O Wealthy Brother Where Art Thou?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:38:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Who is Paul Sullivan? I only know of him because of masaccio, who pointed out this extraordinary NYTimes column, in which he appears to have inverted the plot of Preston Sturges' classic film Sullivan's Travels. Instead of discovering the misery in the poverty stricken America of the Great Depression, as Sturges' protaganist John L. Sullivan did, our modern day Sullivan discovered the travails of the beleaguered wealthy in today's America of "little people" hating on their betters:

Beating up on the wealthy seems to be the order of day. I suspected that. But a recent Wealth Matters column touched a particularly raw nerve. It looked at how even people with sizable fortunes were concerned about money in this recession and the impact that could have on the rest of us. Readers rejected the attempt to understand the concerns of the rich.

[. . .] [I]n this recession, anger flows one way. Eric Dammann, a Manhattan psychoanalyst, theorizes that a lot of people are angry that the rules of the game seem to have changed. “There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal,” Mr. Dammann said. “This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage.”

Heh. The anger flows one way. The rich are not mad at the poor I guess is what he is saying. But it gets better:

What is troubling is that the anger has hardened for some into a suspicion that all wealthy people are motivated purely by self-interest, said Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist in Hawaii and a co-author of the forthcoming book, “Mind Over Money: Overcoming the Money Disorders That Threaten Our Financial Health” (Random House). “The script goes like this: Money is bad, rich people are shallow and greedy, and people become rich by taking advantage of others,” Mr. Klontz said. “But the same people who say money is bad say money is connected to their self-worth — they wished they had it and you didn’t.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh again. A financial psychologist? What in the hell is that? But our modern day Sullivan is just starting. More fun quotes:

“To revile the rich is to revile the American dream,” said Robert Clarfeld, president of the wealth management firm Clarfeld Financial Advisors.

A wealth management firm president decries "hatred" of the rich. Quelle surprise. But here's our Sullivan topping this guy:

This resentment was so palpable, I started to wonder if it was having any effect — were the wealthy aware of it, and if they were, did they care?

Heh again. But Mr. Sullivan discovers what they actually care about:

A big concern among the wealthy right now, their advisers say, is not populist anger but how it might translate into tax-the-rich legislation on the federal and state levels.

(Emphasis supplied.) You don't say? Who woulda thunk it? Sullivan concludes with some psychobabble and more "wealth experts" about how people should not let themselves be consumed by "obsession" with the rich. Translation? Don't be for raising taxes on the rich. FDR, you listening?

One final note, Mr. Sullivan is a reporter for the Times. I hate to break it to him, unless he is independently wealthy and just a reporter as a hobby, he is not wealthy. Hell, I make a lot more money than he does. Don't hate me for that Mr. Sullivan.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread: Back to Reality >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

O Wealthy Brother Where Art Thou? | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Does Baucuscare cover visits to the (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by steviez314 on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:45:04 PM EST

financial psychologist?

Or maybe, a Debt Panel?

: Well, there is already a really good (none / 0) (#7)
by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:22:18 PM EST

tax-free year coming up for the rich. If they play their cards right and they die in 2010--no estate tax.

The rich (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by SOS on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:12:27 PM EST

I'll give them credit for basically sticking together and looking out for each others interests.

If the disorganized masses operated like that it would be interesting.

I just got back from seeing (none / 0) (#14)
by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:26:37 PM EST

'Capitalism, a Love Story'. Very timely post here.

The rich need not worry - the usual brilliant right wing jujitsu managed to harness the anger at the rich and turn it against the little guys, in the form of the Tea Party protests against universal health care.

My friends and I are so depressed after that movie - I truly fear there is no hope. Glad to at least have some dark humor here to read.


Saw the movie yesterday (none / 0) (#21)
by caseyOR on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:14:28 AM EST

and cried through parts of it. I didn't think my despair and depression could get any worse, but I was wrong. I am so worn out by everything--- health reform, bailout, those frickin's wars, --- that I don't have the energy to be angry anymore, just despairing.


Yes (none / 0) (#22)
by Spamlet on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:39:48 AM EST

It was ultimately a heartbreaking movie, on so many levels.


Will the gov't be humiliated if a mass (none / 0) (#35)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 06:12:01 PM EST

exodus to Canada, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, South America, etc. begins ... and takes what money they have left with them to find a decent life?


: If you mean (none / 0) (#36)
by Spamlet on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:12:55 PM EST

the shadow government that apparently runs the country, I think it's impervious to humiliation, shame, remorse, etc. And what will our dollars be worth anyway?

Corporatism a Love Story (none / 0) (#29)
by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:41:30 PM EST

Had nothing to do with Capitalism. All the actions of corporations he rails against in the movie are state-enabled. No bailout if the treasury doesn't take the money first.


Being state enabled (none / 0) (#33)
by jondee on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:13:58 PM EST

is too much of a temptation for alot of fallen-from-grace capitalists. It's the oldest game in the world: a guy on the inside and a guy on the outside.

Capitalism in whatever pure form it's practised, dosnt relieve people of all human frailty.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#38)
by Samuel on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:19:26 AM EST

I have no clue what you're saying.

dear dog. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jeffinalabama on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:12:57 PM EST

financial psychology?

that says enough. forget comments about 'excessive taxation,' those are just silly.

FINANCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST?

Oh dear dog.

All Sullivan knows is a rich person's perspective (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Pol C on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:28:26 PM EST

I hate to break it to him, unless he is independently wealthy and just a reporter as a hobby, he is not wealthy.

Sullivan's income from the Times might not be anything to crow over, but I can all but guarantee you that Mr. Sullivan comes from an affluent or upper-middle-class background.

It is just about impossible to break into the MSM otherwise. They generally will not consider applicants who do not hail from elite private universities. Furthermore, one has to spend time as free labor working in unpaid internships before being considered for a paid position. Unless your family can support you through all of this, you need to find another profession.

Sullivan identifies with the wealthy because they and/or their concerns are all he has ever known.

Absolutely something to this (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:34:11 PM EST

Especially unpaid interships as a class barrier (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by lambert on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:22:22 PM EST

See here and here, for example.


: Yup, I've lived it. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:42:03 PM EST

Not much, though (none / 0) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:57:43 PM EST

We pay taxes in order to enjoy a civilized (5.00 / 7) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:52:16 PM EST

society. Lately the rich have found ways to not pay their fair share. All their stuff eats up and uses more regulation infrastructure, police protection, and fire protection (tons of other stuff too) than mine does...and the roads and the bridges. Pay up you whining jerks.

Has any wealthy person (none / 0) (#12)
by Fabian on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:02:32 PM EST

every been taxed so harshly that they've dropped into a lower socioeconomic class?

The way they whine and cringe, it sounds like they'll be forced into the upper middle class if they have to pay more in taxes.


: No kidding (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 07:08:08 AM EST

Hatred flows one way (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:34:06 PM EST

Love that line. It is contempt, fear, and loathing that flows the other way, I guess.

Doesn't everyone hate being stolen from? That is the difference now - some people (not enough) are waking up to the fact that they are being ripped off.

There was also this: (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:57:07 PM EST

"From the outside, the wealthy seem to be one big money-minting group. But how they came upon their wealth differs greatly. And those who did not make their fortunes in finance seem just as angry as everyone else about what Wall Street has wrought.

"They want the problem to be fixed for their own personal benefit but also for the broader benefit of the community," Mr. Woodson said. "They tie their wealth interests to the broader health of the economy."

I've worked with many weathy Democrats and Independents and they're not all cut out of the same cloth, no matter the background.

Still, I'm definitely a class warrior. Always was, always will be...I just don't always feel it necessary to show it.

the very rich are just plain ole sick (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by pluege on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 10:55:18 PM EST

people can't even comprehend millions of dollars, let alone billions. Continuing to accumulate wealth past some 10s of millions of dollars, let alone billions is sick in and of itself, but to at the same time be against taxes that might help the needy or less fortunate is way beyond sick. If the rich weren't so destructive in their greed, you'd have to feel sorry for their mental disability.

: They aren't all Bill Gates (none / 0) (#25)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:30:40 AM EST

that's for sure.
I can tell you what a couple of the Gates' foundations do. There's probably more foundations that I don't know about.
Any other Richie Richs out there putting their money into finding a way to combat malaria?

I wonder if employees of the big banks... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Addison on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:03:16 AM EST

...Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, etc., will ever quite realize that they are the luckiest ducks in the world that Americans are -- apparently -- not a violent revolt-minded, "pitchforks and torches" kind of people when it comes to the unpleasant combination of quasi-legal robbery & conspicuous consumption.

My guess is no.

: They're lucky (none / 0) (#30)
by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:47:56 PM EST

because people that 'participate' in politics believe that the government, who caused the entire mess with interest rates and then gifted money in the bailout, is somehow the solution. If you give the car a little bit of gas and it starts to smoke, that's usually a hint you don't want to put the pedal to the floor. Unless you're a contemporary liberal busy swapping the government in for Santa Claus.

i don't suspect, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 02:40:21 AM EST

What is troubling is that the anger has hardened for some into a suspicion that all wealthy people are motivated purely by self-interest,

i know this for a fact. if they weren't, they wouldn't be rich. i'll make an (possible) exception, for inherited wealth.

: Those who inherit wealth are the most fearful (none / 0) (#27)
by esmense on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:34:17 AM EST

In my experience, inherited wealth makes one more conservative, more risk adverse and less creative than average.
Creative risk takers are motivated by what they could gain, for themselves, yes, but in many cases also for others. Often, those who are willing to take the biggest risks are those who have the least to lose.
But people who inherit wealth are likely to be motivated, first and foremost, by their fear of what they could lose.
In my years in the business world I met and worked with a lot of rich people -- the self-made mostly, but also those who inherited their good fortune. As a middle class striver, I initially found dealing with those heirs confounding -- until I realized we were looking at life from opposite ends of the telescope, and we really were talking totally different languages.
A vibrant economy, and society, in my opinion is one in which the needs, dreams and ambitions of those who have little but are ambitious to gain more (the young and those without substantial inherited resources) are valued and supported over the concerns of those who have much (the old and those with substantial inherited resources) and are fearful of losing even a little of it.
The exact opposite of the stagnant, fearful, fantasy indulging, established wealth protecting society and economy we have spent the last 30 years creating.

Here's a fun fact (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 03:31:41 AM EST

An ethical angle on the crisis came in reports this week in German papers FAZ (the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) and TAZ (Berlin's Tagezeitung) of the news coming out of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's conference in Rome this week, which stated starkly that the global economic crisis has had a devastating effect on world hunger, leaving one in six people in the world starving. In 2009 1.02 billion people are going hungry, the highest figure since 1970. "While the employees of large U.S. banks and investment firms can expect 140 billion U.S. dollars in salary and bonuses this year, more than one billion people go hungry." Those bonuses alone -- awarded this year for God only knows what -- could wipe out world hunger at a stroke.

(imomus)

Here's my (not unique) financial psychology (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:54:05 PM EST

it is only because people like Sullivan think that they may someday become super rich that almost anyone is concerned about the potential for "rich taxes." In many ways it's the Republican psychosis: "I've got mine" becomes "I'm sure I'll get mine!"

: Not entirely true. (none / 0) (#31)
by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:52:29 PM EST

I don't think that I will be rich. I believe that it is morally corrupt to take property by force.
Also - it's a economic misconception to consider the economy a as a pie of a fixed size. The productivity of the economy (size of the pie) arises from individuals that apply resources into increasing this productivity.
That said a lot of money was stolen rather than volunteered in exchange for goods...but that's only via government! A private company can't tax you then give itself a bailout.
But seriously, if you pay mcdonalds 2 bucks for a hamburger - then 4 months later find out they're making a lot of money - you can't demand your money back in the name of "fairness".

Poor guy (none / 0) (#3)
by DaveOinSF on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:05:36 PM EST

he doesn't know that only wealthy people are allowed to be concerned about what excessive taxation of the wealthy does to the economy.

: Hold up (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:09:04 PM EST

If that is his concern, then express it.
Why all the psychobabble BS?
Apparently, just expressing and defending that opinion is not possible anymore. What happened Dave?
I know a poor person like you is not at all afraid to argue that the rich pay too much in taxes. Why can't Paul Sullivan do the same thing?

Typical Arrogance (none / 0) (#19)
by pluege on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:14:59 PM EST

of the wealthy to think anyone would envy them and their miserable existence.

Bill Gates (none / 0) (#28)
by DancingOpossum on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:27:06 PM EST

Gets no props from me. Microsoft is one of the key proponents of expanding the H1-B Visa program and regularly goes up to Congress to whine that there aren't enough qualified Americans for IT companies to hire so they have to import thousands of foreign workers at half the salary or the entire industry will collapse, boo hoo. It's utter BS but Congress laps it up, of course, because it's Bill Gates and his buddies. Microsoft is also notoriously anti-union.

The Gates charities are all well and good but they are also good tax breaks and excellent PR while Gates himself screws American workers over royally.

Charity begins at home, Bill.

Wait (none / 0) (#32)
by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:55:03 PM EST

what's wrong with hiring workers willing to work for less money?


"Willing" (none / 0) (#34)
by jondee on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:19:27 PM EST

or desperate enough? What's wrong with taking advantage of anothers persons weakness or poor "life choices", by God?!


: Haha (none / 0) (#37)
by Samuel on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:02:50 AM EST

So let me get this straight. It's "force" if I hire someone who desperately needs employment and is willing to work at a lower rate?
So what do you call it when the government forces me to hire someone else for more money? That's actual force. Is that fair to the employee who was desperate and willing to work for less (willing because it incentivizes me to hire them over a higher cost alternative).
Come on - force does not equal choice. Your approach involves force.
Am I "forcing" a car company into lowering their price so that I'm encouraged to buy their car?
Marxism!