An Almost White One!
When I speak of the black ones I advise
paying attention to their subtle methods, and discerning how patiently they
creep to the goal and how they choose shoulders behind which to screen
themselves. You do not see the black ones, but the grey ones and almost
white ones. However, this telegraph requires great attention. Hierarchy, 284
The other day, I came across a piece in the New York
Times opinion pages, “Capitalism and the Dalai Lama” by a person named Arthur
C. Brooks. The article had a
kind of wonky frequency to it. I had a quick look into who Mr. Brooks is. Well,
turns out he is the president of The American Enterprise Institute. His
co-workers are individuals like John bolton, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Novak, Richard Perle.
Mr. Brooks article is rather
disjointed and confusing. He seems to want to understand The D.L.’s thinking,
but at the same time he is trying to justify what he calls “Free Enterprise”.
For example, Mr. Brooks
writes that The D.L. “insisted that while free enterprise could be a blessing,
it was not guaranteed to be so. Markets are instrumental, not intrinsic, for
human flourishing. As with any tool,
wielding capitalism for good requires deep moral awareness. Only activities
motivated by a concern for others’ well-being, he [the D.L.] declared, could be
truly ‘constructive.’”
This bit of, well, logic or
wisdom is pretty much the last thing in which the vast majority of corporations
worldwide are interested. Can you imagine what the result for an IPO in which the the corporate Business Plan listed a concern for right sharing or the well-being of
others as the Corporate Goal?
Mr. Brooks goes on. “Tibetan
Buddhists actually count wealth among the four factors in a happy life, along
with worldly satisfaction, spirituality and enlightenment. Money per se is not
evil.”—I wonder if the Dalia Lama is referring to “money” when he speaks of
wealth?—“For the Dalai Lama, the key
question is whether “we utilize our favorable circumstances, such as our good
health or wealth, in positive ways, in helping others.” Mr. Brooks
continues, “There is much for Americans to absorb here. Advocates of free
enterprise must remember that the
system’s moral core is neither profits nor efficiency. It is creating
opportunity for individuals who need it the most.”
This is the kind of sophistry
and double talk that allows the many of the super wealthy to see themselves as “Job
Providers”, and along with “supporting the arts” and other such charitable
enterprises provides a “moral cover” for their basically separative sense of
privilege and the right of ownership. I am quite sure that the vast majority of
CEOs and Corporate Board Members—who tend to be the same individuals and who, by the way, comprise an
infinitesimal fraction of the present human population—would all resoundingly
claim, with righteous indignation, that helping others in positive ways and
creating opportunity for individuals who need it is exactly what their corporations are doing.
In his citation of a paper
entitled “Parametric estimations of the world distribution of income Xavier
Sala-i-Martin, Maxim Pinkovskiy, 22 January 2010”, Mr. Brooks does exactly that. “Historically,
free enterprise has done this (creating opportunity for individuals who need it
the most) to astonishing effect. In a
remarkable paper, Maxim Pinkovskiy of M.I.T. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of
Columbia University calculate that the fraction of the world’s population
living on a dollar a day — after adjusting for inflation — plummeted by 80
percent between 1970 and 2006. This is
history’s greatest anti poverty achievement.” Parametric estimations of the
world distribution of income
Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Maxim
Pinkovskiy, 22 January 2010
Well
that all sounds great, like the D.L.s’ simple message of compassion, “a happy life for all” is really making an impact here. However,
looking at the “remarkable paper” cited by Mr. Brooks revealed this astonishing
bit of information, which Mr. Brooks neglected to include in his quot. “World poverty is falling. This column
presents new estimates of the world’s income distribution and suggests that
world poverty is disappearing faster than previously thought. From 1970 to
2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the
Middle East, and 20% in Africa. Barring
a catastrophe, there will never be more than a billion people in poverty in the
future history of the world.”
This
highly dubious manipulation of numbers presenting the marvelous display of our
deep moral awareness does not indicate the number of people presently living in
poverty, but it offers the comforting projection that says it is really great
that, barring a catastrophe, sometime in the future only 1,000,000,000, or so children, women, and men
will be living the happy life of poverty.
Today, right now, according to numerous reports by
groups around the world who collect and publish such data like the Statistic
Brain and One.org, nearly 1/2 of the world’s population, more than 3
billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in
extreme poverty. That is less than $1.25
a day. In the past 35 years income levels for all sectors of the world
population with the exception of the top 10% or so have dropped significantly.
Mr.
Brooks dismisses discussions about fair sharing as “dubious”, and goes on to make
several high sounding suggestions for solutions: a reliable safety net for the
poor, attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected, lifting poor
children out of ineffective schools. He ends his piece, by placing the blame for
and responsibility for fixing the problems squarely on “Washington”, which is
code for the Government. “In other words”, Mr. Brooks says, “Washington needs to be more like the Dalai
Lama. Without abandoning principles, we need practical policies based on
moral empathy. Tackling these issues may offend entrenched interests, but this
is immaterial. It must be done. And temporary
political discomfort pales in comparison with the suffering that vulnerable
people bear every day.
The
above are instructions for the ineffective politicians in Washington. Not a
word about the Corporations who exercise enormous self centered control over what does and does not happen in
Washington and who have prevented or watered down even the most modest effort
to alleviate suffering among the people. These individuals are not the least bit interested in personal discomfort of any kind at any level and will have none of it.
If
this is what free enterprise means, Mr. Brooks, NO THANKS. We prefer Democracy, government of for and by
the People. We have had your version of “free enterprise”. Been there for millenniums. Since it fails to
understand the basic concepts of Democracy, The Common Good and the General Welfare,
Happiness for All its applications are simply impractical. In other words, they
lack what The D.L. would call HEART, or a true moral core without which "practically" is im[ossible. Solutions which are not heart generated do not work.
We
need equality, right sharing, and real freedom for all. This, I take it , what the D.L . meant when he said truly "constructive". 1,000,000,000 below the poverty line is unacceptable in a Happy World.