Should We Love Our Greedy Neighbors?

Let's face it, there are some pretty nasty people out there, and for anyone following a Christian value system it is one's duty to love one's neighbor. Neighbor doesn't just mean the guy next-door but all human beings. As a Unitarian Universalist I admit that I may get into the Christian mode some of the time, but that other times I get into a mode where I want nothing more than to see justice done. This means that a part of me is waiting for that gleeful moment when one of the world's creeps, scum bags or douche bags gets a taste of his or her own medicine. Specifically, it may mean fantasizing about a healthcare CEO going to prison and suffering because he or she gets medical care no better than what other prisoners are getting. Can vengeance taste any sweeter?

It is easy to see people as villainous who become fabulously rich while finding ways to pay less and less of their fair share in taxes as they contribute next to nothing to society. Another good example might be a Wall Street charlatan who made millions gambling away people's retirement money, and who now struts about showing how proud he or she is because he or she lives in a fabulous mansion and drives the most expensive cars. Should one consider this kind of rip-off artist as evil as any thief or bank robber?

Whatever our moral appraisal of the well-heeled rascals may turn out to be, is it right for us to detest them? They may not at all be aware that they are doing wrong. They may believe it is right to take money from a public made up of fools who deserve to be ripped off. Is this kind of rationalization a sign of criminality or of a special kind of insanity? It depends on how you define the crime of theft. It depends a lot on a person's motive. Say somebody steals food or a small amount of money to feed a starving family. Yes it is wrong to steal, but it may be even more wrong to let someone die of starvation. Say someone steals money to buy drugs because he or she cannot bear the pain of withdrawal. Yes, it's wrong but understandable--people have limits as to how much pain they may be able to bear.

But what about multi-million-dollar rascals who pilfer ordinary people's money by means of the schemes and tricks of Wall Street? Are they ripping off the public in order to avoid unbearable pain? Yes and no. The experience of pain is relative: physical pain is undeniably direct. But the pain that the greedy may be trying to avoid is emotional: They avoid the pain of not being able to keep up with the Joneses, who they see as even richer than they. If the avoidance of pain is an emotional psychological affliction, and if the misappropriation of money crosses the boundaries of criminality, does it mean that the thief is an ordinary criminal, or that he or she is the victim of a newly discovered form of criminal insanity?

If multi-million-dollar scoundrels are indeed found to be suffering from a newly recognized form of criminal insanity, it would be very wrong to hate them because it is wrong to detest people who are afflicted with an illness. On the contrary, they deserve our feelings of compassion. But just as with other more commonly recognized forms of criminal insanity, such as killing committed by someone truly delusional, you cannot allow the individual in question to continue his or her misdeeds. Such people need to be stopped and institutionalized until the proper medical authority determines they have overcome their illness. As to the money taken by criminally insane multi-million-dollar rich and super-rich thieves, it should be returned to those that it has been taken from, and once this has happened we should not forget to think of them with the greatest possible compassion. And lest there be any doubt, compassion is a form of love.

Anything Goes for Profit?

I recommend that after you read my last post about not worrying about putting "healthcare providers" out of business, you check Bill Maher's discussion on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOWJFiKeZQ

At the Center of the Healthcare Battle

What's at the basis of the health-care battle? It has become crystal clear that those intoxicated by greed do all they can to get their hands on more money. Universal healthcare means less money for private healthcare providers because a government-run program does not have to support an incredible load of pay going to executives nor does it have to pay out profits to investors. It would mean an extreme threat to corporations that take as much profit as they can by giving as little health care as possible for the fees and premiums they take in.

Healthcare costs have increased because hospitals and health insurance companies that existed to keep people alive and healthy have now became little more than a means of making money for corporate profiteers. When privatizers took over non-profit hospitals and insurance companies, they channeled cash to investors and corporate officers by cutting operating funds to doctors and nurses, eliminating necessary procedures whenever possible, and raising insurance premiums and fees to patients. Money that was used to heal the sick in non-profit systems, was now put into the pockets of corporate executives and profit-hungry investors.

