have their place. But what about works that raise the sights of people above “the mud below” -- above their everyday existence? These are the products of civilization (or should be) -- but they also _make_ civilization; they contribute to its growth and development, and to its noble and lasting qualities. When I see a monument to a “great” warrior, I have to ask, but what did he make? The truth is, he was a destroyer; he unmade much that was made by others. The same goes for most rulers and nearly any politician. These people are not in the “building-up” business; they are more in the slicing and dicing business. And yet what do we stand in awe of, that remains from ancient civilizations? Always the buildings and the works of art -- and, admittedly, very little else because it was either destroyed or decayed. So we judge a civilization, and a society, by works -- but actually by only a subset of works. And yet if we consider our own society, we have to admit that judging it by comparable works might result in a somewhat biased verdict -- but this is only because we have lost those things cited above -- imagination, a sense of history, good taste, and romance (the real kind, not the drooling ape-like sort that seems to satisfy most people in our time). So is a man who did his best to exemplify those virtues to be condemned? I would say he should be put in a place of high honor -- higher than any destroyer or mere ruler, higher than any manipulator of other men, and certainly higher than our present arbiters of taste, whose abominations dot the landscape and add up to a national eyesore (and a scandal as well, if we pretend to be “civilized”).

The Few, the Proud, the Soulless

The parade continues unabated – that is, the parade of CEOs and other members of the rich and powerful financial and business elite, who have found it convenient to appear, from time to time, before various Congressional committees and other bodies of inquiry to answer “tough questions” about their involvement in the recession and its associated enormities, and particularly about their unabashed transfer of wealth from the accounts and portfolios of ordinary people into their own already-bulging portfolios and bank accounts (both domestic and foreign). The scenes remind me of nothing so much as the Nuremberg Trials – except it's as if the Nazis had won. Clearly, any one of the titans of international finance pretending to grovel, and even at times express contrition, is smarter than all of the gathered committee members combined. Or to put it another way – if the share of intelligence, cleverness, and wile were reversed, they would be holding elective office and the politicians would be running corporations. This is why the proceedings are always so farcical – the executives, who are clearly superior in every way, right down to the steely eyes and lantern jaws, the perfect grooming and expensive suits, are expected to make an accounting and explain themselves to a bunch of moderately-intelligent but, by and large, chaotic and impulsive political hacks, with bad hair and rumpled clothing. And this is the price the “masters of space and time” (in Tom Wolfe's words) have to pay for the privilege of -- after the hearings are over with and they jet back to their headquarters -- resuming predatory business as usual. It makes for good theater, no doubt... and some memorable “Kodak moments” -- but what it does to change the power relationships in our economy is, basically, nothing. It has about as much meaning as Bill Clinton attending a prayer breakfast. And yet I suppose that the occasional humiliation – being “tried” by a jury of anything but their peers – is preferable, in a way, to their simply being allowed to run amok with perfect impunity. As I've said before, the day when the ruling elite can do anything they want and never be questioned about it will be a dark day indeed. And yet it must be at least as humiliating for the “Congresspersons”, who invariably voice their frustration and helplessness, and make all sorts of empty threats for the benefit of their constituents – things like, we're going to tax those bonuses at the rate of 99.9%, etc. Frankly, I don't think the government would find anything more worthwhile to do with the money than the rich and powerful do – like, does the government have better taste in architecture than they do? A one-day tour of Washington, DC will settle any doubts you may have on that score. And if you want a measure of the government's “taste” in culture in general, and in journalism, you have only to tune into NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- or check out the latest grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. Ultimately, even the most creative, or decadent, billionaire will eventually run out of ideas (I mean, how many boring sweaters can Bill Gates wear, after all? And why can't he get a decent haircut?) and start giving most of it away – in some cases to at least semi-worthy causes. (I know my symphony tickets would cost a lot more if it weren't for the fat cats in the box seats.) And some of them don't even live that high off the hog – they are better at making money than spending it (unlike most of us, I fear). And their mastery is, after all, every bit as mortal as they are; one of these days all that wealth will fall into the hands of those less worthy (at least by their standards). But it isn't as if the games they play in Valhalla do not impact the ordinary lives of ordinary people, because they do... to an extreme degree in many cases. And is this our fault for having put such a large share of our lives and our modest fortunes into their hands? Well, yes it is – at least to some degree. But to “drop out” of the system would involve more of a sacrifice than most people are willing to make. As charming as the notion of a self-sustaining homestead in the Alaskan wilderness might be, or membership in a Minimite community (I borrow the term from Eric Brende, author of “Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology"), most of us would rather live locked into the social, economic, political, and infrastructure grid, even if it ultimately amounts to a glorified form of slavery. So as a result, we find ourselves firmly in the hands of the rich and powerful, who can “flip the switch” on _us_ – at least economically – any time they desire. So as usual, we pay a price for our fancied “security” -- which is another way of describing a world without any serious challenges. Ultimately, everybody wants to live in Sweden.

