ABC News was covering the whole AIG bonus debacle last night (as, I imagine, was everyone), and afterwards turned to the massive swell of anger surrounding it as the next story. They asked the question of why there's so much anger over this, when there have been worse offenses (numerically worse, anyway, as the AIG bonuses are only 0.1% of what they received from the government).
Is it really not obvious? Concentration of wealth is out of control in America. And while the rich are probably also taking a big hit with the economy in the tank (short-sellers notwithstanding), it's proportionately nothing compared to the family that loses its sole source of income. While things were going well, people accepted the concentration of wealth thanks to the American dream that one day they, too, could be truly obscenely wealthy. But when things go bad and that dream seems hopeless, the unfairness of it really hits them.
Perhaps unfairness is the wrong word. That implies a certain objective morality on the matter which I'm unsure is there. Maybe it is - after all, I'm pretty strongly capitalist, generally speaking, and I find it pretty sick. But whether or not the morality is ambiguous, the facts are not. The last time the distribution of wealth was as lopsided as it is right now was - you guessed it - right before the Great Depression. I suspect that such strong concentration of wealth may be as damaging to a capitalist system as a monopoly is, and for many of the same reasons. And while the main problem with a democratic government is that it does what's popular, not necessarily what's smart, it seems like people are finally realizing the smart thing to do and calling for government to do it.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a major codeword for "communist", but it should be obvious that things like raising tax rates on the wealthy or means-testing social security or even just maintaining closer oversight and stricter regulations on financial markets are not things which will render our society no longer a meritocracy. If anything, it makes it moreso, since under the current system those with wealth and power can and do prevent others from grabbing a piece of that pie, regardless of merit (again, not unlike what a monopoly can do in the business world). This defines a broken system, in need of repair. Not the self-correction of conservatives who believe that free markets are a panacea, but a serious restructuring by an outside agent. Hopefully the new administration will be such an agent. Thinking about it all, I'm at least as interested in how the aftermath of the crisis will play out as I am in the crisis itself - it's going to be real interesting to see how quickly these lessons are forgotten once the economy has been stabilized.
Here's another take on the matter that I stumbled across, with a slightly more colorful tone.edit: Wow,
xkcd really misses the point today...or misses something, anyway...as many forum-posters note. Does he think people are angry because they mistakenly believe AIG gave away almost their entire last stimulus payment as bonuses? That seems to be what he's implying, which I don't believe, nor do I believe these sorts of news graphics are "dishonest" at all. "Without context"? How is it without context? The context is the money AIG came begging for versus the money they're now pissing away. Here's another comparison to counter the one he gives about a million versus a billion (which is even more in-context in regards to AIG): It's like if a friend came begging, pleading you for $1000 to help with their rent and food for the month, and told you if you didn't help they'd be homeless and starving within a week, so you loan them $1000...
and they immediately pull out one of those dollars, wipe their ass with it, and throw it in the garbage. Granted, they didn't just do so with the whole grand, but it's still pretty a fucking outrageous thing to do, given the circumstances. Come on, Randall, you're usually more with-it than this....