On a stolen air conditioner and the British riots

Photo credit:
http://static.ibnlive.com/pix/slideshow/08-2011/2011/
in-pics-london/british_riots_new_09_01.jpg

Photo credit: http://a1airconditioners.com/wp-content/themes/productreview/images/LWHD1200HR-LG12000BTUWindowAirConditioner.jpg

The other day my friend, a real estate agent, came to our cherished evening bike ride in a depressed mood.

“The closing deal, I was counting on so much, fell through today,” he said. It turns out that during the final walk-through, the would-be buyer noticed that the air conditioner unit was stolen from the vacant house.

“But wouldn’t the bank cover the expense of the stolen unit?” I asked naively, then wisely affixed: “After all, it cannot cost more than $3-4,000; a sizeable chunk for the individual buyer but peanut for a bank.”

“You would think so, but no. The bank already wrote this loss off its bad debts, courtesy of the bank bail-out of 2008. The banks got their money back from us, the tax payers, and now they are free again do what they do best: to maximize their potential profit.”

“But that’s what banks are supposed to do, isn’t that?” I responded as a matter of course. My friend put me in place right away:

“Yes, but not without having to worry about the real world market pressure. Before the bail-out they would have tried to minimalize their losses, which is what current market reality would have demanded. But now, having been compensated for their losses, they want to maximize their profit; an unrealistic goal at a time when everybody else is struggling to keep afloat.”

“Everybody,” I finally caught his draft, “you mean the poor and the middle class, not the wealthy and the corporate.”

“You got it my friend,” he said. “The banks and corporations play hard core capitalism when it's time to make profit but embrace socialist principles as soon as they face losses. Once they recover however, they're are right back into bashing the social "welfare" state."

"Hmm", I said eloquently, while he continued.

"The greed of the individual has been damaging enough but now it has penetrated all levels of our social system...., and when greed can govern the most powerful forces in society, without any checks and balances, it can become truly devastating.”

“I hope you’ll make your next closing,” I said, pulling out the smartest thing I could think of.

***

And then, I hear the riots in England. Looting, burning buses and businesses in a country where I thought some of the best mannered, most imperturbable people lived.

“What is going on?” I asked myself. Well, as it turns out, the young and restless simple citizens of England first got angry at the police, but then started to think that they have the right to have what they want, just as the British bank executives got what they wanted in the form of some 80 billion pound bail-out. Somehow they don’t seem to think that the austerity measures that followed the generous banking support, should short change their desire and aspiration, so they started to take freely what apparently they thought should have been rightfully theirs to begin with.

These rioters of England have some very deplorable thought indeed, driving them into alarming, dangerous, and totally unjustifiable actions. But do they have a point; a point they pursue in whatever abhorrent fashion?

They may, and I think that notice should be taken of this possibility!

Revolutions, starting with the French, where thousands of heads fell, the Russian revolution with its own terrifying fall-out, and all subsequent social ebulliences started with some justifiable cause. The French people had no bread when they stormed the Bastille and 2,000 Russian peasants stampeded each other to death for a table clothes, a mug and a loaf of bread during their “Father Tsar’s” wedding procession just a few years before November 7, 1917.

Two events, a small and a momentous one, on two sides of a big ocean, seem to lead to the same root-problem: greed!

It is perhaps time to notice that the poor and middle class cannot be fooled forever with the promise land, the endless opportunities that await the few exceptionally gifted or lucky ones in their ranks.

We need to notice and accept that any further economical polarization of current Western societies may lead to social explosion. We are getting warning signs that the deepening economical hardship around the world needs to be shared equally by all of us: rich and poor, individuals and corporations.

Shared equally? Even more than that! The necessary sacrifices the day calls for should burden the wealthy far more than the poor and the middle class! It may help improving life starting with a stolen air conditioning unit, all the way to wide spread social unrest in the world.

Is there anyone brave and insightful enough to be looking, listening, and drawing conclusions?

A brief exchange about capitalism, on account of Michael Moore's latest movie

Below, I am giving an account of a recent polemic about Michael Moore's (MM) movie (Capitalism: A love story) that quickly shifted into discussion about the current US capitalistic system. Since I did not ask permission from my debate opponent to publish her side, I will only briefly summarize her arguments with my own words.

The original challenge:
Capitalism made MM a wealthy man. Capitalism, as opposed to other systems, gives opportunity to people.

My response

The movie brings up very good points about capitalism, as it is practiced in the US. Even gun ho capitalist believers should take time to ponder about some of his arguments. MM has the integrity to stand up for the small guy, even though he made it big in capitalism. He knows that most people will not have his kind of chance although nearly everyone seems to be duped by the slogans of the Promise Land.

