Bad Dog!
A long and rambling reflection ...
I saw this sign on one of the Newport Cliff Walk's chain link fences on the way back to the car, and it struck me as incredibly funny. Of course these mansion folks would equate their attempts to keep out the riff-raff with whacking a dog with a newspaper. "Bad plebe! Down! Down! No treats for you! Go to your plebe house!"
I haven't talked much about all these ostentatious displays of insane wealth left over from the Gilded Age and what I think they all mean in the Age of Trump, in part because I've been saving all that up for a post I now find I don't much want to write. You start talking about economics, and it quickly turns political because everything's political these days, and all that's become so heavy and exhausting anymore. Also, we're sort of in "basic survival of the Republic" mode here and don't really have the luxury of fighting over economic theory at the moment. But the Gilded Age mansions illustrate a kind of uncomfortable reality today's ruling regime doesn't want to think much about. They don't, in fact, even realize this reality exists.
But a big problem with the Gilded Age was that unimaginably vast quantities of wealth wound up concentrated among a very small number of people, and that kind situation is never stable for long. The last couple of thousand years of history will tell you it's the kind of thing that leads to revolutions. In the case of the late 19th century, it wound up toppling a few European aristocracies while at the same time ushering in a world-wide depression that lasted right up until a big war waged by a bunch of fascists elected in response to the dire economics forced a spending spree that pried everybody back into something kind of resembling wealth. Of course, this is all an oversimplification, and it's possible the planet could have pulled itself out of the economic tailspin caused by wealth imbalance without killing a hundred million people in Europe and Asia. But we didn't. We don't. That's not how this ever plays out.
And now here we are, doing the same thing all over again. Because that's what we do. A smaller and smaller number of people are absorbing a larger and larger percentage of the wealth, while everybody else sinks lower and lower. The pastry magnates get ready for some modern Marie Antoinette to let the rest of us eat cake.
Now, despite what my mother-in-law might think, I'm no communist. I don't begrudge the wealthy their fancy houses or unnecessarily expensive cars. Communism fails because it requires the people in charge to act against basic human nature, to suppress the greed we're all born with in favor of a commitment to a greater good. And while you can often find a few smart people who will do that, eventually the reigns of power will land on somebody normal, and the entire system will be gobbled up as personal wealth. Capitalism's strength is that it works with those basic instincts instead of against them. The concentration of wealth and power takes longer, because there are a lot more people fighting to grab what's "theirs."
But I'm no great capitalist, either, because that concentration of wealth and power still happens eventually, and the entire system still routinely threatens to collapse within itself. Sure, it's great to be a rich widget tycoon, but after a while the widget tycoons will have all the money and none of the plebes can afford to buy any widgets. You can't just let the thing run itself, because it will inevitably run itself into the ground. As much as the modern regime leaders will tell you laissez-faire is the key, you gotta have some limits.
(As a side note, I'll mention that I kind of hate the term "neoliberalism," because too many people don't know what it means. In modern America, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have come to mean "Democrat" and "Republican," and I've seen too many people vote Republican because they claim to hate "neoliberalism." I know this seems absurd, but it's true. And we're not in an era where you can explain that to anybody and have them believe it.)
The solution, then, falls somewhere in between. I say let the magnates make their money, and if they make enough to buy a gaudy mansion, so be it. But you can't let all the wealth just sit there in that mansion. You have to redistribute it. You have to force an investment in society. In nature, any functional closed system is a cycle, and if you want the rain to keep falling, you have let the water go back into the sky. You have to keep money flowing to the poor in order to have some to flow back to the rich. And there are certain sectors of the economy--health care being among the most significant--that just don't work as commodities, so you have to force communal investment. You have to have (GASP!) socialism! At least a little of it.
Of course, that's not where we're going, and I don't see much likelihood of us shifting course. We're going to pick the other option and dive deeper and deeper into our Second Gilded Age, and the wealthiest will keep whacking the rest of us with their newspapers as they yell, "Bad dog!" At least until all the dogs bite back, and God only knows where that will go.
Modern mansions tend to be more cheaply made, though. I don't imagine that once all the revolutions and wars are done, there will be much left for people to tour. Mar-A-Lago doesn't even sit on a cliff. It will be swallowed beneath the risen sea.
