Signs

On my facebook wall tonight I saw two photos, one after the other.  I'd seen both already, since folks have been posting them all day ~ but the fact that they happened to be juxtaposed like they were made me pause for a moment. 

The first was soldiers holding a sign that read "Occupy Bagram: Quit your Bitchin' and get back to Work". 



The next reads, "If they enforced bank regulation like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place". 


It seems to me like a person would fall into one of these camps or the other.  In fact, it seems to be true that our entire political system is set up so that you have to take one side or the other every time there's a conversation about anything.  It seems like, in this case, if you agree with the soldiers then you're against the protesters.  And if you agree with the protesters, then you're against the soldiers.  Perhaps that's too stark of a dichotomy, but that's the way it ends up playing out on facebook and in the news. 

Of course, some could argue that they two opinions ought to go hand in glove.  If the OWS protesters could get a job in this economy, they would probably have already followed the advice of the soldiers.  And perhaps if the authorities had enforced bank regulations, there would arguably be more jobs available. 

Then again, at the same time, others could argue that the protesters are spoiled, and their complains are about nothing substantial; that other people are getting by just fine, thank you very much, on hard work and sacrifice. 

Personally, though, I'd prefer to live in a world where war is not necessary because we recognize the value of each individual and community enough to not kill each other.  I'd prefer to live in a world where protest is not necessary because we recognize the value of each individual and community enough to not let anyone go without being able to do meaningful work and make a contribution to society.  I'd prefer to live in a world where bank regulation is not necessary because we recognize the value of each individual and community enough to not greedily gain for ourselves at the expense of our neighbor.  I'd prefer to live in a world where park regulation is not necessary because we recognize the value of each individual and community enough to respect, use wisely, and not pillage or degrade our natural resources. 

I suppose it sounds like I'd prefer to live in the Kingdom of G-d ... and perhaps I would, because (at the danger of creating G-d in my image), that's what I imagine the Kingdom of G-d looks like.  What I wonder is, why aren't we working harder together to make it reality?  Is it just greed and selfishness, or is there something more that keeps us from that work?

$0.02

Financial Collapse

Europe's leaders are meeting to further discuss the Euro-zone debt crisis.  In USAmerica, we still have not worked our way out of our own economic woes.  Sure, they tell us the market is rebounding, but that seems to be only in the market ~ regular people are still struggling to find work, while the purchasing power of their paycheck continues to diminish.  Governmental leaders aren't actually doing anything other than yelling at each other about the best way forward, while bankers' and CEOs' paychecks are through the roof and corporations rake in record profits. 

A couple years ago, the government (read: taxpayers) bailed out the banks that were on the verge of implosion, because (the way I understand it in my feeble mind) if they were to fail, the whole financial system would collapse.

So, it seems to me that this is where we stand:  banks took big risks with money that belonged to regular people; the risks didn't pay off; the banks, who took the risk, are punished by being given loans so they can stay afloat; the bailed-out-risk-takers, as a result of their punishment, are now making more money than they were before the crisis.  At the same time, those of us who didn't take huge risks (those of us who actually funded the bail-out) are rewarded with stagnated wages, a poor job market, and huge concerns about an economic future that doesn't seem to be improving for anyone besides the tremendously wealthy. 

More than a couple times in recent weeks, I've heard the maxim 'greater risk results in greater rewards'.  What I haven't heard is anyone reminding us of the flip side, which is that with the potential for greater reward comes the danger of greater loss.  Maybe it's because if we believe that financial institutions are too big to fail, they don't actually take on any risk of loss.  If we continue to be willing to cover their losses, they will continue to manufacture bigger and bigger risk.  But it's our risk for their reward.  They're not a danger of loss ~ it's the taxpayers and regular people on whom they put that risk. 

The thing is, if I've made an investment, I don't mind taking a loss (it doesn't make me happy, but I understood the risk when I made the investment).  What I don't like is when I have to take a loss because someone else made a bad investment. 

What I continue to wonder is what would actually happen if those banks had been allowed to fail?  I hear that our financial system would collapse.  OK, this would probably result in a period of panic and chaos. 

But it wouldn't last forever ~ so, then what?  We'd start over, with something new.  And maybe, at least for a while, it wouldn't be so disproportionately unjust. 

Meanwhile, in the wake of banks' collapse and financial distress in Iceland, the people have kicked the government to the curb ~ real democracy seems to have momentarily reared its head.  

$0.02