Bigotry and Economics: Part One

I am the daughter of a musician and an artist. Both of my parents had multiple creative talents, and the expression of those talents were higher priority than worrying about how much money we had, so long as we had the basic necessities covered. We had what we needed, but often only because we had help from family members. I suppose you could say that we grew up poor, but since the words "rich" and "poor" get bandied about so carelessly and generally, let me be more specific:


We were the kind of poor who ate macaroni and cheese for dinner most nights, although we did eat the Kraft Deluxe brand of macaroni and cheese most of the time. Some would say that qualified us as rich, since they could only afford the most basic, generic brand of macaroni and cheese with powdered cheese instead of the creamy kind that squeezes out like a huge orange turd and melts so nicely, but for the sake of this blog post let's say that we were still qualified to be considered poor.


I remember hearing the question "What are we going to do about K.U.B.?" on a regular basis growing up. It was a question my parents often asked one another, and even though I wasn't sure what it meant, I knew it was something that my parents were worried about.


When I got older, I learned that K.U.B. was the power company, and that if the bill didn't get paid by a certain date, there would be no electricity in our apartment. I don't recall us ever losing power, so again, some might consider us to be rich. However, there are others who never had to worry about losing electricity, and they would most certainly have considered us to be poor.


Are you detecting a pattern here? The point is: poor and rich are meaningless words unless one understands the context in which they are being used. One person's definition of "poor" is another's definition of "rich". Few people ever stop to think about what level of poverty or luxury they are actually referring to when they use the words "rich" and "poor".


My father was a music teacher in the public school system, which didn't pay much. He also taught private piano lessons, and frequently played the organ at various churches and for weddings, funerals, and parties. My father worked sometimes 20 hours a day in order to make sure we had the basic necessities (with maybe an occasional Icee thrown in here and there as a treat) and often had to "borrow" money from his parents to make ends meet.


When my parents divorced, we eventually ended up living with Dad, and I noticed that the more he worked, the better home we could afford to rent. We went from three people (my dad, brother, and myself) living in a tiny one bedroom apartment to a three-level townhouse, my father with his own floor (the basement, which was his bedroom and a full bath) and my brother and I each with our own rooms, shared a bathroom on the top level.


It wasn't a huge place compared to where most of my friends lived, but it was huge to us. It was the first time my brother and I had each had our own bedrooms, and we were on cloud nine! Later, as I visited the homes of friends, I realized that, while our townhouse apartment was brand new and very clean and plenty big enough, it still fell short of where most of my friends lived. I also realized that, while we were renters, most of my friends' parents owned their own homes, and those who rented lived in houses, not apartments.


There were health problems in our family that kept us in debt and limited our income, which affected my parents' credit, and which had a lot to do with the quality of life we had from an economic standpoint. However, I would say that we were generally a happy bunch, possibly because not having much means that it takes less to make you happy.


In middle school, I discovered that I could sell candy at school for a higher price than what I had purchased it for at the convenience store. There were a couple of others who also sold candy, and most of us cleared up to $20 per day if we managed things well.


Selling candy was against the rules at school, and could even get you suspended. I'm sure all of my teachers knew what I was doing, but the only one who ever called me out on it was Mr. Armstrong, my American History teacher.


Mr. Armstrong was a stern, but reasonable man. I remember him commenting during class one day when he saw an illegal sale of a Blow Pop go down between another student and me for the second time that week: "Aha! I see we have a very enterprising young lady in here. See me after class."


I had never been in that kind of trouble before. (Seriously, I was a true teacher's pet.) I was terrified. I remember feeling the blood drain from my face and the feeling of doom that set in. I dreaded what was to take place after class, but I somehow survived that 45 minute wait.


As I approached Mr. Armstrong's desk after class, he said: "Tell me: Are you selling candy to make money, or are you selling candy to supply the other kids with candy?" It was, I thought, a strange question. Why on earth would anyone take such a huge risk of suspension and sell candy just to supply the other kids with candy? Wasn't the point of selling something to make a profit? Before I answered, I wondered if the truth would be the answer he was looking for, but figured that's what I'd go with since the other answer made no sense to me. "To make money." I said softly. "Well then, make sure you do it before or after class. This is a warning. Next time I won't be so lenient."


I almost passed out from relief. I made sure from then on not to sell candy during class, and had no more problems. However, the encounter left me with the distinct impression that, had I not been trying to make money, and had only been trying to increase my popularity by supplying the other kids with candy, I might have been sent to the office and more severely punished. Clearly, Mr. Armstrong respected and valued capitalism. He was a proud African-American, and frequently talked about economics and what it meant to be lower class, middle class, upper-middle class, and so on. He instilled in all of his students the value of hard work and made it clear that if one wanted success, it was necessary to work for it.