Bad Dog!
A long and rambling reflection ...
I saw this sign on one of the Newport Cliff Walk's chain link fences on the way back to the car, and it struck me as incredibly funny. Of course these mansion folks would equate their attempts to keep out the riff-raff with whacking a dog with a newspaper. "Bad plebe! Down! Down! No treats for you! Go to your plebe house!"
I haven't talked much about all these ostentatious displays of insane wealth left over from the Gilded Age and what I think they all mean in the Age of Trump, in part because I've been saving all that up for a post I now find I don't much want to write. You start talking about economics, and it quickly turns political because everything's political these days, and all that's become so heavy and exhausting anymore. Also, we're sort of in "basic survival of the Republic" mode here and don't really have the luxury of fighting over economic theory at the moment. But the Gilded Age mansions illustrate a kind of uncomfortable reality today's ruling regime doesn't want to think much about. They don't, in fact, even realize this reality exists.
But a big problem with the Gilded Age was that unimaginably vast quantities of wealth wound up concentrated among a very small number of people, and that kind situation is never stable for long. The last couple of thousand years of history will tell you it's the kind of thing that leads to revolutions. In the case of the late 19th century, it wound up toppling a few European aristocracies while at the same time ushering in a world-wide depression that lasted right up until a big war waged by a bunch of fascists elected in response to the dire economics forced a spending spree that pried everybody back into something kind of resembling wealth. Of course, this is all an oversimplification, and it's possible the planet could have pulled itself out of the economic tailspin caused by wealth imbalance without killing a hundred million people in Europe and Asia. But we didn't. We don't. That's not how this ever plays out.
And now here we are, doing the same thing all over again. Because that's what we do. A smaller and smaller number of people are absorbing a larger and larger percentage of the wealth, while everybody else sinks lower and lower. The pastry magnates get ready for some modern Marie Antoinette to let the rest of us eat cake.
Now, despite what my mother-in-law might think, I'm no communist. I don't begrudge the wealthy their fancy houses or unnecessarily expensive cars. Communism fails because it requires the people in charge to act against basic human nature, to suppress the greed we're all born with in favor of a commitment to a greater good. And while you can often find a few smart people who will do that, eventually the reigns of power will land on somebody normal, and the entire system will be gobbled up as personal wealth. Capitalism's strength is that it works with those basic instincts instead of against them. The concentration of wealth and power takes longer, because there are a lot more people fighting to grab what's "theirs."
But I'm no great capitalist, either, because that concentration of wealth and power still happens eventually, and the entire system still routinely threatens to collapse within itself. Sure, it's great to be a rich widget tycoon, but after a while the widget tycoons will have all the money and none of the plebes can afford to buy any widgets. You can't just let the thing run itself, because it will inevitably run itself into the ground. As much as the modern regime leaders will tell you laissez-faire is the key, you gotta have some limits.
(As a side note, I'll mention that I kind of hate the term "neoliberalism," because too many people don't know what it means. In modern America, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have come to mean "Democrat" and "Republican," and I've seen too many people vote Republican because they claim to hate "neoliberalism." I know this seems absurd, but it's true. And we're not in an era where you can explain that to anybody and have them believe it.)
The solution, then, falls somewhere in between. I say let the magnates make their money, and if they make enough to buy a gaudy mansion, so be it. But you can't let all the wealth just sit there in that mansion. You have to redistribute it. You have to force an investment in society. In nature, any functional closed system is a cycle, and if you want the rain to keep falling, you have let the water go back into the sky. You have to keep money flowing to the poor in order to have some to flow back to the rich. And there are certain sectors of the economy--health care being among the most significant--that just don't work as commodities, so you have to force communal investment. You have to have (GASP!) socialism! At least a little of it.
Of course, that's not where we're going, and I don't see much likelihood of us shifting course. We're going to pick the other option and dive deeper and deeper into our Second Gilded Age, and the wealthiest will keep whacking the rest of us with their newspapers as they yell, "Bad dog!" At least until all the dogs bite back, and God only knows where that will go.
Modern mansions tend to be more cheaply made, though. I don't imagine that once all the revolutions and wars are done, there will be much left for people to tour. Mar-A-Lago doesn't even sit on a cliff. It will be swallowed beneath the risen sea.