The movie is not saying that you can not be a millionaire in this economical system. It expresses concerns that the realistic desire of people, i.e. not to become a millionaire, but simply to live like a decent middle class citizen, is endangered by an ever more greedy upper class.

Challenge #2:
People are flooding into the US because of the unparalleled opportunities; the success stories of Oprah, Bill Clinton and "even Obama" are mentioned as examples.

Admits that some opportunities do exist in other countries, and that some corruption does exist in the US; in the whole however, the US system benefits those, who are willing to work hard and is superior to any other system.

Takes issue with people not willing to work in low paying job, such as McDonalds.

My response #2:

How do you know that other countries do not have their Oprahs-s, Clintons and Obama-s? Every single one of those newly rich and influential Chinese who are purchasing up the US treasury bonds nowadays, were dirt poor 50 years ago. They got their opportunities in a totally different system.

As to the poor and the middle class, that's exactly the problem in the US and other countries with hard-core capitalism, e.g. the one time "eastern block" countries. In the US, as well as in these other countries, the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider than today. The middle class is slowly slipping toward poverty not by choice, not because they want to "leave off the Government", but because they do not have the same opportunities that the wealthy do.

Look at where MM is coming from: Flint, MI, a once prosperous middle class town. Today, it is among the top 3 poorest towns in the country. Believe me, MM has first hand experience what opportunity capitalism will provide to the poor and middle class, if it does not serve the greed of the rich. That's why he started his career with the first movie back in 1989: Roger & me.

Challenge #3:
The US as the "Land of Opportunity".
China, has a net Emigration rate of -0.39 migrants/1,000 population.
The US, has an immigration rate of 2.92 migrants/1,000 population. (I did not check the data, but sounds credible to me...)

A major problem is that many people "live off the government" by choice: they think they are entitled for better life but are not willing to work for it. These people can't afford to fill their prescriptions, but spend their money on cigarette, drink, cell phones and cable TV.
Decent, hard working Americans should not support these behavior.

Not all rich people are greedy; many worked hard to get from nothing to wealth. These people create job for society.

The efforts of the Americans should be restricted only to help people to help themselves.

My response # 3:

Contrary to your assertion, today's problems are not coming from the small fraction of people who take advantage of the system. This happens everywhere and it should not be a reason to be judgmental of the decent people who fail because the system fails them - this is what MM's movie is about -.

If you say that not all rich people are greedy you are right! But why do you imply that all all of today's unfortunate Americans owe their misery to themselves by buying cigarette instead of paying for prescription? This is a very insensitive and convenient point of view. People with this attitude can justify that they remain unsympathetic to the poor while feeling entitled to their wealth.

The trend is that greed of the rich and the mismanagement of the previous American hard core capitalist leadership lead the country into this turmoil, not the "lazy" 9.8% who have no jobs today.

As to the slogan: Land of Opportunity; it came around the turn of last century when it was indeed true but has become a mere slogan since then. People come here because of a diverse reasons:
1. lax, poorly defined immigration  policy,
2. tremendous poverty in nearby countries
3. easy crossing of the borders on the South,
4. the lingering legend of the "Land of Opportunity".
This country is no more "Land of Oppotunity" today then countless other countries. Had China not had a strict immigration law and closely guarded borders, masses of North Koreans and South-East Asians would flood for the opportunity there.

Michael Moore: Capitalism: A Love Story

I saw the movie last night, on its day of premiere.
It is sort of the "expected movie" from the voice of the simple guy with good common sense. No doubt it will draw tremendous criticism but will be loved around much of the World although probably not in the US.

The first indication of how the movie will be handled in the US is that the local Regal Cinema did not play it in its main location in the Mall rather, in a small "satellite" location a block down the road. On the last show (10pm) the theater was about 30/40% full. Instead of a detailed analysis, I only want to share the  take-home message that I got from the movie.

It brings up very good points about capitalism, as it is practiced in the US. Even gun ho capitalist believers should take time to ponder about some of his arguments. Although Michael Moore already made it "big time" in the same system he is so critical of, he has the integrity to stand up for the small guy. He knows that most people will not have his kind of chance to succeed, although nearly everyone seems to be duped by the slogans of the Promise Land. The movie is not denying that the dream that seems to fuel capitalism, the dream of becoming rich, will come through for a selected few. However, it expresses Moore's concerns that this capitalist dream somehow dehumanized the American society. He warns that the realistic desire of people, not to become a millionaire,  just to live the life of a simple, hard working middle class citizen, is endangered by an ever more greedy upper class.