I remember happily purchasing a new pair of jeans with my candy profits one time, and most of the rest of the money I made went toward buying purses, hairspray, pens, pencils, notebooks, and various organizers for my room (the O.C.D. was very evident even then). I had the full support of an aunt who would always help me find candy at a good price, and my dad was always willing to drive me from convenience store to convenience store so I could buy up as many Blow Pops, Jolly Ranchers, and packs of bubble gum as I could before the next school day. It was something I both enjoyed and benefited from financially.


You might think this would have made me popular at school, but that wasn't the case. I was in demand, but even a rebel candy seller like myself couldn't transcend the awkward nerd barrier to popularity. Not only was I not popular, but some of the same students to whom I sold candy were cruel to me, saying that I was "greedy" because I wouldn't just give them the candy they wanted. Some of these kids came from wealthy families and, together with the ones who didn't, assumed that I must come from more money than they did, since I had something they wanted most of the time, and since they found themselves having to pay for what they got from me. This was when I first learned how bigoted people can become when you have something they want and they don't want to have to make a fair exchange for it. Not only do people tend to develop a sense of entitlement that they have a right to what you have simply because they want it, but they resent the fact that they have to contribute something of equal value in order to get what they want to the point where they become quite hateful towards the person providing the goods or services, often using inappropriate labels and stereotyping against the parties whom they consider to be "the bad guys" who won't give them what they want. Who cares that the seller merely wants to be able to obtain goods and services that the seller needs and wants. The fact that capitalism is based on self-interest becomes a reason for the consumer to be critical of the seller, all while the consumer forgets that they are behaving out of self-interest when they shop for bargains and/or purchase a product. (And how selfish is it when someone thinks they deserve something without having to pay for it like the rest of us?) It's called a sense of entitlement, and it's not just for the poor. Even the wealthy exhibit this behavior, and it has less to do with how much money one has and more to do with a failure to respect the rights of others.


Yes, that's right. I used the word "entitlement" to refer even to the WEALTHY kids who were angry that I wouldn't give them the candy they wanted... candy which I had paid for myself and which I took a significant risk in selling.


Capitalism is something that most do not truly understand the meaning of since we haven't had it in this country for a very long time. Capitalism is based on a free market, enabling fair competition. But that's not what we seem to have in America these days. Instead, we seem to have a bizarre mix of corporatism (which does not provide for fair competition and favors certain businesses over others according to political interests and government control making it nearly impossible for an honest, capitalistic corporation to make a profit without benefit of government forcing the people to use that corporation through price fixing or other controls, not to be confused with anti-trust law) mixed with socialism, (in which the government owns everything and does not allow for the ownership of private property or competition, and in which the government decides who gets what and, once again, the people have no control).


When someone uses their own efforts and resources to purchase inventory that customers need and want or puts effort into providing a service and sells it at a fair price, it is only fair that they be rewarded for their efforts. In a capitalistic society, you don't survive if you are price gouging. Not so in our current corporatist society, which allows companies to band together and gang up on consumers, fleecing them via corporate-favored government regulatory committees which favor politics over fair competition. Virtually every problem we have in today's society is the result of such corporatism and the economic fraud that so frequently accompanies it. Unfortunately, many people who are uneducated in what capitalism actually is blame capitalism, making small business owners (some of whom own corporate jets to allow them to SAVE money while traveling in an effort to keep their companies profitable and their employees employed) out to be villains and the consumers who are (Gasp! Horror!) required to PAY for their products and services out to be victims.


Forget the fact that some of the store owners who are in business are actually losing money, the fact that some of their customers are poor becomes an excuse in the minds of said customers for stealing from the store. After all, a store owner must be wealthy, right? This stems from the mistaken idea that there is no risk in capitalism on the part of the provider of goods and services, and that every business owner is a wealthy, privileged individual who never has trouble making ends meet.


The truth is, those corporate jet owners became corporate jet owners mostly because they took risks. The fact that the risks some take pan out and allows them to become wealthy causes many to assume that all business owners are this successful when, in fact, most are not.


For every one successful, corporate-jet-owning business owner, there are thousands of others who made decisions that did not turn out so well for their businesses. Many of them have lost their homes, their health insurance, vehicles, and even become homeless because they took the risks inherent in owning a business and were not able to survive.


