Never has it been easier to anonymously do harm to people and the planet: environmentally or socially-damaging products can be purchased with the click of a button or tap of a screen from the comfort of our home, car, or […]
I am fascinated by motivation, by what makes some people run for president or finish Ironmans or write novels, and what makes others spend their free time in front of a TV. But this isn’t just an idle question: if we […]
It has become a cliché to excoriate the big banks for their financial misdeeds, in large part because the public has grown tired of the litany of law-suits, controversial settlements, accusations of manipulation, cover-ups and other shenanigans. But I’m going to write about it anyway, for a simple reason: this is no laughing matter, and it’s not going away.
The inspiration for this post came from two stories, both posted on November 12th, detailing the latest corporate malfeasance. In the first story, we learn that “some of the nation’s biggest banks ignore bankruptcy court discharges, which render the debts void. Paying no heed to the courts, the banks keep the debts alive on credit reports, essentially forcing borrowers to make payments on bills that they do not legally owe.” The second story informs us that a number of big banks have agreed to a $4.25 billion fine for illegal currency-rigging.
.jpg)
Photo Credit: affnpack
The banality of evil is a term coined by the Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt. Writing about the trial of Adolf Eichman, a lieutenant colonel in the infamous Nazi SS who played a critical role in the Holocaust, she notes that ”aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann was not driven by antisemitism or psychological damage…the phrase refers to Eichmann’s deportment [at his trial], displaying niether guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply ‘doing his job.’”
The banality of evil need not only apply to war criminals. As I mentioned in my last post, Financial Injustice And Racism, where once social ills were visible in the street and unavoidable–’Whites Only’ signs, the Cuyahoga River catching fire because of pollution–now they are perpetuated by respectable people working for respectable institutions leading respectable lives.
As someone that comes up with ideas a mile a minute (of which a small percentage are worth pursuing), I’ve noticed a dynamic that I don’t like: when I discuss the idea, I put myself in the position of defending it, even if the questions posed are valid! Stepping back for a moment, it’s obvious to me how pernicious this is: shouldn’t the goal be to objectively evaluate the idea rather than take sides for the sake of it? To take the actions that most effectively move us toward our mission? And I’m the worst offender!
So here’s an idea for sharing ideas. Start by presenting the concept, and then take a moment to present the barriers to implementation, the reasons why it might make sense to wait, and so on. Next, listen to the other people in the room talk about what’s good about the idea, as well as what concerns they have. And once all of this is on the table, the best course of action can be taken.
Now I just have to put my money where my mouth is!
There is a marketplace of ideas, one in which the winners shape public policy, make funding decisions and launch programs that affect the lives of millions. Not only that, but the more time I spend in this marketplace, the more I see that the ideas that spread do so because of the money and power behind them. The consequences of this dynamic are profound: global warming deniers, deficit hawks and pugilistic lovers of war continue to drive the direction of this country.
In short, if we are to better the world, if we are to overcome injustice, we must ensure that good, just and righteous ideas spread. But doing so is easier said than done. If I had a million dollar budget, I could run a robust advertising campaign online, in print, radio, tv. And If you don’t think a large advertising budget matters, remember that the first Gulf War started with an ad campaign, John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid failed, in part, because of the Swiftboat ad campaign, and on and on and on.
“We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
The thesis of this post is simple and, I hope, provocative: that if you care deeply about a particular social or environmental issue, then you must at least be familiar with many other social or environmental issues. This is due to the increasingly unavoidable link between seemingly disparate challenges, be they economic growth and climate change, health care spending and hunger, or defense spending and education.
I was inspired to write this after reading a phenomenal article in the most recent edition of Time. The article, titled ‘Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us,’ is one of the best pieces of journalism I’ve read in a while. But more importantly, it highlights the fact that the way in which medical products and services–hospital stays, prescription medications, etc.–are priced is egregiously, if not criminally, disconnected from the cost of providing them. In fact, the content of the article is so galling that I found myself unable to read it more than a few paragraphs at a time before my stomach would begin churning and I had to take a break.
I decided to start Capital Good Fund (CGF) in response to the 2008 financial collapse because I feel that, in the face of calamity, it is far better to take action than to lament. From day one–indeed, from the time I moved to Providence, RI for a masters program in environmental studies at Brown–my interest has been the intersection of poverty and the environment (my masters thesis deals with this very topic–you can check it out here). Why? Because it turns out that the poor bear the brunt of environmental destruction. Consider this: low-income Americans spend 17% of their income on energy, compared to 4% for the rest of the population. This makes them far more vulnerable to energy price volatility. At the same time, low-income families are more likely to live in neighborhoods with poor indoor and outdoor air quality. What’s more, by virtue of more often living in low-lying areas, they are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change (something Hurricane Katrina clearly demonstrated) and less able to evacuate from and rebuild after a storm.
Unfortunately, for the first couple of years as Executive Director of CGF, I’ve had to focus my efforts on the more immediate challenges of fundraising, building infrastructure, developing policies and procedures, and so on. In addition, I’ve had to accept that just tackling poverty is hard enough without incorporating an environmental justice component. That said, I never gave up on the idea of using equitable financing in order to tackle poverty and redress environmental degradation.
I’m currently in New Brunswick, New Jersey for the 4th annual Lend for America Summit, which is geared towards inspiring and guiding college students from across the country to start and expand organizations that serve America’s poor and create economic opportunity for them. Part of the reason why I am here, giving a talk to dozens of enthusiastic, bright young people, is that we will never solve the endemic problems of poverty, injustice, etc., unless more people graduate college and go into government, social enterprise, or non-profit work. This is not an opinion, but rather a fact: young people were one of the primary drivers of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement against Vietnam, and countless other initiatives that fostered a more just society in America. What’s more, youth helped spur the recent Arab Spring, led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, partook in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and so on. These are just a few examples of the ways in which young, predominately educated people have made the world a better place.
But more needs to be done. We now live in a country where, despite being the wealthiest in the planet, 1 out of 3 Americans are either in poverty (46 million) or at 150% of the poverty line or below (54 million). That number is breathtaking, shocking, unimaginable. We think of America as being the land of opportunity, but the sad fact is that if you are born in poverty here, you are likely going to die in poverty, and your children will live and die in poverty as well. We focus on the few ‘rags-to-riches’ stories, and mistakenly assume that hard work alone is enough to move ahead. That simply is no longer the case, in large part because the high-paying jobs of today require a college education (or more), and those living in poverty are far less likely to go to good public schools, and far less likely to be able to afford, or go to and graduate from, a four-year college. As a result, America’s poor are stuck in low-wage, low-skill jobs with little-to-no upward mobility.
Every time we make a decision about how to spend or invest our money, one of the fundamental cost-benefit analyses we conduct is the following: for every increase in ‘unit’ of spending, what will be the expected increase in value? At some point, our own budgets, the quality of the product we are seeking to purchase, the law of diminishing returns and other behavioral and psychological factors–marketing, social pressure, etc–lead us to a choice. Generally speaking, when we spend more we expect to get more.
Consider, for instance, the electric shaver I recently purchased. After doing my homework, I narrowed the choice down to three (3) models of Braun shavers (and no, I’m not being paid to advertise for Braun!): the Series 3, which costs $70, the Series 5, which costs ~$150 and the ~$200 Series 7. Looking at the features and price of each, I decided that the Series 3 lacked some of the things I needed, and the Series 7 came with whiz-bang technology from which my face would never benefit. Put another way, had I spent the extra $50 on the Series 7, the marginal return would not have justified the additional price.