A Contrarian Take On Jim Grant's Wall Street Journal Article - Why No Outrage On The Banking Crisis?
I've linked to Jim Grant on here before. He's a decent and honest fellow. Yesterday a friend stopped by and dropped off Grant's front section article in the Wall Street Journal. The article is free at WSJ.com. Here's the link. Grant's article is an emotional outcry and conclusion that Americans are disengaged in this crisis as defined by the article's title 'Why No Outrage?'.
Well, most of us live in the real world. A world where the human condition is something that we all deal with on a daily basis. Not the fairy tales perpetuated by Wall Street and mindlessy regurgitated by media. So, Jim I can assure you that people who generally have no care or concern with Wall Street are well aware of the crisis before us. They are living it. The kitchen conversations in American households are about topics seldom, if ever, discussed. They are very engaging and serious discussions. In fact, I've never seen Americans so engaged in my lifetime. The American people clearly get it. I'm just surprised that Grant doesn't see it - it's not a coincidence nearly every poll on every economic or political topic imaginable is reading at the lowest levels in poll history.
I chalk some of Grant's dismay to a generational issue. A generational issue of the mind. Revolution or transformation of ideals and values are always driven by youth. Idealism is often well gone by the time someone gets to life's extended years. Or as I believe is generally true, older people live in fear of change and young people embrace it. The older one is, the greater change may have a negative impact in their life. There may be people of Grant's generation that embrace the change of youth but a major reason why Grant doesn't see it is likely that he's out of touch - much like Wall Street and Washington is. In no way is this more obvious than the Presidential campaign. One candidate has embraced the net as a medium to rally voters, raise substantial sums of money and deliver his message. The other candidate, in an interview, said he doesn't use a computer and he is so technically illiterate his wife has to help him even check his email. It is no coincidence one candidate is nearly thirty years older than the other. Again, this is a generalization but it has definitely held true. Even those donating to political campaigns on the net are demographically very young.
So, Jim, rest assured there is tremendous outrage. And the article statement that "Wall Street is off the political agenda in 2008 for reasons we may only guess about." really surprises me. In fact, it is the very front and center issue in 2008. Every economic issue in every major poll that American citizens are concerned about has been opposed for decades by Wall Street's media and lobby machine.
So, while I think Jim's article is a worthwhile read to reinforce the stupidity that banks have caused, he is missing the movement before his very eyes. The American people are on the case.
Well, most of us live in the real world. A world where the human condition is something that we all deal with on a daily basis. Not the fairy tales perpetuated by Wall Street and mindlessy regurgitated by media. So, Jim I can assure you that people who generally have no care or concern with Wall Street are well aware of the crisis before us. They are living it. The kitchen conversations in American households are about topics seldom, if ever, discussed. They are very engaging and serious discussions. In fact, I've never seen Americans so engaged in my lifetime. The American people clearly get it. I'm just surprised that Grant doesn't see it - it's not a coincidence nearly every poll on every economic or political topic imaginable is reading at the lowest levels in poll history.
I chalk some of Grant's dismay to a generational issue. A generational issue of the mind. Revolution or transformation of ideals and values are always driven by youth. Idealism is often well gone by the time someone gets to life's extended years. Or as I believe is generally true, older people live in fear of change and young people embrace it. The older one is, the greater change may have a negative impact in their life. There may be people of Grant's generation that embrace the change of youth but a major reason why Grant doesn't see it is likely that he's out of touch - much like Wall Street and Washington is. In no way is this more obvious than the Presidential campaign. One candidate has embraced the net as a medium to rally voters, raise substantial sums of money and deliver his message. The other candidate, in an interview, said he doesn't use a computer and he is so technically illiterate his wife has to help him even check his email. It is no coincidence one candidate is nearly thirty years older than the other. Again, this is a generalization but it has definitely held true. Even those donating to political campaigns on the net are demographically very young.
So, Jim, rest assured there is tremendous outrage. And the article statement that "Wall Street is off the political agenda in 2008 for reasons we may only guess about." really surprises me. In fact, it is the very front and center issue in 2008. Every economic issue in every major poll that American citizens are concerned about has been opposed for decades by Wall Street's media and lobby machine.
So, while I think Jim's article is a worthwhile read to reinforce the stupidity that banks have caused, he is missing the movement before his very eyes. The American people are on the case.
<< Home