Most people, I think, are more interested in the classic American Dream of a happy family and financial stability. Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness and all that.
Then there's the wealthy. The problem is, you can't amass wealth unless you make that your life pursuit. The New York Times
ran an article quoting a study that demonstrates that wealth shapes a person's stance on politics, taxes, and equality. An anonymous Silicon Valley engineer is quoted, "Before I had much money, I thought there should be 100% estate tax on dynastic wealth... ... Once you're playing the game, it's game on."
The article goes on to describe the wealthy as viewing the less fortunate as not taking advantage of education, and that wealth is a reflection of hard work and character. The archetypal character in this case being the Miser, and you know they won't admit THAT. But let's be frank: for all the fanfare the mega-wealthy keep giving about their charity work, I don't see any of them giving up their multibillionaire status. They'd be fine with just a couple million in the bank and pump the rest back into the economy.
More than fine.
But it's not about financial stability anymore, about having a happy family who can make ends meet. It's a competition. Because they want to be better than the rest of us. And here they are buying our politicians, because having more money than everyone isn't enough.
The whole thing is ironic to me, especially how our struggling society disapproves of the inequality yet accepts, expects, and honors the striving to climb the ladder. Artistic lifestyles, lived for the joy we find in our creativity though frequently low on cash, are frowned upon by the mainstream.
It's Van Gogh's birthday, and we remember him not for his money (he had none) but for the gifts he gave mankind by NOT waiting tables or joining the rat race. It gives me comfort that despite the naysayers, a poor life can be a priceless one.
No comments:
Post a Comment