But another thing occurs to me. Remember the “jet-setters”? (Remember the Concorde, the plane they used to favor taking back and forth to the watering holes of Europe?) The term became more or less synonymous with the “idle rich” who had nothing to do but buy houses, clothes, yachts, jewelry, racehorses, etc., gamble outrageous sums in Monte Carlo, and while away their time in Alpine ski lodges. A glamorous life, no doubt – but it always had an air of restlessness, and of ultimate boredom, purposelessness, and futility. People whose highest value is to acquire “stuff” and amuse themselves paradoxically find that they enjoy that “stuff” and those amusements much less than those for whom it's not the highest value. And if their “stuff” shall lose its savor, whereof shall it be “restuffed”? Of course, if your goal is to always have more, then you'll never reach that goal, and I suppose that can be a source of motivation – as it clearly seems to be for so many of these people. Plus, there is the heady appeal of “the game”, and of competition to see who has the most power, controls the most resources (and lives), has the most toys. And some even have what they fancy to be a "social consciousness" -- you know, that thing that inspires them to support "family planning" programs in the third world.

I always remember the “McMansion” I used to drive past in Great Falls, Virginia. Now, given what this pile undoubtedly cost, they could have bought a few acres out in hunt country and retired to a low-key, unobtrusive, even elegant existence. (And there were some "old money" people who did just that.) But no – this place was right on the main road, on a prominent knoll... the architecture was a hodgepodge of Italianate (think “terraces”, like in “Last Year in Marienbad”) and “rich Arab”... and the driveway (which was about the size of a soccer field) was littered with limousines, SUVs, ATVs, motorcycles, speedboats on trailers, and any other type of vehicle you can imagine, the only common element being that it had to be big, shiny, expensive, and make a lot of noise. I always used to wonder, who _are_ these people, and what is their business so I can boycott it? Of course, in that area they could just as readily have been diplomats, and their wealth all derived from “foreign aid” (from the U.S., of course – which means from you and me).

And, perhaps they were happy with all that crap, who knows? Money does not necessarily create good taste – and there's the tragedy. But to counterbalance that you have to tip your hat to William Randolph Hearst, and other notables like George Vanderbilt. If that money had been distributed to “the people”, what would be their monument? More McMansions, I suspect – or those mini-Mount Vernons that dot the Virginia countryside. Want to see what “the people” do when they get a lot of money? Just check out the lives of lottery winners. It's not a pleasant sight. And I've always said that I'd rather be a poor person in a rich country than a rich person in a poor country – at least from the moral/ethical point of view.

