On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two.
Most of these folks have a perception that they've been locked out of doing well -- if your parents couldn't afford a good school, or if they can't afford *any* school and you put yourself through, it colors your opportunities for at least the first six or eight years of your professional career. If your money went to support parents who didn't have anything saved for retirement, you automatically don't have as much saved for your own retirement. If you start out with no wealth, then the guy born to wealthy parents, or with wealthy connections from the posh private school he went to, who bankroll his business startup, is taking an advantage you never had. I think a lot of people resenting those who've done well is actually resenting people who had opportunities - provided through no merit of their own - that were denied to them. If you're going to think in terms of "doing well," in terms of skill and dedication and saving and investment making you into one of the upper upper-crust in this culture, you aren't thinking of individuals, really. You really have to think of several *generations* of a family building and passing on wealth and opportunity to the next generation. It works for individuals too, but it's much harder to do and in a single lifetime the odds against rising from an illiterate family with no savings to being one of the super-rich are negligible no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi- generational project. I've struggled with this one myself. My folks were hillbillies. So I started with just about nothing, myself. However, I had opportunities, and I took them and did fairly well with them. Public schools. Merit scholarships to start the college career. The ability to work two jobs while taking classes to finish it. The kind of health that isn't fazed by a few days without food or a month of living outdoors. A Ridiculously high IQ. A strong back. A hometown community where I could build a reputation as a good worker, and so have steady pick-up jobs through times when a lot of people didn't have steady work even with full-time jobs. These are real opportunities, though most of them aren't of the magnitude that fate granted to Bill Gates and his ilk. I'm on track to retire comfortably -- at my current pace, if I can hold it, I will be a millionaire within the next five years. But I'm 37 years old and it has taken me this long to overcome where I started. If public schools and state-sponsored scholarships are removed, I don't like to think of where I'd have been. I think it's not unreasonable that a certain amount of public money should go to opportunities -- schools and scholarships especially -- because these are investments that taxes pay back. If you make loans to individuals, some get paid back and some don't. The ones that get paid back, could have paid a hell of a lot more, and the ones that don't are worse off than when they started. But if you make "loans" to populations, in the form of supporting schools and scholarships, the increased ability of that population to earn, and subsequent tax revenues, *do* pay it all back, and then some. I hope we find a way to make such things into palatable business propositions and privatize them; I'd hate to see them die with governments. Bear