The Slime Ball Complex

Let’s move away from analyzing Michelle Obama’s new hairstyle. Let’s move back into the real world which, although it may seem strange to some on the Supreme Court, is dealt with factually.

The fact of the matter is the media has demonized the corporation. Whether it stems from the French Revolution and the working of Jean-Jacques Rousseau; from the backlash of the Industrial Revolution; from the Progressive Era of the early 1900s; or from recent scandals dealing with the misdistribution of wealth amongst the CEOs and their underlings, the corporation has really been taking some unwarranted flack.

The Simpsons, an iconic television show, features one of the most notable CEO villains, Mr. Burns. He doesn’t smile, he doesn’t treat his employees humanely, and all be damned if he cares about anything but making a profit.

Another iconic richistan, Ebenezer Scrooge, is best remembered before his transformation during the Dickens novel. Hoarding his money while his colleague’s family starves, tiny Tim becomes weaker with malnutrition, etc.

We all know the story and the time-old line when Scrooge refuses to donate money to the collectors:

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

Now that Ebenezer Scrooge has basically embodied capitalism’s laissez faire theory, we all know that the ideology has got to be evil. Now that the Republican and conservative economic policies are put to literature, it’s easy to see that they’re merely selfish robber barons at work.

Let’s not think about the other end of the spectrum. The idea that donating money is completely voluntary and that one can say no if they so please. Emotionally, however, when looking at someone with more money than someone on the streets, we automatically feel as though they took too much of the monetary pie.

It’s not thought about what the entrepreneur might be creating for the good of the economy.

Ignorance and want may be the children, but how do we cure such ailments? By demonizing capitalism? Or by promoting expansions and entrepreneurship to increase the standards of living?

Speaking of ignorance, at educational facilities, how are children supposed to be motivated if they know that x percent of their wage will be paid to the government with ever growing income brackets? That if they earn too much money they could be labeled as ambitious and heartless. That their own self-interest will be perceived as selfishness.

Self-interest used to be a term coined to all liberal ideologies. If one wanted to break away from feudalism and overbearing theology, like John Locke, one usually brought up the idea of self-interest as a driving factor for how states could work with more freedoms.

Most people would agree that they would rather have personal liberties still, right? Rather than being a character in Kurt Vonneguts’ Harrison Bergeron, Americans would rather be free, right?

Freedom, however, entails the ability to succeed and fail. Failure, though not desirable, is a plausible outcome. And unless we all want to turn over our freedom for safety, some people will succeed while others will fail. But when we fail, just like we do when learning to walk while in diapers, we get up and try again. If we gave up immediately, we’d all be crawling on our hands and knees. We’d never lift onto our feet, we’d never finish school, we’d never speak the English vernacular. But then again, we’d all be equal.

Specialization doesn’t mean unequal. It means while Kobe Bryant may be a great basketball player, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is a fabulous plumber. Then, in voluntary exchanges, we benefit each other. Mr. Bryant plays for the NBA so people can watch and be entertained while Joe the plumber will work on leaking pipes.

Whereas one can argue that one job is more important than another, demand also comes into play. The skill of plumbing can be learned more easily than the skill of being an LA Lakers MVP shooting guard. Besides, while a plumber works on a one-to-one basis, NBA games are televised and can be watched by millions. The supply of one is overwhelmingly larger.

Sure, it could be argued that Mr. Bryant is a sleazebag who raped some lady in Colorado. But if he was such a sleazebag, maybe people should stop watching.

Blockbuster movie, Atonement, brings emotion to the unmaking of a corporate owner. Paul Marshall is an industrialist with big plans to sell candy-coated chocolate bars to the army. Due to the in likelihood of England declaring war on Germany, such a character could have been held with high esteem. Could being the operative word.

After Paul Marshall rapes a fifteen year old girl, he remains mum on the fact while the poor and innocent Robbie Turner is thrown into jail. Robbie then dies while fighting in Dunkirk.