True, non-profits have administrative structures in which those who are higher on the administrative scale get paid more. But for the most part, those on top of the ladder don't get the obscenely high salaries and bonuses customary in the corporate world. Instead, compensation with non-profits is roughly similar to that of the civil service system where those on top primarily get paid in accordance to a scale based on greater expertise and/or more experience. The civil service system is proof that managers who don't get outlandish compensations accomplish far more than those in for-profit corporations. Looking at the overall picture, corporate health-care executive pay is an unnecessary overhead, and eliminating it will benefit the essential components of health care, doctors, nurses, technicians and above all, the patients.

On the Lighter Side

On the Lighter Side,

Yesterday I got a ride in- and a quick test-drive in an Equinox from Maurice, our good friend and computer consultant for many years. The Equinox is a GM prototype of a hydrogen propelled SUV with mileage standards roughly equivalent to the much lighter Prius, 0 to 60 in nine seconds. We took it for a completely effortless climb up Mt. Washington. But the greatest advantage is that of having zero (and I mean it) pollution in its emission. With the engine running, you check the exhaust: No fumes of any kind, only a few drops of water. Hello, fresh air in the L.A. basin! Check it out at http://gmfuelcell.com

How the Economy Tanked and How It Could Be Saved

In the Good Old Days

How did the American economy go into a nosedive? In the fifties and sixties it was easy for anyone to get a job, a mortgage and to support a family. Just about anything you could see, hear or touch was made in the U.S.A. Manufacturers, buyers and sellers were American. You could make a living just about anywhere in the country, whether you had a small business, practiced a profession, worked in a factory or as a salesclerk. Whatever was produced in factories could be sold in stores or dealerships and there were plenty of buyers for no-matter-what. As almost everybody's credit was good, business kept up a steady pace. Producers could rely on a steady stream of consumers, and consumers were comfortable living within their means.

Mutual Respect and Loyalty

Going into retirement was no problem. Companies large and small had pension plans. Unions had made sure that the employees of large companies would get decent retirement packages, and smaller companies followed suit because they wanted to be competitive. From large corporations down to local businesses, management knew and appreciated their staff. In general those on top respected and valued the loyalty of those at the middle and lower levels. Workers and white collar staff trusted their supervisors, and they were proud of working for their employers whether their company was GM or a local hardware store.

Dog-Eat-Dog Comes into Fashion

Then, what happened? Even though the country began to be polarized through the Vietnam War by the end of the sixties, basic underlying values of decency were still in place in business, social and political arenas until the late seventies. By then a conservative cloud began to settle over the country. By then a steady drumbeat blaming all social ills on the power of the unions filled the airwaves. A dog-eat-dog philosophy became more and more popular. People on welfare were labeled as parasites. And for the first time since the great depression there was ever-increasing homelessness. Where earlier it was considered against the law for someone to sleep on the streets, getting the sleeper arrested for “vagrancy,” for the homeless to sleep on the streets was now considered unfortunate but inevitable. Food and shelter were once considered a right based on American tradition. Everyone could still be fed because of the food stamp program, but shelter could now only be guaranteed if people managed "to measure up." Those who insisted it was only decent to house the homeless were dismissed as "bleeding-heart liberals.”

Getting Rid of Unions

The dog-eat-dog mode also became prevalent in business and industry. Where previously corporate management would at times be annoyed by the ways of unions, management now fought to destroy unions where they already existed and to snuff out anyone who dared to start unions in places that had none. The annihilation of the air traffic controllers' union by the Reagan administration is a key example of the destruction of a union. Wal-Mart's hostility against the formation of a union presents a perfect example of how a corporation prevents employees from having a collective representation in the first place.

Corporate Raiders Take People's Retirements

But dog-eat-dog behavior became commonplace not only between the haves of the corporate world and the have-nots outside of it, it also became the keynote among corporations in dealing with one another. Before the mid-seventies there were few if any hostile corporate takeovers. Such takeovers were no more acceptable than stealing gardening equipment from a neighbor. Now a company would take control of another simply to get the targeted company's assets, and if an employee of the acquired firm lost his retirement as a result, the loss would be recorded as nothing more than a victory for the bottom line of the raiding company. By any standard of decency, before this time taking people's retirement money would have been considered nothing less than an act of theft. In the gangland of corporate competition, however, it was now considered to be nothing more than well-earned spoils going to a well-deserving victor.

