Not to worry, we're still rich
Dmitry Orlov again comes out of retirement to lead us through the mist:
Social Collapse Best Practices
I think I prefer remaining just a tourist, because I have learned from experience - luckily, from other people’s experience - that being a superpower collapse predictor is not a good career choice. I learned that by observing what happened to the people who successfully predicted the collapse of the USSR. Do you know who Andrei Amalrik is? See, my point exactly. He successfully predicted the collapse of the USSR. He was off by just half a decade. That was another valuable lesson for me, which is why I will not give you an exact date when USA will turn into FUSA (“F” is for “Former”). But even if someone could choreograph the whole event, it still wouldn’t make for much of a career, because once it all starts falling apart, people have far more important things to attend to than marveling at the wonderful predictive abilities of some Cassandra-like person.
…
By the mid-1990s I started to see Soviet/American Superpowerdom as a sort of disease that strives for world dominance but in effect eviscerates its host country, eventually leaving behind an empty shell: an impoverished population, an economy in ruins, a legacy of social problems, and a tremendous burden of debt. The symmetries between the two global superpowers were then already too numerous to mention, and they have been growing more obvious ever since.
Essentially Orlov offers a few helpful hints about making lemonade of whatever may come our way. Take what the defense gives you I say … hunker down and work your garden.
But meanwhile, the WSJ tells us that Real Luxury Is Back
A new survey from Prince and Associates shows that true luxury — goods that are rare, expertly made and sold to a select few — may be making a comeback. And the truly rich couldn’t be happier.
The survey, which polled 108 private jet owners with a mean net worth $116 million, found that 94% of those surveyed defined luxury as “for oneself,” rather than for the masses (2.8%). That marks a big change from last year, when 37% agreed that luxury should also be for the masses.
What’s more, 92% said they feel no guilt over luxury spending today, since they said the money was hard-earned. (So much for luxury shame among the jet set). And 73% said a true luxury brand is a reward for being elite.
“What you’re seeing is a shift to real elitism,” says Russ Alan Prince, the president of Prince Assoc. “The rich like it better that everybody can’t be part of the luxury boom anymore.”
The rich have their heads up their asses, and the world would be just fine without them.
Better off, even. They are inferior in every way that matters.
That is interesting donal, as I read in the Times not too long ago that in the elite shops, the elite shoppers were asking for plain shopping bags. Perhaps so that they could avoid being spit on.
I think it might be good to drop them all on a desert island and let them fend for themselves. Perhaps then they'd understand the meaning of Hard Work.
February 16, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ala Wertmuller's, 1974 classic, 'Swept Away', (not that wretched Ritchie-Madonna remake!), only don't let the wealthy aboard the rescue vessel at the end.
February 16, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Hard Work, Bwakfat.
February 16, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We appear to be rich if all Americans' wealth is lumped together and divided to get an average. But if you look at the distribution of wealth, you have a hugely skewed curve. It would look something like a Tsunami on one end (the wealthy end) and a drought on the other end.
February 16, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
All my friends show up for Donal. Good Post.
I had to give up my private jet because it was just too damn expensive to park. sixty five parking spaces. Multiply that times twenty dollars a month and you are talking some real green. Out of pocket green; especially since I had to fire my accountant after he was indicted and then.....
February 16, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
...but we can be taller than Sarkozy. Carla, can you brush off the top of his head? ...Um, you missed a spot! Thanks!
February 16, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She apparently doesn't mind that when they slow-dance, he puts his head on her shoulder. Not that that has anything to do with this post...
My sister (and my 8-year-old niece, for that matter) wonder what would happen if the rich gave all their money to the poor. Wouldn't the poor then be rich, and the rich poor?
I think not. I think we'd then have a solid middle class, no?
February 16, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
blame the people .
england still believes certain people are "queens" and average teenagers can be "princes" .
republicans in this country think auto workers make to much but they love rush for making 50 million a year..
see the point?....................
February 16, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On luxury spending, I think it makes things deceptively simple to only interview those at the level of being able to own private jets, and to label them as "the rich." It makes it real easy to hate the rich. Unfortunately, there are far more people who simply have it very very very much better than most people, and can afford a lot of luxuries.
For an example, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Kashper, the husband an emigre enterpreneur with with beverage and real estate interests in Russia and the U.S., the wife an architect with an engineer father, with a new $10 million loft in Manhattan, and 2 pampered kids and a grand piano. Are they obnoxious, elitist conspicuous consuming rich, or are they someone you might meet sitting next to at a concert and like? I must say that if I was invited to their home, it would certainly incite jealousy in me and thoughts of "life is unfair."
What about someone like Barack and Michelle Obama's life in Chicago pre-presidential race? Here's an aerial view of their house, …a Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar… Does a Senator husband with a lawyer wife and two kids really "need" a house like that? This is not a humble residence and I am jealous of the ability to own such a home, and the ability to pay for the service to take care of it. On the other hand, if we don't have people indulging in such luxuries, there will be a lot fewer housekeeping, gardening and chimney sweep jobs available...
