Deep Pockets

If there's one thing that illustrates the similarity between capitalism and socialism it's “deep pockets.” Clearly that requires some elaboration, and the best place to start is with a definition and explanation.

The term usually refers to a party that is well endowed – fiscally, not physically. It may be an individual or a commercial enterprise, but it's one with a lot of money. So the term indicates someone or something that has its “pockets” filled, or even overflowing.

Whoever has deep pockets, therefore, is a target for someone wanting the money. He's rich. Probably one of the 1%. So it is someone (or some organization) we hate, and about whom we feel no guilt when trying to obtain some of his (her, its) funds. It may be in the form of an unwarranted or inflated insurance claim, a legal action, or the call for a handout. Whatever it is, you pay. And whoever is nominally billed doesn't really matter – you pay, one way or another.

One of the most publicized forms is by law suit, or the threat of one. A claim is made against a(n individual or a) large corporation – one that is very rich – and whether the claim is or is not legitimate is irrelevant. The cheapest way for the corporation to make the problem disappear, and to minimize the negative publicity, is to negotiate with whoever is suing – and that means with the legal firm that is handling the claim (as it has done many times before with similar justified or unjustified claims). A moderately large settlement with the plaintiff, or a huge one with the “class,” can usually be arranged to end the unpleasantness quickly. Even if the claim has no merit, it is usually cheaper to settle than to fight and risk a hostile press and public.

That's especially true since we live in a capitalist system, and the cost of the settlement is incorporated into the cost of production, so prices rise. After all, the stockholders shouldn't be made to suffer. Even if the claim is legitimate, the costs are passed on (to you) after a scapegoat is found – usually a low-level employee who can't fight back. No executive is ever considered responsible unless the publicity or the political exposure requires it. And the company will get back the costs anyway. They'll raise their rates and charges, and the price of the settlement will actually be split among members of the population – including you. The company is in business to make money, and they'll do so by passing on the costs to the consumer. Cough it up. You need them.

There are occasions, however, when a case goes to trial and a congenial jury can be made to identify and sympathize with the plaintiff's plight, although that may have nothing to do with the claim. There are occasions when such a jury will decree large enough verdicts – both “compensatory” and punitive – to bankrupt the company. Which means that a product or service is no longer available to you and the remaining companies control more of the market. It's inconvenient, but that's fair repayment for all the “suffering” that the plaintiff has endured. You'll certainly be sympathetic, even if you suffer because of it. After all, it could have been you.

And if it is you, all the better. You'll become rich and have your own deep pockets if you succeed, but you can live with that. After all, you're not one of “them.” You'll never be one of them, one of the 1%. You're just a hard working citizen, indemnified for what you've been through.

The same is true with insurance. Whatever the cost of claims made against the company, they'll eventually be passed on to those buying the protection. It doesn't matter if the claims are justified or not – though the insurer may investigate astronomical or obviously false claims to lower expenses and increase profits. Still you can be sure that the deep pockets will be yours, and, eventually, you'll wind up paying for all those claims.

But, lest you think this is solely a product of capitalism, the same is true in the public sector, though the language is changed a little. We're all sympathetic of the plight of the needy, and we demand that our government help out. They certainly will, and so will the politicians who seek their votes. In a society that provides various kinds of welfare, a society that tries to take from the rich and give to the poor, the deep pockets belong to “the government.” But that's the taxpayer – you – so you wind up paying. (Or your children and grandchildren do.)

“From each according to his means …” So the earnings of the workers are apportioned to those who lack. It's a redistribution of income from the “rich” to the “poor.” Karl Marx was right. It's socialism. We call it generosity, or the provision of services to the poor, or concern for the needy among us. It's the least we can do. We feel good about what we've done. (We do, however, curse the politicians for raising taxes to pay for all the programs we favor.) But whether or not it's “right,” it's socialism.

In short, whether it's capitalism, as exemplified by a “greedy” company, or socialism, in the form of support of “needy” citizens, you fund it. No matter who submits the bill, you wind up paying. The “deep pockets” are inevitably yours, irrespective of the economic system. They have that in common. There's no such thing as a free lunch.




November 3, 2016

Eric Hoffer

Perhaps you've heard of Eric Hoffer. I did about six decades ago when I read his book, The True Believer, while in college. I've reread it since. It certainly changed the way I think of fanatics and, indeed, my fellow man.