Eliminating Cost Factors

Today, the rich and/or famous have become role models for the population on the whole; anyone wealthy is considered more worthy of respect than anyone less so. In the never-ending quest for their version of “greatness,” the world's greediest stop at nothing. And this is the source of America 's economic decline. In an endless pursuit of money, corporate captains look for ways to cut costs benefiting only themselves, their peers and investors. How? By simply acting as if employees, regardless of how long they have been with the company, are nothing more than expenses, and they feel they are doing the world a service as they eliminate these "cost factors” by sending American workers' jobs and equipment to China, India or the Philippines. Having done so, corporate officers take millions and millions in salaries and bonuses. To add insult to injury these executives are treated like stars by business and investment media.


Building Mansions

What does the monied elite do with the cash they save by laying off American workers and replacing them with quasi-slave labor in China ? If they don't use the money to buy up other companies where the same cycle is repeated, they use it to build themselves ever larger mansions, or they place the money in overseas tax shelters, cheating the American public out of much-needed tax revenues.

Fewer and Fewer Jobs

Now what about the employees who are out of work? A small minority is lucky enough to get new jobs. During the past eight years there have been other “lucky” ones who could survive because they could get home equity loans as long as the real estate market continued to go up and up--until it collapsed. Others kept looking for jobs only to find out there is no work because most other companies are also sending jobs out of the country. The result: Fewer and fewer jobs and fewer and fewer houses bought. The job market collapses, so does the real estate market, and people who were living on borrowed money suddenly find that banks are demanding that they pay up. Without cash reserves they either end up with a foreclosure or a bankruptcy or both.

When the Money Runs Out

How do people manage without an income? Some rely on unemployment benefits until they run out. Then they exhaust their cash savings. Next they empty out their 401k retirement accounts, and when these last reserves are gone they move in with friends or sleep on the couch of close or distant family members as long as they are welcome. And in the end they have no choice but to sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets. Can the government help them out? As long as there are funds, federal, state and local governments can create jobs through programs like public works projects or through the improvement of existing services. But governments lack money because the people who were laid off no longer pay taxes, and without taxes government cannot do anything.

So how do we cope with fewer and fewer people having an income? If anybody could help it would be those on top of the pyramid, the rich and the very rich, including the same corporate chieftains who have given themselves eight figure annual salaries while cutting their employees' jobs.

The Rich Give Advice

But when asked, mighty money-men tell politicians that they shouldn't ask the rich to give up money to put the economy back on its feet. Stop government "giveaways" to the poor, they say. Cut "entitlements" like Medicaid, housing for the poor, subsidized bus service etc. They point out that they, the executive class, succeeded in becoming more prosperous by reducing costs by cutting salaries and benefits of lower ranking staff. Government can do the same! All that is needed is to stop "handouts" to the needy, the losers that lost because they did not "measure up?"

The prosperous may mean well, but as misery spreads and more and more become anonymous and homeless, it becomes impossible to take anything from those who have nothing. Maybe you could save money by stopping the food stamp program or by refusing emergency medical care to the uninsured, but could you get enough of the public to accept increasing numbers of people dying of disease and hunger in the streets?


Can the Rich Do with Less?

True, not all of the prosperous are hard-nosed conservatives--there are some "bleeding-heart liberals" among them-- but most may not want the one workable remedy that could put the economy back on its feet. They don't want to see that the only way to turn the economy around is to tax those who have money. You cannot get taxes from the middle and lower strata. They have been squeezed to the limit. True, as those who have plenty always want more, it may be painful for them to have less. While it may hurt everyone to give up anything at all, is it more painful for one with twenty million a year to give up eighteen than for a family with less than ten thousand to lose the roof over their heads?