This risk at such high stakes in the business world would keep anyone from ever starting a business if there were not also the possibility of rewards for their efforts. It is this reward-seeking motivated by self-interest that has allowed many of us to overcome mother nature's life-threatening environment and develop technology to overcome earth's temperature extremes, viruses, plagues, famines, et al.


Not only have many of us managed to do this for ourselves, but in parts of the world where there has not been as much progress, we help those who are still struggling with mother nature's cruelty. Sadly, we can't help everyone, but we do what we can.


Still, we have people in our country who whine and complain that they can't retire in comfort because politics has caused the stock market to crash, affecting their 401K. (Did anyone stop to consider that the stock market is not without risk? Did these people forget to read the documents they were signing when they signed on with a broker?) The ability to live in comfort comes from the reward of taking risks with your money, hedging your bets that the company you are investing in will be profitable. When it isn't profitable, you lose money. How ironic that those who are upset that they may have to work the rest of their lives instead of taking leisure trips and writing the great American novel are some of the very ones criticizing capitalism. The cause of their dismay is that they invested in companies that were not profitable. Had they been profitable, had their retirement turned out the way they wanted, I wonder: would they be so critical of capitalism?


These are the people who want the corporate jet owners to pay 40% or more of their income in taxes so that they can have more benefits. They don't seem to understand that paying 40% more for a small business doesn't just mean their own income, but the entire income of the business itself, since most small businesses are taxed on the entire income of the business at a personal tax rate.


I dislike the mindless spoon-fed mentality that so many who identify with political extremes of either liberals or conservatives seem to exhibit. There seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude. There are those idiots who don't understand why we pay taxes at all (to support the infrastructure which allows businesses to become profitable to begin with) and others who think that it's not enough that 20% of $1 million equates to $200,000 in taxes compared to $2,000 in taxes on a $20,000 income, and want someone with a salary over $1,000,000 to pay an even HIGHER amount in taxes.


The most common argument I've heard for this? "The rich have become wealthy at the expense of the poor, so they should have to pay more."


REALLY?!?


I am amazed at those who consider themselves to be poor who would NEVER tolerate someone making such ridiculous, untrue, and blanketed statements towards THEM, who seem to be completely blind to the bigotry they are exhibiting towards "the rich".


Let's take a closer look at who the "rich" really are:


Contrary to popular belief, the myth of the crooked fraud stealing money from the poor so they can live high on the hog is very rare. Unfortunately, news of the fraud and Ponzi schemes of a few gets reported so widely and blown out of proportion so badly and for so long, that those who fail to use critical thinking when building their opinions and mindlessly swallow what the political pundits with which they are aligned are saying begin to believe in the false caricatures of the wealthy, rather than the actual respectable, if not heroic, wealthy people who have improved our standard of living immensely.


The ability to take a phone with you in the car and reach emergency assistance when necessary, increasing the survival rate of vehicular accident victims, increased quality in communications, the ability of those without so much as running water in India who spend half of their $300 monthly income on smart phones for their children so they can network and find jobs and enjoy a better future, something previously not possible for many in that part of the world, all came about as a result of these supposed "evil, greedy, selfish" wealthy folks who dared to risk everything they had to start a business in their garage and, after decades of hard work, now own those notorious "private jets".


Never mind that the corporate jets they own are what allow them to find the raw materials and negotiate the lowest price on computer chips which, in turn, make the technology more affordable for the poor. Who cares that without the corporate jet they'd spend more than half their time waiting in airports and sitting on the tarmac, delaying the availability of their latest inventions to a world that needs the gadgets more than most realize or are willing to admit? Hang the rich and their airplane hangars.


I'm amazed at the number of people who have decided not only that all rich folks are wealthy at the expense of the poor (Who forced the poor to purchase an iPhone? A pizza from Domino's? Furniture from Rent-A-Center?) but that taking more of the hard-earned money from the innovators that make our world unbelievably smaller and more manageable in a very positive way will somehow solve the problems of the poor. It might put a Band-Aid (TM) on those problems, but unless you're willing to live with a mere Band-Aid (TM) as a solution to a gangrenous problem caused by the raping of the American people NOT by the wealthy, but by the powerful political groups (many of whom happen to be wealthy not because they worked hard to build a business but because they managed to convince you to vote them into office where they enjoy huge salaries and extensive benefits you'll never get) you shouldn't be so eager to grab those Band-Aids (TM) when what you really need are stitches, and seek a more responsible, life-affirming solution. But first, you've got to stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed into hating those who have more than you, because that is the main weapon being used against all of us to convince us to bicker among ourselves in true political fashion so the powers that be can continue fleecing all of us - rich and poor alike.


To be continued...