Is 38-28-38 Beautiful Or Fat?

This will anger all my lawyer friends, but I just have to say it. Facts may be important, counselors, but only important like the bricks to a building. The bricks themselves aren't the story. It's how different people understand and assemble them into different kinds of buildings.

Take an easy if not sexist example: 38-28-38 may be a beautiful woman to some oglers, to others she's overweight. Take a more serious example: the facts behind today's 1% battle-cry. By protest- sign facts these are today's bailed-out bankers, hedge-fund managers, and other plutocrats from the world of finance. But lets not forget one-third of this 1% are also executives in non-financial firms, one out of six are in medicine, one out of 12 are lawyers, many are information-technology specialists, more are scientists and professors than celebrities from the arts and sports, plus the interesting fact that more than half US Senators and members of the House are also in the mix.

So now you have the facts [based on the Internal Revenue Department]. But once you have all the facts, you have only part of the truth! How does each of us assemble these facts into our own conceptual architecture? If perception is reality like my psychology professors liked to say, then the real meaning to these facts exists behind our eyes. The facts in and of themselves mean nothing until we give them meaning. Our meaning!

Which means to some of us, this 1% are rape-and-pillage capitalists, while to others they're essential job-creators.

Take your choice. I've made mine for some time now. But for those of you worried that American Capitalism may be under siege, not to worry. Robert and Diane Maresca of Long Island NY have already filed to trademark the phrase "Occupy Wall Street." See...? Capitalism is alive and well.

Oh, and as for my lawyer friends, take comfort in Charles Dickens: "If there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers..."

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    It is indisputable that many of those in the top 1% had an important role in creating jobs. This fact, however, does not by itself lead to the conclusion that to tax this group more would be to inhibit job creation. Context matters, and for that, I'd point to the wealth distribution in this country. The shortage of jobs isn't due to a lack of corporate cash, but rather a dearth (to vary my word choice as ridiculously much as possible) of consumer demand.

    In case you were implying what I think you were implying.

  • You're reading my implying exactly right. The so-called job-creators create jobs when it is to the advantage of their bottom line, not necessarily to the advantage of either their potential consumers or potential employees. As you say the 1% already have the cash to create the domestic jobs if they so chose, but for various reasons they do not so choose

  • Job creation on an overall scale is a market effect, not a personal choice. To call certain people "job creators" is misleading. Jobs will be created when demand exceeds the capacity of existing production to meet said demand.

    Corporations are sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash. They are not going to spend that cash until there is a solid business case for doing so. They will not invest in capital unless there is demand to justify it.

    The overall issues we have relate to the amount of cash/capital available and the confidence of demand side to exercise the use of that capital. Any conversation we have on solving our issues has to be related to addressing this.

  • These are good economic principles, but mostly when the system is in good working order. Right now I find it hard to figure out who is the egg and who is the chicken. In other words, is it government or consumers or cash-loaded entrepreneurs who needs to kick-start these principles. What I do know is that the OWS is arguing that the :"job creators" (so-called by the GOP) aren't creating anything but capital here and jobs over there.

Leave a comment