Thursday, October 20, 2011

Occupy Wall Street and the Bankers

The ugly language used by many of the Occupy Wall Street activists and by liberals such as radio talk show host Thom Hartmann to describe bankers is disgraceful and dangerous. When one replaces the word “banker” with the word “Jew” in the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric, one glimpses at the true nature and intent of the assault.  Simply put, the Nazis and the German Communists portrayed Jews in virtually the same light as Occupy Wall Street activists are now portraying bankers. In reality this is the same assault on private ownership today as was the one that was engaged in by the 20th Centuries two great socialist experiments, Nazism and Communism.

There are obviously individual bankers and financial managers who could be described as greedy and corrupt. George Soros comes to mind. And yes there are banking and financial institutions that have engaged in corrupt practices such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were bailed out by the American taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Greed and corruption have always been with us and will remain as long as we remain fallible human beings who at times either succumb to temptation or who embrace false ideologies.  In the case of Fannie and Freddie, the public was unaware, until it was too late, that these two banking behemoths were guaranteed by the taxpayer in case they failed. This was not a case private banks taking risks but was rather two agencies that were protected by the government which charged them with carrying out social experiments.

Many of the complaints lodged by members of Occupy Wall Street, on the surface, are legitimate and those include railing against the contracted American economy and the lack of opportunity to make a living. Yet Occupy Wall Street supports ideas that have contributed to the problem when they call for tax increases and more government regulation while they at the same time demonize successful people who are already carrying the weight. If Occupy Wall Street actually wanted to create an atmosphere that would lead to success they would support deregulation of business as a means to promote creativity and low taxes as a means to allow for savings, capital formation and investment. Instead of supporting needless infrastructure projects paid for with taxpayer money, Occupy Wall Street might get behind domestic oil, gas, and coal exploration and development which would lead to infrastructure improvements paid for out of private capital.

Occupy Wall Street is motivated by the false and utopian notion of changing human nature through “democracy” and collective decision making. This is nothing more than a marketing job to convince enough people to surrender their freedom for the good of the so-called collective however it is defined at a given time. Without property, without the right to earn profit and without a system that promotes private profit there is no freedom. There is no such a thing as a “collective” only individuals living free and voluntarily working from time to time on common projects for a common purpose. By railing against property and profit, Occupy Wall Street holds ideals that run contrary to human nature.

And this is why Occupy Wall Street requires a scapegoat, whether that scapegoat is the Jews, who Karl Marx called “self-interested hucksters” who would have to be “annihilated” in order for human society to progress, or whether the scapegoat is bankers. By concentrating on a manufactured enemy that becomes the foci of hate, the advocates of collectivism convince their followers to surrender their individual rights for the so-called greater good. President Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress used this same trick when they demonized the insurance companies in order to push through their freedom crushing health-care laws.

American bankers, Wall Street corporations, and private enterprise in general represent the greatest institutions ever known to man. Corporations have done more social good by hiring people, creating goods and services, and creating capital and wealth, than have any government or group in history. While rules are needed, especially in the financial services industry, to insure that business is done openly and up-front and that investments benefit the American economy, business must remain free to do what it does best and to make money in the process.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think charging or equating OccupyWallStreet with antisemitism is a red herring. In the same way, people opposed to the Tea Party, threw charges of racism at those who stood up for financial responsibility.

I know several Wall Street people, and they are clueless about the pain people are enduring across this country. These are the same people who ruminate on how their bonuses will be affected by current events. They wrap themselves in free-market dogma as if it were patriotic virtue. Yet, if we truly had free markets, the big institutions would have been allowed to fail.

The People saw bailouts, followed by bonuses, followed by unemployment, followed by economic chaos. And the WallStreeters are still clueless.
Extremes create extremes. The liberal spending of the Obama administration created the Tea Party. In a similar way, the obtuse and callous double standard of the financial industry has created OccupyWallStreet.

Let me be clear; I want no part of socialism. However in a strange way, the OccupyWallStreet group is doing The Street a favor. It’s a non-violent canary-in-the-mine of things to come. If this country declines further, OccupyWallStreet will be considered the good ol’ days.

Wall Street has the power to moderate their behavior, and restart this economy. I would rather see a plan enacted by prudent financial decision making than by politically driven government edicts. The choice is theirs..