Cunning Realist contrasts Capt. Sullenberger with Bernard Madoff. Excerpt:
Without going into the separate issues of whether the Wall Street bailout is working, or what would have happened without it, there's a basic truth: it takes money from people like Sullenberger and gives it to people who sit in front of banks of computer screens all day making a living off flickering green dots. ...The Sully-Madoff contrast also brings into stark relief a more existential national choice, one that's been building for years. Should we value things like the ability to get into the cockpit of an airplane and fly hundreds of people across the country, or teach kids, or actually make things? Or, the past year or so aside, are we going to continue as a society to encourage our best and brightest to become slightly more legit versions of Bernie Madoff?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Neigh, I say! Neigh..!
I've come to see this as the dead horse of the decade/century: addressing the mindset of growth and progress that prohibits any comparison between acquisition of wealth and having enough.
From my POV, it's "keeping up with the Jones" on steroids, an adrenalin drip, and non-stop coffee.
Example: the doom-gloom rhetoric talks about "crash", but it doesn't say anything about people having enough to live comfortably. We've lost sight of any sane definitional line between comfort and luxury. Any more, that line seems to be how many (more than zero) toys one has, not whether one has the toys or not.
Sigh.
Does the author seriously think that Madoff is just a one-off from the entire financial industry? Are sensationalists like him completely blind to the value the financial industry provides? One thing this recession has done is ever-so-clearly delineate who does and does not know Jack Squat about economics and finance.
RNC, assume I'm one who doesn't know Jack, and expand on your point: is the value provided enough, and what is the objective analysis concerning the one-off? From where I sit, Madoff is an extreme example of an endemic problem that must be addressed, or over time we will continue to see Madoff's that are just a matter of degree difference, symptomatic of a problem that is a net detriment.
What's the accurate value judgment here? Do we rationally go non-chalant over Madoff, or is there something needing examination under his egregious example?
The financial markets provide capital and liquidity to entrepreneurial commerce. To say that our financial system represents a net negative would be to deny the economic history of the last 100 - 200 years. The flip side to that is: Fraud is fraud. Financial markets bring together investors and borrowers to build and create something of value, create jobs, and facilitate progress. To see Madoff as the embodiment of the inherent structure of the financial system is malicious and ignorant and smears millions of financial workers doing honest work.
Is it your opinion that modern finance is inherently a Ponzi scheme? Since this blog is more religion-focused, let me phrase it this way: Do you think the Catholic priest pedophilia case is just a one-off from the real mission of the priesthood?
The Japanese once had a caste system, and it went like this. The samurai were on top, because they had swords and no-one was about to argue. But next below them came the farmers. Why? Because they kept the nation fed. No rice, no future. Artisans came below that - they make necessary things, yes, but none of them as necessary as food - and merchants at the very bottom of the heap, because they don't make anything at all, they just move existing stuff around. None of this stopped the merchants from being as wealthy or wealthier than the samurai, but it suggests an interesting scale of priorities.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.