After the Fire

But it is an illusion for the wealthy to think that the decline in living standards of the general public will not affect them. Once people have given up health-care, police and fire protection, it is doubtful that the privileged, living in their enclaves, will be spared from the worldwide pandemics, rampant crime waves or merciless fires raging out of control that are likely to occur. Dwellers of enclaves may realize they are still part of the larger community. Imagine yourself as one of those dwellers. Imagine you have a home and a major fire has broken out. When the fire has ceased to burn, you learn that all homes but your own were destroyed. Though you are happy your place was saved, would you enjoy looking at the charred remains of your neighbors' houses?

Immortality?

Is there such a thing as immortality?

Immortality in the religious sense is a matter of belief and cannot be proven empirically. But what about the stamp left on reality by artists and writers? Those who have become stars in their lifetime or shortly after their death will be remembered through their works and the experience brought forth by the artists' creation will continue to "live" every time anyone listens to a recording, looks at a painting, or reads the writing that was produced during the artist's lifetime. The artist's soul thus survives through his works. So John Lennon lives every time we listen to one of his songs.

How can one make sure to be remembered?

The creation of a memorable product whether it may be a work of art or an invention generally is not the result of the creator's wish to make his mark on history. True creativity does not concern itself with getting recognition whether in the creator's lifetime or in posterity. Creativity lives in the moment--it never concerns itself with "what will they think of my work now or in the future." As for recognition on a grand scale, it will happen or not. More often than not it comes as a result of nothing more than luck. As for recognition and remembrance on a smaller scale, let's say family and friends, they are determined by what chords are struck by what we have produced, and chances are that our control over the impact that we make is limited at best.

So is it worth it being recognized and remembered?

That's a tough one. Yes, as long as one does not worry about it. In fact, caring about being recognized and/or remembered may well be useless if not counterproductive. Even if immortality is achieved, is it real? If so, it would mean that a manifestation of someone's incarnation would continue forever and forever, and it would seem logical that since no one remembers what happened millions of years ago, it seems rather unlikely that anyone living now will be remembered millions of years in the future. If one asks oneself how long one wants to be remembered, one is not really interested in immortality.

Conclusion?

Live in the moment, enjoy the moment and create in the moment. Let this be what matters and consider all that which results to be nothing more than a byproduct of lesser importance.

What Does It Mean to Be Authentic

We are what we have. Are we what we have? If we have a flashy, expensive sports car, people may see us as materially successful, an exciting risk taker and fun-loving. If we drive a mini-van, there are other expectations: family oriented with kids to drive around. Dressed in a suit? --a professional or perhaps a life insurance salesperson. Living in a mansion? High net worth and enjoying all the privileges that come along with it, such as that of being picky about the very finest restaurants or the ability to travel around the world.

Other people react to us in terms of what we have or appear to have. A girl's interest may perk up when she meets a guy with a sexy sports car. Showing up in a restaurant in an expensive suit may get the waiters to be more careful about the service and to expect a better tip.

Other less tangible things like an impressive resume that may open career doors. Having memberships in exclusive clubs may bring us connections that make it easy to get what we want because we know the "right" people.

So how do the things we have influence us? They put pressure on the way we act. Once admitted to a private club it does not take long to be and act like other members and to be very comfortable acting like the rest. By contrast, if we are visiting a church to please a friend, chances are we will be very cautious about all our movements. What can we conclude? In general, the things we have, whether they are material property or social connections, have an incredible influence on the way we walk through life.

Are we then nothing more than what our possessions have made us become? Is our true, authentic being nothing more than what we own and what we can do with what we own? Strange as it may seem, it may be true for most. In times of economic setbacks people begin to feel they are less when they have less. It explains why some who have lost most of their net worth jump off buildings. They assume that when their money is gone they no longer have value as human beings because money was all they respected and valued.

For those whose identity is nothing more than their economic reality, the loss of property means a loss of heart and soul. But for those who live authentically, the loss of what they have does not spell the end of a meaningful life because they were not just a construct of their possessions but rather an expression of their core being.