But having said all that, I do wonder whether, in the still of the night, these powerful men – the most high-profile culprits in the current economic crisis – don't have moments of doubt. If all that they worked for – or stole for – all their lives can so quickly pass away... or if they can pass away, leaving it all behind... what does it add up to, after all? Do they protest too much when they contend that they're “entitled” to those $100 million bonuses? Now, I'm not wishing them ill, the way the supermarket tabloids take delight in the troubles of the famous and glamorous. On the contrary! I believe they're fully entitled to every honest dollar they've ever made. But as for the rest, well... I do wish that even one of them, one time, would show true contrition, not just by mouthing words in front of a microphone but in action. But this action would have to be of a very specific type – like the rich man in the Gospels, they would have to give back every bit of their ill-gotten gains, and – as much as possible – to the people from whom it had been gained. I'm still waiting for this to happen; just donating a few million to the opera, or art gallery, or symphony, won't cut it. What I'm looking for, I guess, is a change of heart – real repentance, in the literal sense. But when you're raised a certain way, with a certain set of values (to use the word in the broadest sense), what sort of catastrophe does it take to cast doubt on the whole enterprise? It's much easier, I guess, to just stay in the same running wheel. But when you look at them, they do not appear – by and large – to be happy people. (I always think of those "team owners" who get caught on camera during NFL games, with their trophy wives.) They are clearly driven... frantic... almost in a panic lest they miss an opportunity to make, or extort, another dollar. And then I have to contrast this with people I know who have a very modest income and who live very modestly – or who are downright poor, but nonetheless tranquil, bordering on saintly. Which has chosen the better part? Who is more content? Clearly not the one who is locked into striving. If the highest goal in life is to always have more, when is that ever satisfied? And if there is no possibility of satisfaction, doesn't that imply that there is something wrong with that goal? These people have more “results” to show than any hundred, or thousand, ordinary people... and yet they are, I daresay, less satisfied in many ways. There is never a point at which they can rest at day's end – a privilege that more traditional value systems hold on high. One of the most tranquil faces I've ever seen was that of an ancient Indian man in New Mexico. I imagine he lived in a one-room adobe hut with a dirt floor. But his lack of striving and anxiety would have done credit to an incarnation of the Buddha.

All I'm saying is, don't be too envious of these characters who parade in front of Congress, and wield their power over the world's economy. As Scripture says, the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Be content with what you have, because you may, in fact, have more than they do.

What a Relief!

I commented, a while back, that this alleged IRS attack on the Swiss bank accounts of "rich American tax dodgers" was, in all probability, a hoax. Why should the Swiss, of all people -- notoriously independent and "neutral" -- roll over for a bunch of green-eyeshaded geeks at the IRS? I mean, the IRS might strike fear into everyone in this country, but overseas? I imagine they're regarded as just one more instrument of oppression. At any rate, I'm happy... er, sad... whatever... to announce that my suspicious have been confirmed. And this is based on the supposedly earth-shaking announcement that "a deal with Switzerland settling U.S. demands for the names of suspected tax dodgers from a Swiss bank" has been made... and said tax dodgers are scuttling about like Lower East Side cockroaches when someone turns the kitchen light on at 3 AM.

But! Consider the actual amounts involved. The IRS is standing up, proud and tall, and saying that it anticipates recovering tax money on $15 billion in assets from 52,000 people. Notice I didn't say $15 billion in taxes -- just taxes on $15 billion in assets. And this is from 52,000 people?? So -- excuse me for just a moment. Ah yes, that works out to... drum roll, please... all of $288,000 in assets, on average, per alleged tax dodger. Hell, we're not talking about "the rich" here, or even "the wealthy" -- we're talking, at best, upper middle class -- well, maybe the upper upper middle class, i.e. the ones who were smart enough and resourceful enough to open Swiss bank accounts in the first place. So let's say, just as a "f'rinstance", that the IRS "outs" every one of these characters and collects the max on each of their Swiss accounts. That, given that the amounts would be taxed at the rate of 33%, would net the IRS a cool $5 billion. Not exactly chicken feed, but how much do you suppose they've already spent on investigations, audits, and lawsuits tracking this money down? A good chunk of that $5 billion, I'll bet. (One clue is that Obama wants Congress to pony up the money for 800 (!!) additional agents, examiners and lawyers to continue the anti-Swiss bank crusade.) But you know how the IRS works -- or maybe you don't. They have no problem at all spending $1000 to net an extra $100 in taxes... because, as always, it's not about the bottom line at all, but about jobs. And power.

Plus -- sweeping aside all these small fry, what about the truly rich who have been stashing money in Switzerland for decades now? Apparently they're going to remain untouched. I mean, that $15 billion is chump change for them; it's barely enough to cover one week's taxpayer-funded bonuses for AIG. So once again, the usual hoax is being played out -- a few chumps at the bottom of the top layer are going to be peeled off, and sacrificed to the IRS gods, and the rest are going to go on their merry way. 'Twas ever thus. The worst thing you can do is be semi-rich -- i.e. have enough money to be called "rich" by the likes of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (or a "kulak" by Joseph Stalin), but not nearly rich enough to avoid the logical consequences of being considered rich in a collectivist society with a confiscatory tax system. So there's really no sense at all in being half-rich, and I highly recommend against it, even if you might be able to afford the down payment on a McMansion in Great Falls, Virginia. But in the long run, it's more trouble than it's worth.