It’s the time old Romantic trick; the glorification of the barbarian with the condemnation of the average bourgeoisie.

What about J.P. Morgan?

It should be noted that he generously granted money to the state during one of many monetary hiccups. Such hiccups included the Panic of 1893, the 1895 crisis, and the Panic of 1907.

Not only did he found General Electric when he bought Edison General Electric and Thompson-Houston Electric Company, he and Elbert Gary founded U.S. Steel, a hybrid of Gary’s steel industries and the Carnegie Steel Company purchased from Andrew Carnegie.

During WWII, U.S. Steel employed more than 340,000 people. Production peaked at 35 million tons. Now, employment is at 49,000 people and the company is being bombarded by green laws, unions, and monopoly theorists. The $350,000 paid in pollution taxes could have been spent on wages. But that’s nothing compared to the $30 million settlement to clean up a five mile river.

He donated art to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and Wadsworth Atheneum in Connecticut. His steel was used to construct all kinds of buildings, including a resort in Disney World.

Still there were whispers of his so-called piracy.

Richard Armour wrote It All Started with Columbus, a satire on the history of the United State. A famous quote relates “…This Morgan being spoken of as 'J.P.' to distinguish him from Henry Morgan, the pirate.”

In Arthur Miller’s the Death of a Salesman, a notable quote was:

Bernard[about Biff] "He never train himself for anything."

Charley: "My salvation is that I never took interest in anything."

Charley: "Why must everybody like you? Who liked J.P. Morgan? . . . In a Turkish bath he'd look like a butcher. But with his pockets on him he was very well liked."

Is it true that people only like corporate owners because they think they can give them money? Couldn’t it be argued that people like them because they can get jobs, which in turn grant them regular wages? In both cases, people get money. In one case, it’s through sloth charity. In the other, it’s a voluntary exchange of service for pay.

Did you know that Randall Wallace is attempting to put Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged onto the big screen? (Or at least a mini-series or trilogy.) In any case, the anti-bailout whisperings are as follows:

Hollywood could be going Objectivist.

Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book’s themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages -- making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.

But who will play the heroine, Dagney Taggart?

Could it be Angelina Jolie who, despite refusing to officially back a president, said about Obama:

“Obama fights for international justice, he wants to militarily intervene in cases of genocide, and close Guantanamo Bay. These are the things that could move me to vote for him, not his roots…Naturally, an American president like Barack Obama would be nice for my family.”

Or it could be Charlize Theron who openly supported Barack Obama:

“I'm a huge Barack supporter. I like what this guy has to say. I know there's this whole question of his experience, but I think, when you look at all the great leaders that we've had, I'd go with the guy with the least experience but the one that actually wants to cause some real change. I think there's something really inspiring and infectious about him. I think this guy's onto something. I like him.”

So the question is: Can a movie based on a book completely against Socialism survive the twenty-first century with its integrity still intact?

Another movie that attempted to pull Hollywood out of socialism was It’s a Wonderful Life. Surprise, surprise, Jimmy Stewart’s George Bailey represents a good-guy CEO. However, Mr. Potter, the desperado of the show, is also a CEO and he overshadows George Bailey with his villainy.

It should be noted that there’s a difference between slime balls and CEOs. A CEO can be a slime ball. A slime ball may work in a corporation – even as an owner or manager. But there are some CEOs, as George Bailey embodies that are honest and good people - even though usually forgotten. But honestly, aren’t there good and bad seeds in every bunch?

Underhandedly, these jabs at the CEOs of corporations advocate business failure. They have manifested into corporate taxes and graduated income taxes. The combination has rendered the American public lethargic. No longer is the goal to be successful.

When people’s drive to succeed falls, expansion of technology will fall short.

Domestic good sales will go down.

Corporate profits will decrease.

Lay-offs will increase.

Unemployment increases.

Money circulation is stemmed.

Government intervention is deemed necessary.

Stimulus plans are injected, welfare programs upheld.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, they might suggest the demonization of capitalism and CEOs as a plot for increasing population dependence.