Spending Wisely

In the late 1800s, there were men of such power that they rivalled or exceeded the power of the federal and state governments. The processes and measures of capitalism permitted individuals of sufficient tenacity, skill and perhaps willingness to push laws to the breaking point to assemble single dominant business entities within a number of industries. Sugar, tobacco, steel and, perhaps the most widely-known trust, that of oil; the trust of John D. Rockefeller. Standard Oil.

I did not say that these were men interested in community, health, wisdom and enrichment of their neighbors. They were tough, savvy businessmen who tackled the chore of assembling wealth and of controlling power. Using the techniques available to them, they were able to employ their basic character to amass that wealth and power. The point being that there was no natural feedback mechanism to inhibit greed nor reward any semblance of service to the community. Businessmen pursued business.

The very lack of a feedback mechanism is the focus of my interest here. I've noticed that there seems to be no correlation between the power that we grant people and their role in our society. Consider actors and athletes who make tens of millions of dollars. Because they entertain us, we give them vast sums of money. Because they have vast sums of money, they can contribute their money to (or found) organizations that have an impact on our society. I find that chain astounding; because someone has a talent for entertainment, they are entrusted with an ability to impact our society.

There is nothing at all saying that an actor is any more or less capable or desirous of good for the community than is anyone else. However, there is nothing inherent in being an actor that infuses wisdom for knowing what is good for the community into the actor. The same is true of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. These men have acquired vast stores of wealth, not unlike the trust barons of the late 1800s. Yet their ability to operate a company gives them no particular insight into proper techniques of social development.

In days gone by, if you disagreed with the social agenda of the corner storekeeper, you didn't buy from his store. That's because you knew who he was and what he stood for. A dollar spent in his store was a dollar that he could use to do something that you disagreed with. Today, corporations and other "entities" accumulate money in the course of thier operation, and that money butresses social agendas of their choosing. We, as consumers are voting for changes to the social agenda of America when we purchase goods and services, yet we have no idea what social agendas we're voting for.

In a similar way, if a large enough group of people with a characteristic trait comes into being, they become a demographic. Businesses market to demographic groups. The newest demographic groups that come to mind for me are the homosexuals and the hispanics. Businesses legitimize demographic groups by catering to their world view. For example, no company in its right mind tells homosexuals that homosexuality is a bad thing. Homosexuals don't buy from companies like that. Companies declare homosexuality a lifestyle, and show advertising and marketing with homosexuals living a happy, well-adjusted life, as American as apple pie and baseball. The same is done for any group that a business targets, whether homosexuals, technophiles, hispanics, or flag-waving gun enthusiasts.

This is done, obviously enough, in order to pursue that most basic of capitalistic goals: having customers and making a profit. That pursuit erodes the social fabric of the nation, as it has been doing since the second world war.

I brought up the disconnect between how money gets into people's hands and how it is then used in our society. In the case of businesses, there is no disconnect at all. Businesses are about making money, and so the actions of their employees are focused on that goal. A marketable demographic comes into existence and companies will market to that demographic. That very marketing alters the social fabric because it plays on the perceptions of people in that demographic. Once a company has money, it then turns around and uses that money to push the lawmakers to structure laws that favor their business plans. The feedback loop is inherently towards greater profit for companies. Any benefit to the community is typically incidental.

This article, sadly, isn't trying to pursue a solution, only to observe the weaknesses. Individuals who have nothing inherent in their lifestyle to make them worthy of altering our social fabric are receiving power when they are handed large amounts of money, to be dispensed as their will and wisdom dictate. Businesses, whose agenda is unrelated to the inherent well-being of the nation or any individual's wisdom, are the custodians of the wealth of the nation, and their agenda will take the nation wherever profit leads them.