Where does one draw the line at what is considered excess for "rich"? If they don't wear fancy clothes, like the Obama's, then are they then allowed to have a fancy house? It's sort of a religious thing in a way, like you get an indulgence for being abstemious in one area, and then it's ok if you own a yacht? But if you have both fancy clothes and a yacht, then you're bad?
February 17, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just found out that Michelle Obama wore $17,000 diamond earrings to the daytime pre-inaugural concert, as well as similar pieces to other pre-inaugural and inaugural events. They were borrowed, but wearing them is surely a thumbs up "no guilt" to indulging in luxury by those who can afford to do so. So scratch any doubts I may have had that they are against luxury consumption at this place in time.
February 17, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the problem with ostentatious wealth in the context you've described it. Profligate spending is not a symptom of our decadence, it is evidence of the success of our consumption economy.
Your socialist midset: 'WAAA!!! He's got two dollars more than I've got' is childish.
Gratuitous consumption enables continued employment for thousands from nose job doctors, to stone artisans, to marina personnel, to landscape workers.
The damage I see to our democratic 'one man, one vote' culture is the asymmetrical political power that comes with these multi-billion dollar holdings. Wealthy socialists are notorious for leveraging the power of their participation in the political process with the influence their wealth brings.
I'm no Marxist, but if I have one socialist bent, it's there should be maximum limit on the wealth one individual should be legally allowed to control. I'm no lawyer but see no constitutional injunction against there existing some arbitrary point at which society is justified in saying, 'ok, you've proved your point, you've won the game you were playing, now that's enough'.
February 17, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good God, Spriche. I damn near agree with you on some of this. What's the world coming to?
Some of the biggest right-wing economists, like Friedman, felt the same as you - that there should be limits placed on wealth. Not so much on annual income, but on passing on billions and billions to kids.
A lot of my reasoning on this meshes with yours - conspicuous consumption bugs me, but the creation of asymmetrical power is the real problem. We saw it in Europe, where, over generations, one family could end up owning all the land, local government, hell, everybody from the church to the independent farmer had to pay homage.
Yes, wealthy liberals and socialists do try to leverage that wealth into wide control. But I'd say that the super-wealthy conservatives pose a real threat as well. It's not so much whether I agree with any particular thing any of these guys say, it's that not only get to say it.... but then to use their money to tilt the whole game against anyone else. The rich are kindof a world apart, whatever their political views. We've all seen it, in whatever town or city we grew up in.
Plus, after that first generation amasses their wealth, you have NO idea what the political views of the kids will be. I don't begrudge them leaving good inheritances behind, or a thriving family business or whatever. But you raise a kid with billions, then give them that much to play with, and I'm not convinced it's good for anyone.
Don't worry though. I'll disagree more with your future comments. Just thought I'd change things up today.
February 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's there should be maximum limit on the wealth one individual should be legally allowed to control"
Ahha, That explains why you spend so much time trolling around here. You're the dad in American Beauty (the military one). I knew you were a cliche, I just had the wrong one.
February 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not entirely sure that this discussion focuses on what may be the real point which, imho, is this: it is not the amount of money (or real estate or investments) a person has that we should decry. Rather it is -- in many cases -- his or her personal lack of ethics/morality in handling the money that is so offensive and/or deplorable to us.
Yes, there are scumbags everywhere who use and abuse their mega-wealth to enrich themselves even further, who do so quite often at the expense of, and without any remorse toward "the little people."
But there are also many extremely wealthy people who live relatively modestly, who contribute a considerable amount of what they have to various public good causes they believe in. Some do it annually, some by bequest and some even have the strength of character to do it anonymously.
So, let's not paint everyone with the same tar and feather brush, eh? Maybe read this to see the flipside of the coin:
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206
February 17, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah well, you can be immoral or unethical on a twenty dollar bill. I've done both.
If an individual controls a significantly large share of a country's wealth, an unjustifiable potential exists for their immoral or unethical behavior having serious adverse effects on the entire population.
February 17, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one responded to Social Collapse. I had posted both for the contrast between Orlov, who sees imminent economic and social collapse, and the WSJ, which sees a return to elitism. I guess the WSJ is more in tune with people's concerns.
As far as the elite rich or merely prosperous, if someone works hard, makes good decisions, even plays some hardball, I don't much care whether he or she buys luxuries. But when they're not paying taxes, exploiting illegals, using their influence to get special favors and kickbacks, etc, etc, etc, they might as well be picking my pocket. As we've noticed during confirmation hearings, a lot of well-to-do people have their hands in other people's pockets, and see nothing wrong with that - until they get caught.
February 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink