Millionaire or billionaire executives are not going to give up their perks or stop spending money on themselves merely because they are asking for a loan of 25 or 50 billion.
After all, its because they are rich that they are heads of very rich companies and that they are asking for billions to carry them over the Christmas season.
Five or ten thousand dollars for a call girl's services are some of the perks of being rich, whether a rich governor or rich business executive. This is all part of being rich. A private jet is all part of this thinking. Those who question this logic appear to be out of touch. One question, do rich woman executives, get expensive call guys?
Even though there's no real logic to it, nor do people of other cultures necessarily understand it, the poorest of the poor in our culture do understand. Those that rob our banks even from the outside understand.
We tend to overlook that we are running a culture where it is all right to be greedy and were some high priests of the Christian churches especially preach that God wants us to be rich. This justifies the high priests' position and their riches and power and their access to call girls. I don't think there are any rich call girls. But perhaps the pimping people are? Ususally those in the slave trade are richer than their slaves.
We know that being rich is better than being poor. What's all the fuss about. Even Jefferson had slaves. I don't know about George Washington. But that was all about being rich. One of the principles, however, is that we can't have a lot of rich, if we don't have a lot of poor.
During Washington's and Jefferson's time, they at least were responsible for feeding and sheltering of the workers whom they owned as property and therefore took care of as they did all their property.
The problem in our culture is not about the rich becoming rich, remaining rich or expanding their riches. The problem is with the poor. They want to share some of the richness, which of course they are not entitled to, even if they are working in the rich executives' firms as part of the scheme for keeping the rich, rich.
Those in the Congress who accept this philosophy of having a few rich on top and many poor as underpinnings of the system are not voting for bailing out those who represent this system for getting rich. And why is that?
It is perhaps because they know that if the companies fail, that the executives have their parachutes. But it is the auto workers that the politicians are after.
If we could get rid of those strong unions and the union leaders who also want to become rich, then we wouldn't have to go to China for cheap labor or in the interim rely on the poor of Mexico. It is the unions who are the socialist not the CEOs. Getting money from the government is not necessarily welfare, is it?
If workers remain free agents, most of them will remain poor and that's good for the system. If they organize, that becomes a problem. It works against the principle of buying cheap and selling dear. That's the principle on which the stock market works as well, if we hadn't noticed.
Yet when the range of cheapness gets too big, the system breaks down. Just as when the range of dear grows too big, the balloon or bubble eventually explodes.
So within a culture where the rich must get richer and the poor poorer, if they want, then what's wrong with 500-dollar bottles of wine, and private jets? That's all part of it. Congressman, get with it. The CEOs are O.K. Give them the money. Why not? And let's all give thanks.
After defeating the Germans and the Japanese, do we now want only their cars to drive around in? Of course, we still have those expansive Italian cars. By the way, which side were the Italians on during WWII?