I used to work with a nice guy; I’ll call him Ben because I don’t like to use real names unless they're someone in the public eye. I admired Ben because he had an easy air about him. He got along well with all of our major clients. He lived his life just like experienced people said you should. He had major savings and retirement plans at a young age, he guarded his credit rating as if it was his golden ticket, and he had achieved the highest professional designation available in our line of work. He was also a most amiable lunch companion, always willing to share his views as long as the company was pleasant.
The only problem I had with him was that at times, I considered him clueless. In our profession at the time, one had to take on some rather challenging assignments in order to make your reputation. Now these tasks were usually accompanied by big fees, but in truth were much less profitable due to the tremendous amount of research required than the little easy assignments, where you typically had all of the data you needed already. Ben wanted to avoid the hard assignments and focus on the more profitable easy ones. Some would argue that it’s hard to fault that logic, until you factor in the value of a high reputation, which is not easily quantified.
There were other aspects of his character that disturbed me as well. He confessed to be a C-level student while majoring in Economics in college, a subject area where I typically had earned top grades. Ben told me of his wild frat parties in school. I partied on a much smaller and more reasonable scale, without the benefit of a fraternity of like-minded “brothers”. He had a large investment portfolio, and seemed to be making money even when the market was down, telling me that his broker was using puts and calls, and other things that he couldn’t explain in order to achieve this.
One day after lunch, as we were returning to the office, the radio reported a significant rise in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. He said that would be good for business, since the corporations would now have more money to spend. “What?” I asked him in my most incredulous, ‘are-you-some-kind-of-dumbass’ tone. I have a Masters degree in Finance, and was well-schooled in how financial markets, especially the stock market, function. “Just because the stock price goes up, doesn’t mean the company gets more money,” I explained. “They already sold the stock. Investors reap the gains from higher stock prices, not the company. Unless they hold what’s known as ‘Treasury Stock’, which is an investment in their own stock held in the corporate treasury.”
It was clear by his response that he hadn’t really understood that elementary aspect of his massive investment portfolio. I told him that he would be wise to learn a bit more about the mechanics of the investment vehicle that he had entrusted his entire life-savings to since an unscrupulous advisor could easily fleece him at some point.
It was at a point near the end of President Clinton’s second term, with the next election looming, when we were discussing our presidential choices that he expressed what I considered another major lapse in judgment. Ben told me that he would cast his vote for the Democrat nominee, since the Democrats were better for business. “Ben,” I told him in my best ‘older-wiser uncle’ voice, “it’s the Republicans that have always been considered the party of the businessman.” After all, Lincoln had been a lawyer for the railroads before becoming president, and railroads were among the first of the major corporations, necessary because the investment required were much too high for any one man or small partnership to fund alone. The Republicans have always flaunted their pro-business reputation. History, I was sure, supported my opinion. Of course, looking back, I can see that history, or commonly held beliefs, may have supported my opinions, but facts were another matter entirely.
Now I have always been a fan of numbers. Cold, hard facts are difficult to dispute, although I’m always aware that statistics can be manipulated to serve anyone’s purpose. ‘Figures lie and liars figure’ is an old saying that has always made sense to me. Recently I was sent a graph of how many private sector jobs had been created under various presidential administrations. The data that it presented was hard to ignore. From the Kennedy administration through the present, private sector job creation under Democrats (42 million) was significantly higher than under Republican administrations (23.9 million). Based on job growth, it’s really the Democrats that make business flourish. Ben was right and I was dead wrong. If he hadn’t told me recently that he had hoped Herman Cain would be President, I would have thought he was getting smarter all the time.
Yesterday, another kind of misuse of data came to light in the wake of a speech given in my adopted home town by the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan. Ryan reported that Obama had promised to save a General Motors plant in his home state of Wisconsin when he was campaigning for the Presidency. True to his word, President Obama led the initiative to save the U.S. Automobile Industry after his election, while his current opponent, Mitt Romney, called for allowing these major industrial concerns to go bankrupt (Mitt apparently has much more experience in profiting from bankrupting companies than in saving them and the employment opportunities they provide). Ryan said that the plant closed anyway, and Obama had broken his promise.
Apparently young Congressman Ryan is not aware of the actual powers of the U.S. President, or how simple economics work, or he simply chooses to ignore real facts. True, the Wisconsin plant did close after the auto industry was saved from bankruptcy. However, the plant produced fuel-thirsty, large SUVs, and the market demand for such vehicles decreased, making it a no longer economically viable asset. On the other hand, thousands of auto-related jobs in his home state and across the country had been saved by the President’s initiative. The President did not have the power to save that particular plant,and even if he would have enjoyed such power, doing so would have harmed the company. One wonders if the Romney-Ryan ticket is planning to force that plant’s reopening if elected? Ryan didn't mention that in his speech. I don’t think they have the constitutional authority to do so, or the gumption to defy their corporate overlords.
During his speech, Ryan also faulted Obama’s Affordable Care Act for “gutting Medicare,” promising that the Romney-Ryan ticket would “save Medicare for future generations” by privatizing it and giving vouchers to senior citizens in order to purchase their own insurance from private insurers. Of course they’re quick to point out that they wouldn’t change anything for our citizens who are already over the age of 55. In other words, they don’t think that could get elected if they screwed with Medicare right away, but would wait in order to ruin it for future generations, which don’t think of such things until they’re of a certain age. The mind reels at the likely abuse that private insurers would inflict on our nation’s elderly under such a plan, especially if the ACA is nullified, and private insurers don’t have to worry about such trivial matters like controlling costs or covering preexisting medical conditions.
Facts and numbers are useful things, but both sides in this race have manipulated them to their advantage, and all too often a gullible electorate swallows them whole. I ask you to be vigilant, check your facts, and keep your bullshit detector turned on full power. No one is perfect, but we must choose who is best suited to reflect our own hopes and dreams for our country. Most of us dream that we had the personal wealth of a Mitt Romney, but I hope that few of us are willing to undertake the kind of cold ambivalence toward our fellow citizens that the acquisition of such wealth necessitates. Once again, I see these situations calling out for meaningful campaign financing reforms, eliminating unrestrained anonymous contributions, coupled with some type of truth in advertising clause. Until then, figures will continue to lie, and liars will continue to figure, and the new ‘Golden Rule’ will reign supreme. Oh, that’s not the rule that says ‘Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you’, it’s the new one that says ‘He with the most gold makes the rules.’
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
No comments:
Post a Comment