He wrote several books afterward and I'm in the midst of reading some of them. They're not nearly as famous as his first, but I'm learning from them as well. Hoffer was an autodidact who lacked formal education, but was wiser than almost anyone else. He was a product of the period of the Second World War and the world it yielded. He spent his life as a longshoreman, hobo, and doer of odd jobs. And he read and wrote. His style of writing (in addition to the wisdom of his words) reflected his peripatetic life-style (a term not current so many decades ago) and his varied experiences. He was a man of strong opinions and his ideas were expressed succinctly – in short bursts that were to the point and clear. And then he moved on to the next idea, which was often related to the one that preceded it, but not always.

Though compact, his writing wasn't usually the “twenty-five words or less” [sic – “fewer” is the correct word, not “less”] style so much in vogue in the past when there was a competition of some sort. It's a kind of writing that appeals to me because I appreciate someone who makes a point and moves on. That's the way I try to write, though I lack Hoffer's intellect. So rather than try to imitate him or improve on his words, I want to simply present some of his thoughts. I won't cite the sources (though The True Believer is not one of them – I urge you to read that yourself). It doesn't matter. There's no specific theme nor order. I'll include some comments when they might help.

One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputations. The intellectuals who idolized Stalin while he was purging millions and stifling the least stirring of freedom have not been discredited. They are holding forth on every topic under the sun and are listened to with deference. … The metaphysical grammarian Noam Chomsky, who went to Hanoi to worship there at the altar of human rights and democracy, was not discredited and silenced when the humanitarian communists staged their nightmare in South Vietnam and Cambodia. Is there a greater freedom than the right to be wrong?

[Hoffer was not a fan of “wise” men. He was more interested in what they had to say.]

-----------------

I cannot see myself living in a socialist society. My passion is to be left alone and only a capitalist society does so. Capitalism is ideally equipped for mastering things but awkward in mastering men. It hugs the assumption that people will perform tolerably when left to themselves.

[I, too, want to be left alone. I must be a capitalist. But I don't assume that people will perform tolerably under any system.]

-----------------

I have a hunch that the Arabs will use their oil billions not to modernize their countries but to redress the balance between the Christian West and the Islamic East. … Idi Amin is a Moslem hero kept in power by Arab money in largely Christian Uganda. … The Islamization of Africa is a dream to fire Arab hearts.

[This was written in 1974, but things haven't changed. Except that they've expanded the they've scope of their dreams. Hoffer's hunch was prophetic.]

-----------------

A world that did not lift a finger when Hitler was wiping out six million Jewish men, women and children is now saying that the Jewish [emphasis added] state of Israel will not survive if it does not come to terms with the Arabs. My feeling is that no one in this universe has the right and the competence to tell Israel what it has to do in order to survive. On the contrary, it is Israel that can tell us what to do. It can tell us that we shall not survive if we do not cultivate and celebrate courage, if we coddle traitors and deserters, bargain with terrorists, court enemies and scorn friends.

[Also from 1974. The more things change, … Incidentally, Hoffer wasn't Jewish.]

-----------------

It is now fashionable to contrast authority with human rights. But we are learning that the moment authority becomes ineffectual most of our rights are nullified by the many-headed tyranny of anarchy.

[Nowadays we face the tyranny of the protest mob and its demands. We give them free rein and advertise their views as if they represent what is right or what we all believe. Our rights are nullified.]

-----------------

A revulsion from work is a fundamental component of human nature. It is natural to feel work to be a curse. A social order that grants only minimal necessities but asks for little effort will be more stable than a system that offers superfluities but demands ceaseless striving. One reason that communist governments seem so stable is that they no longer insist on hard work. Islam too is markedly stable because it functions tolerably well in an atmosphere of indolence.

[In our own society in the twenty-first century (and before) the goal has been the “superfluities” without the striving. They're entitled. Someone who's rich will pay.]

It would be hard to hide my admiration for Hoffer, and I do not intend to do so. I fear, however, that his hunches and prophesies will be overlooked or ignored by a world that needs to confront them. I'll continue his ideas and aphorisms next week.

Seasons Of Our Discontent

 

                                                                                  

I like where I'm living. The seasons change from time to time. It's not like living somewhere that has the same weather all year round.ⁱ And even if they may vary by a day or two some years, the variation in the seasons is only on the calendar – not affecting the change in weather that occurs.

That's reassuring. Every year the same seasons lasting the same length of time. I might like to fiddle a little with the dates on the calendar,ⁱⁱ but I know there will be a cold season, a hot one, and two in between. We'll get our weather more or less in 91 day doses.

