I told you I wasn't finished with this.
Hypocrisy is not an ideological thing. There are Democrat and Republican hypocrites. There are Tory and Liberal hypocrites. There are certainly socialist hypocrites. That kind of what the whole system is based upon. But I’m going to shine the light on the liberal hypocrites. Case in point: the Earth Summit in South Africa. The very meetings that are designed to find a way to eliminate hunger and famine (in other words, blame the U.S. for everything) are being held in opulence. Granted, the attendees are government officials from around the world and they are used to conditions better than the common folk. I would expect meetings between world leaders to have swanky meetings. But these folks are decrying the poverty and starvation of the third world. The delegates are being feted with lobster, oysters, steaks, caviar, pâté, bottled water, champagne, etc. Meanwhile, just miles from the meetings are the very starving people they claim to want to help. Why don’t they show solidarity with the poverty-stricken masses by refusing the extravagance and offering the food to the people who could really use it? Well, we can’t have that now, can we? They are there to determine why you are to blame for everything. You honestly expect that overweight delegate from Germany or France to not eat that giant shrimp and give it to some poor African kid? They are the ruling class. Just like in the old Soviet Union. The higher-ups in the Party always had the best of things. Socialism didn’t seem to apply to them. "But Jeff, we have a similar ruling class in this country. Look at the rich CEO’s and lawyers and doctors." That's not exactly the same. Those CEO's and doctors and lawyers (and throw in any rich actor, musician, athlete, professor, etc.) do not have the power to establish public policy. There will always be rich and poor. That is a natural byproduct of the human desire to achieve, allowed and encouraged under capitalism. But these people are politicians and government officials whose goal it is to equalize the misery for all of you and have the means by which they intend to do so. But only for the little people. The rules do not apply to them.
Which brings me to a novel I am currently reading called "How To Be Good" by Nick Hornby. I haven’t finished it (I’m only halfway through), so I reserve the right to change my comments based upon how this thing turns out. Anyway, the gist so far is that the main character believes she is a good person and believes in all the right liberal causes. But her husband undergoes a sort of spiritual transformation and starts actually doing some of the things that the liberal belief system is based upon. He gives away belongings to the poor. He tries to organize a movement to get his neighbors on the street to take in homeless youth. Gone is his previous cynicism, replaced by infinite compassion for everything. This confounds and frustrates his wife, who is now forced to assess how she really has done nothing to support her liberal beliefs and how much do-gooding is enough to actually make a difference. The parallel would be folks like the delegates at the Earth Summit and the wealthy liberal elites. If it is so important to help the less fortunate, why do they live in mansions and want for nothing. Wouldn’t the truly compassionate thing to do be to give all of that away and live a more common life? To practice what they preach. If we’re all supposed to be equal, why do they get to be more equal? (Thank you, George Orwell.) I respect the husband in the story to a degree, in that he is actually trying to make a difference instead of simply saying he does, even though some of his beliefs are a little irrationally idealistic. He is not like all those nimrods who wear ribbons for every little cause. They are doing absolutely nothing. But they feel better because they "support the cause." Well whoopdy-freaking-do! "So what are you doing, Jeff, to make a difference? Are you helping in any way?" No more than anyone else, probably, but I’m not running around berating others for not caring enough. I support good causes and donate to worthy endeavors. There are people like the husband in "How To Be Good" who are willing and able to do the work. I’m more than happy to support them monetarily. But I do not do so hypocritically. I don’t wring my hands and feel guilty about the fact that I have things that other do not. I’m comfortable with it. I am curious to find out how the novel ends. Maybe I’ll let you know when I finish it.
And another thing...
The whole stock market thing is starting to bug me. Not because I've lost any money, but because so many people expected that the markets would continue to go up at the same ridiculous rate they had been and never come down. That's just stupid. Granted, more people are in the market these days with everyone watching their 401k and 403b plans. But all it takes is a little look at history and a lesson in basic macroeconomics to realize that markets are cyclical. Bill Clinton, in a case of political bravado, once declared the business cycle dead and a bunch of idiots apparently believed it. That's like declaring the seasons of the year illegal. No more winter, my fellow Americans! It'll be spring forever! Then the bears attacked and the bull ran for the hills. The DJI dropped from its heady peak of almost 12K to the upper 7K's/ lower 8K's where it is now. However, since people have such a short attention span and no sense of history anymore, here's a news flash. The DJI in late 1997 was exactly where it is now! And it may have been a bit high then. The fact is, if the market had continued to grow at a reasonable rate over time, the prices would probably be where they are now anyway. But since we had the bubble in the late 90's and the markets flew out of control, people got used to the good times. The Dems want to blame a market decline on Bush the Younger. That's as stupid as crediting Clinton for the boom. Furthermore, I wouldn't even call it a boom. It was an over-inflation of the markets based upon poor or deceptive accounting practices on the part of some corporations and high tech bubble. We had companies declaring profits and revenue that didn't exist and tech and internet IPO's that were completely out of whack for companies that produced nothing. Where was the previous administration in terms of regulatory control? I know it would be difficult to blame a president for good times that were too artificially good. It's much easier to blame the guy who gets stuck with the problem. That's pretty much been par for the Clinton course though. Everything was horrible before he came upon the scene and everything is horrible since he left. Anyway, if things level off everything will get back to normal. Hopefully we can resume a more normal growth pattern in the markets and the panicking will end. It's just that the more volatile the market, the higher the highs and the lower the lows. I'm invested more in bonds than stocks personally, so I didn't take as much of a hit as some. I've never trusted the stock market much and I've never been much of a gambler. Slow and steady wins the race.