Skip to main content

Who are the 1%?

Why the 1% and Who are They?


Why are we fixated on the 1%? Why not the 5%? And are these people all the same? Should we be angry at a man who has worked hard for years and now his business finally makes him some serious money? Or are we only upset at CEOs of major corporations? What about the person whose grandmother left them a fortune? Or do we think that bankers are the root of all evil? (Even though we couldn't live without them if we tried). And is it all bankers??? Or just certain types?

Placing Blame for our Economic Woes


What about the 'sit-on-my-hands-and-do-nothing' group of politicians in Washington, DC. Running for office so often so justifiably spend much of their time making sure they have enough money and leverage to get reelected? What about the non-decision-making that messed up our credit rating and frequently pushes us to the brink and cuts the social safety net and protects the military budget? What about them? Are they not to blame for any of this?

Are we going to be as angry at politicos the way we are at Wall Street when Wall Street's rules are made in Washington DC? Why were people sitting in cities beating up on bankers, joined in chorus by politicians (who if you're Obama you hire them right off the Street and then berate them), of whom so many are the 1% who benefit from insider information (there is no law against them doing that) and leave Congress much richer than when they showed up?

Targeting the Rich


Targeting 'the rich' is silly social action because they are no more moral/social monolith than the poor. Targeting people is never a good idea and does not create social change. Targeting behavior or laws is much more productive. And getting mad at someone for maximizing the utility of tax loopholes is pointing a finger in the wrong direction. Most of us would do same. Perhaps closing the loophole is the answer and just perhaps its Washington where that must happen. Yes... putting money in foundations is often a nice way to deal with excess wealth but it's also plugged a lot of holes left by our somewhat fishnetty social welfare system.

Where individuals are the problem then charge them with a crime and get on with it. Where rules are the problem then change them to rein in problematic behavior.

What About Us?


What we should not do is fully participate in our own demise (i.e. spend up credit cards and buy lavish homes we can't afford) and then blame someone else for our misfortune. Did Lehman Brothers, Countrywide and AIG mess up?!! Hell yeah!! And there's not a banker would say otherwise. So we clean up the mess and figure out what we have to do to make a different kind of mess next time (there will always be messes in life, humans being who we are). And the people to hold accountable for cleaning up the mess is the government.

The Cost of Blaming


In the meantime, I suppose I take it personal when people attack bankers because some of the most wonderful people in my life and the lives of so many happen to have that professional title. But that's not the source of my rant..... blaming groups of people for the bad things that happen in our society has never had a good outcome in human history. So maybe its time we stop.

Comments

  1. I totally agree that blaming individuals and groups of people is very risky and that the conversation should be focused on moving forward. But I think that you are forgetting one important piece of the political process. When people, oftentimes in Wall Street, accumulate a bunch of money and want to keep it, some of them lobby Congress Members with lots of that money to put those loopholes into the tax code and help in other ways legislatively. I am not at all proud of our elected representatives in D.C. right now but I do not think they are alone. The ones who get elected are often propelled to the top by money from those who want to keep the money to themselves. That is something that is blameworthy. Its not like bankers and others who take advantage of tax loopholes and other systemic "helpers" had nothing to do with their creation. They didn't just stumble along and go "hot damn, my lucky day!"

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free Speech, Safe Spaces and Academic Freedom

Fall is here and students are back in the classroom and free speech is back on the agenda.

Just a few weeks in and already the hottest topic on campuses across America is free speech. In particular, my alma mater - the University of California, Berkeley (UCBerkeley) - is at the heart of the controversy to bring 'conservative' speakers to campus in what is being billed as Free Speech Week. It can either be seen as ironic, or a full circle revisit, that UC Berkeley is in this place, given its role in creating the free speech movement which grew out of a series of protests during the 1964-1965 academic year. It is now focused on right-wing ideas while back then it was focused on the protest speech of the left. It was as a place for radical ideas that I got to know most about UC Berkeley as a young girl growing up in Jamaica, and one of the primary reasons I chose to attend. The flood of articles that focus on the issue of free speech in the academy almost seems reminiscent of the…

Mass Murder, Civil Rights and Constitutional Amendments

The right to keep and bear arms was given to the people of the United States to keep them safe. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights (click here for a copy of the Bill of Rights)


It states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm all for the rights of the people. But I also know that historical documents have 'context' that apply to a particular time and place. Yes, the constitution was once about men and not about women. About whites and not about blacks nor the people that were here when the white folks came.
And though I think men shooting at rocks and whatnot in the bush or at the range is men being men (and some women being women), i dont get the need for an assault rifle when we are not living in the DRC or are a mercenary on a secret op for Shell or some other Fortune 100. 

I even love reading Soldier of Fortune magazine and watching Sons of Guns on D…

Cuba and Castro: Liberation, Oppression and Socialist Ideals

It's been two years since I have written a post because I write when I have something I need to say and not to keep the blog gods happy. So today, I decided to comment on the death of Fidel Castro from a policy perspective. 

Why Comment
I am inspired to write on Cuba and Castro because as a young Jamaican girl on the island during the 1970's, Castro had a featuring role. In many ways he was the reason my parents left Jamaica. During the worldwide recession due to the oil crisis in the 1970's, Jamaica was led by Michael Manley - a friend to Castro who loved democracy but wanted the social gains of Cuba. Cuban doctors came to Jamaica. Cubans built schools including Jose Martí Technical High School in Spanish Town. Manley nationalized hotels and my family could afford a nice holiday at a hotel for the first time. Prior to that, tourism catered to whites from abroad, not the brown people of the island. 

Manley also nationalized other industries and promoted education with a liber…