Each season is about three months. “About,” because the way we've chosen to define them – using the equinoxes and day length as our markers – provides us with periods of this length. They're arbitrary and not really necessary. The weather would change without them.ⁱⁱⁱ But we've decided to create a system by which we recognize four seasons, and it's the same every year. And even if the weather on a particular day may not fit the mold, on the whole it is relatively predictable. Nature has its act together and we accept its dictates.

But people have an ax to grind. Money.^iv So “seasons” that are governed by human criteria seem to change from year to year. They get longer.^v For example, at one time Christmas was on December 25^th. A few days before may have been necessary to prepare, but the focus of the holiday was religious, and the 25^th itself held the greatest importance. But later, with an increasing emphasis on presents, the “Christmas Season” was advertised as soon as Thanksgiving ended, and eventually there was a day by day count of the number of shopping days until Christmas. Now we don't even wait for Thanksgiving before we start hawking presents, with the season beginning months in advance.

Other seasons have lengthened too, usually with the same motive. What was once a single day remembrance of our first president has become “Presidents'” week with big sales to mark the week. Of course it lasts more than a week, but that gives the various vendors – usually automobile companies – more time to convince you that their products are just what you need. It's a real hustle.

Sales abound, and often they're associated with holidays. Whether it's clothing for Easter, electronics for Labor Day, food for Thanksgiving, or any number of other products, no opportunity is missed to remind us that we need all of those things to celebrate the season and the holiday properly. The day when we used to celebrate our independence has become the season when we can buy grills, charcoal, and all the trimmings necessary for a barbecue. And what better time to sell flags and flowers than the weeks before Memorial Day. Capitalism has its attractions, but it's too bad that it flourishes by the sacrifice of occasions that used to have real meaning.

Even more striking has been the way we enjoy sporting events. At one time there was a baseball season, a football season, one for basketball, and one for hockey. There was some overlap, but not too much. That, sadly, has changed. Regular seasons have lengthened, playoffs have been added, and, naturally, revenues have gone way up.^vi Now that press attention to football practice games begins during the summer and the regular football season extends nearly to the baseball spring training season, there's almost no time to rest. No. There's no time at all. Basketball and hockey seasons fill in the autumn and winter, and even extend into the spring. What used to be well-defined seasons are now long economic opportunities. Like the Olympics.

Perhaps the longest season, however, is the election season. And it's the most annoying. It's said that the campaign for reelection begins on the day after Election Day. Or if it's not the campaign for reelection, it's the campaign for nomination. Politicians always seem to be fighting with each other, whether the battle is between parties on the basis of party “principles,”^vii or within parties to demonstrate someone's worthiness for nomination. So all year round we're sent campaign literature – often disguised as information for constituents and paid for by the voters through the incumbent's franking privilege. However you frame it though, the election “season” is never ending. There may be an acceleration of activities a few months before Election Day^viii but the partisanship, politicking, and posturing are always with us. Before the rise of national media and before the institution of the primaries, the election season was relatively short. Now it's interminable. And it's a real hassle.

We need some time off. We need some time between the long seasons we've produced. That can only come about if we go back to a time when seasons were shorter and more predictable; when there was a time between seasons when we could catch our breath. It was a time we were concerned about filling the leisure time that modern inventions would produce; a time when we didn't anticipate the lack of leisure time that modern society would impose on us.

But a return to the past won't happen.^ix At least not soon. So until then I propose that there be a new holiday – a nothing day. It will be a day between seasons. A day that nothing happens. Except, of course, the mammoth sale of leisure items, beginning at 4 AM.

Next episode: “ Watch Your Language” – Be careful or you may say what you really mean.

i     Even paradise can get boring.

ii    See “Klutz or Kluznik,” January 14, 2011.

iii    At least it would where I live.

iv    Or is that the whetstone? I'm having a little difficulty with the metaphor.

v     Last week (I'm writing this on July 24^th) I received a leaflet telling me of the back-to-school sales that were taking place at a nearby office supply store. The “back-to-school” season is beginning earlier and earlier every year.

vi    So have players' salaries and ticket prices. Sporting events are among our most popular entertainments and promoters are happy to pay the entertainers well for bringing in the crowds, since the audiences leave a lot of money behind not just for the tickets, but for the food and souvenirs. And by popularizing the entertainment itself, the television revenues increase.

vii    I don't believe that any more than you do. They're taking a stand that they can point to in the next election – one that they'll claim shows that they're more attuned to the wishes of the voters than their opponents.

viii   It may be years rather than months when an individual concludes that he or she is fit to be President.

ix    We've even found a way to outwit Nature and the original seasons. Now we start selling fashions many months before the time when they'll be needed. Commercialism wins again.