The unhealthy love at the root of our economic ruin

[This post is based on a comment I made to a Facebook friend, where he'd asked, "Is there anything good and/or hopeful in the current economy?" My reply was shorter than this, but basically makes the same point]

A reason for hope in this economy? Yes. I think there is. I’m beginning to see signs that people are wakening to realization that the real question is not “how much?” but “why?” when it comes to the idea that money is the quintessential measure of human value.

Since the Baby Boomers hit adulthood (see: Yuppies, Reagan, “The Secret of My Success”), there has been (mostly from the Right, but also from the technocratic left) a growing belief that the chief purpose of being an American is to contribute economically. Perhaps it is even the sole purpose. Success as a human is a measurement of wealth, and vice versa.

The kids of the Boomers are now becoming young adults, and have grown up seeing how this attitude affects their parents; divorce, depression, disillusionment. I’ve read a couple articles about how Boomer parents, having raised their kids to be super-achievers, are surprised to learn that their children want to do things related to community, education, non-profits, service, etc.

Let’s get one thing straight before this goes any further: I am a capitalist. I believe in the free market, venture capitalism, the general sensibility of the model and the idea that people should benefit from their work. I believe that the universe is unfair, and that it is not the job of the government to even everything out. I don’t want the government involved in any area of my life where I’d be better off on my own or working with folks in the private sector who have their own reasons — economic or otherwise — for being involved. That being said, I do think that we’re all better off when we cooperate on certain large-scale projects that have national or very widespread influence. We can argue about which of those projects is sensible — armed forces, healthcare, education, highways, etc. — but I don’t hear anyone sensible arguing that we need no government; just that we need smart government.

So what’s my beef? If I like capitalism and I like money (and I do), why would a benefit of a shitty economy be the realization that money ain’t the be-all and end-all of existence? Is it just sour grapes on a class level? Moral justification or compensation for being less well-off than we thought we be? I don’t think so. I think it’s deeper than that.

Money, as we know, is useful stuff. I like my gadgets as much as anyone. When we look at the Cold War, we can see lots of justifications for our economic model vs. socialism; money helps not just be a counter in the game, but it’s the score. If a company can build the same product for less money, it’s doing something better. That’s the basic idea of a market economy.

Again: no argument that money and capitalism is good. But it’s not the only good, and it certainly isn’t the chief good. Why? Here’s the first quotable moment for you:

When the central idea of a country — or a life — becomes fixated on economic value,  we greatly reduce our potential for learning, friendship, creativity and joy.

Example: I think that the Web is, at its heart, a wonderfully enabling technology across many levels of participation. Yes, it helps giants like Amazon be more efficient. But it also lets me, personally, do all kinds of things that have nothing to do with making myself (or, really, anybody else) rich.

I’ve made new friends on these here tubes . I’ve written more poetry in the last 10 years than in the previous 20 before that, chiefly because I have found people to share it with. I used Lulu/Amazon to layout and print my father’s book of meditations before he died, which was a great happiness to him and our family.

None of these things has anything to do with being wealthier. A couple of them cost me a few bucks, but I never did any of them with the idea of making more money.

The Web helps us realize: we are more than the sum of our bank accounts.

Wall Street, Washington and Hollywood are scared of us figuring that out; hence all the DRM, “three strikes,” SOPA nonsense. If we find more and more ways to be content, productive, accountable, flexible, transparent, engaged, creative, vocal and — dare I say, happy — that do not involve spending money, they lose a hold on us. They lose power and the ability to monetize our self worth.

Part of the current reaction to our growing income inequality isn’t just “it’s not fair that you have so much and I/we/they don’t,” but another, more visceral objection: “It’s not doing you any damned good to be that rich. It’s toxic. It’s stupid. It’s not making you happy, and the systems you’ve set up to defend your inexplicably unhealthy attitude are robbing others of some really important stuff like education, health, human rights and basic economic security.”

My Dad, the shrink, used to say, “Neurotics build castles in the air. Psychotics live in them.” For the last 30 years or so, we’ve been operating on a collective neurosis that says money is what makes an individual worthwhile, what makes our nation great, and is what deserves authority. What we’ve begun to see in the last few years is how that neurosis — which manifests in a variety of unhealthy ways for those suffering from the disorder — has progressed to psychosis: a loss of contact with reality. And when those with the most economic power are enabled to act on their delusions, they impact us all.

Cue the second quotable bit:

It’s one thing to make the argument that my riches are more important than yours. It’s another to defend the idea that maintaining my psychoses takes precedence over your basic welfare.

That’s what we’re seeing in the OWS movement; a questioning of the basic order of systems that no longer make sense unless you buy into a highly structured, almost magical set of rationalizations about money. This isn’t class warfare; nobody is saying it’s bad to be rich. What we’re saying is that it’s unhealthy to try to frame every challenge in terms of promoting personal (and corporate), monetary wealth. Let’s look at some examples:

• Newt Gingrich’s recent ideas about child labor. What’s most distressing to me is not that he thinks children should work, but the assumed ideal that work is the cure for what ails needy children. It’s as if you went to your mom because you were being bullied, and she suggested you pay them off. It’s a focus on economic value, even as a hallmark of development.
• The Copyright Term Extension Act (aka, “The Mickey Mouse Extension Act”). In order to protect fictional works from possible loss of future profit, we borked the entire system that our Founding Fathers put in place — the one that, you know, helped make the US one of the greatest hotbeds of invention in the history of the world.
• Buckley v Valeo. Money = speech in terms of political contributions. For those of us who really believe in the inalienable rights of humans, this one is like a firecracker in the pants. How in heck can money be speech, if there are people (and companies) who have billions of times more wealth than others? It is entirely fair that money = power in terms of economic leverage. That’s the point. If you have $100,000 you have the right to buy 100x more stuff than someone with $1,000. But the idea that you have the right to 100x more speech?

That last example is one of those truly bizarre judgments that begins to really point out how we’ve moved from a widespread, chronic neurosis (the idea that money is the most important thing) to an acute psychosis: those with this mental illness are making changes to the systems we all rely on in order to support their particular, flawed view of value, values and national identity.

I will take just a moment for a quick shout-out to my fellow Christians to ask the following:

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that God loves the rich more? Are you less of a worthwhile person if you have a job that you really enjoy, but that makes less money? Did you have children chiefly so that they would take care of you, monetarily, in your old age? Did you marry your spouse because he/she was a capable breadwinner and apt to provide good cost-benefit balance to the relationship? How often do you smile, laugh or feel warm about “money stuff?” Does spending it really make you happy? Does earning more of it give you particular pride? If, as Christians, we are meant to emulate Christ, can you point to one verse in the Bible that suggests he owned *anything* let alone was wealthy? Were His friends the well-off types? Did he ever say, “Blessed are the dough-makers, for they shall inherit major stock options?” I challenge anyone who calls themselves a Christian to back up the idea that money matters AT ALL to God, except in how we use it to help others.

We all know the end of this scripture, but here’s all of 1 Timothy 6:7-10: For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

That’s what we’re seeing on our national and global stages: ruin and destruction, brought about by the temptations and traps of money-centric morality, philosophy and politics.

I’ve never cared that much about money. Like I said, I enjoy it. I’m glad I can earn a good living doing something I enjoy. But I truly believe that you can’t buy happiness. Some recent research confirms this: beyond a certain point, having more money doesn’t make you any happier.

I get the feeling that lots (most) of the people I care about feel this way: money ain’t the center of our lives. That it has become the center of our republic is a kind of national schizophrenia that, I hope, we are beginning to recognize and can, therefore, treat.