Warning: My post today may be
like a confusing tennis match, back and forth between economics and poetry, my
blood pressure rising perilously and being brought back to the level. But if you can't be dragged kicking and screaming into a discussion on economics, just scroll past those parts and take in the poetry breaks. They are the real meat, anyway.
The Perils of Economic
Realism
Not for the world would I
give up reading serious nonfiction, but sometimes the difficulty is as much --
or more -- in the effect of the reading on my nerves, shall we say, as in
comprehending the ideas. For instance, recently I’ve been reading a book that
sends my blood pressure soaring. It was published in 2012, and I can only
imagine what the author, Hedrick Smith, would say if he were writing Who
Stole the American Dream today. What
do YOU think is responsible for the enormous and widening chasm between the
growing pool of Americans in poverty and the hyper-rich at the top of the heap?
Is it simply the result of technological growth and “progress,” the “Invisible
Hand” of classical economics at work? Do differences in education across
socioeconomic strata account for the gap? How about financial irresponsibility
at the bottom and deep wisdom at the apex of the social pyramid?
Hedrick Smith believes it’s
none of the above. He points to 1978 as the turning point, for it was then, he
says, that large corporations across America joined forces and began their own
very interested political activism, pouring money into campaigns and
subsequently, with their successes, reversing the growth of the middle class
seen in the previous three decades. A secondary cause, in Hedrick’s view, was a
new corporate ethos. No longer were business and workers seen as having common
interests. Now a CEO was focused (and continues to focus) almost exclusively on
short-term gains for shareholders. In the glorification of predatory
capitalism, ruthlessness is admired as strength, and it pays off in CEO pay,
bonuses, and “golden parachutes.”
It makes sense that a CEO
would be compensated at a higher rate than a worker on the line. Of course. The
boss gets paid the most. Who would argue? From 1978 to 2013, however,
inflation-adjusted compensation for CEOs increased 937 percent, double
the gains in the stock market for the same period and in marked contrast to
wages, which gained only 10.2 percent. Contrast this to 1965, when the CEO to worker pay ratio stood at 20:1.
The standard argument for
colossal CEO compensation packages is that a CEO is responsible for the growth
and success of his or her (usually his) corporation. Nonsense, says Hedrick
Smith. First of all, they receive the same compensation whether they succeed
or fail to enhance the price of
stock. Second, compensation packages are awarded by boards generally
composed of other CEOs and former CEOs.
Third, every company wants to look good, and if their CEO’s pay is below
average, they believe their company image will suffer, so for corporate
image’s sake a CEO must be richly rewarded. Cutting jobs, closing plants, shipping those jobs and facilities
overseas where costs are lower – all cut costs in the short term and fuel the
vicious cycle of increased unemployment and poverty at the bottom of the
pyramid at the same time that the apex ascends ever higher.
Take a Break for Poetry!
But I can only read a few
pages at a time and take some sketchy notes before I need a break. It is just
so discouraging, the power of
money to pound everyone else into the ground! I spent Sunday like an invalid,
relaxing with a couple of totally “fluffy” novels (between yard work sessions)
but began the new week stronger, with poems and essays of Philip Levine,
Detroit native and U.S. poet laureate in 2011. Oh, heaven, this Michigan voice! I stretch out on the front
porch after supper with The Last Shift and read and breathe. And
it is enough.
Nose Back to the
Grindstone
Okay, but what about tax cuts
for the wealthy? What do you make of the claim that such tax cuts will
translate into business investment and new startups, creating jobs and lifting
all boats? Experience, history, and numerous economic studies fail to support
the claim. More money left in the pockets of the rich does not trickle down. Hedrick cites analysts who agree that
“high concentrations of wealth correlate with poor economic performance in the
long run,” and he writes of the years “2009 to 2012 as evidence that offering
low tax rates to promote investment did not work.”
Even former Fed
chairman Alan Greenspan was moved to comment in 2011 that Corporate America was
sitting on nearly $2 trillion in idle capital. Greenspan asserted that the
reluctance of business leaders to spend on new plants and equipment and on
hiring more workers “accounted for almost all of the rise in unemployment” from
2007 to 2011.
Go back and re-read that
quote above, after reminding yourself that Alan Greenspan was the darling
economist of Ayn Rand, hardly a friend to taxes on wealth. There is a radio
announcement these days for a firm specializing in “wealth management.” The
firm promises to keep and grow your family wealth, and whenever I hear it, I
think of the old ads for Stop-Leak. Know what I mean? Why would the
wealthy want their fortunes trickling down?
A Poet’s Life
Time for another cooling-down
period. Reading an entire volume of Philip Levine’s poetry, cover to cover, I
knew I would be coming back to it in quiet moments and savoring more slowly the
individual poems, but for now, my busy season of the year heating up faster
than expected (and my blood pressure soaring from that economics reading), I
turn to Levine’s memoir essays, My Lost Poets: A Life in Poetry. The first line of the title essay, for me, instantly
stops the rush of time. “I composed my first poems in the dark.” Isn’t that wonderful? That sentence is a poem. I smile and breathe and continue.
The poet-to-be was fourteen
years old, a Detroit boy, son of immigrants, and he did not yet know poetry,
but it had already found him.
In truth I never
thought of these early compositions as poems: I never thought of them as
anything but what they were: secret little speeches addressed to the moon when
the moon was visible and when the moon was not visible to all those parts of
creation that crowded around and above me as well as those parts that eluded
me, the parts I had no name for, no notion of except for the fact they were
listening.
What Levine writes of his
first attempts at writing poetry, without having a name to give to his
“speeches addressed to the moon,” instantly made me think of another Michigan
poet, Diane Seuss. She too – and this was years ago, long before My Lost
Poets would be published – said that
she didn’t know, when young, that the pieces she was writing were poems. She had no name for them, either. It’s a different
way of coming to poetry, very different from growing up in a home filled with
serious literature and wanting to do what the writers in those books did.
A high school teacher
introduced Philip Levine to “Arms and the Boy,” by Wilfrid Owen and loaned him
a collection of Owen’s work.
I could lie and
say those poems changed my attitude toward and my understanding of the
importance of poetry. No, what it changed was my attitude toward myself.
And isn’t that a great and
important gift to receive from poetry, a gift from a poet who had more to give
than his own reflection?
At the first poetry reading
young Philip Levine attended, in Webster Hall at Wayne University [not yet
called Wayne State], he was bowled over by the first line read by a fellow
student, Bernard Strempek. Strempek was one of Levine’s “lost poets” in that he
died young, leaving only “enough poetry for one tiny, posthumous collection of
satiric, hard-edged poems....”The line that so dazzled Levine on that first
reading, “When in a mirror love redeems my eyes,” did not appear in the
posthumous volume and may “live now only in this essay.” Stop and think what that means: a young, aspiring poet reads his work to a
small audience, and another young, aspiring poet is so struck by the first line
that he never forgets it, and later, in an essay, he shares the line with the
world, crediting the friend of his youth, now deceased, whose name we would not
otherwise know.
Shakespeare wrote, “So long
lives this, and this gives life to thee.” How much more fitting for a poet than
a graveyard tombstone, to be immortalized in the written word!
Gathering Up My Courage
Again...
The picture of a CEO sending
manufacturing jobs overseas (while his own personal wealth skyrockets) is
already a somewhat old-fashioned figure, because today’s American economy is
not all that focused on making anything. Financial markets are the big thing
now, finance overtaking manufacturing in the late 1980s, its profits accounting
for 46 percent of total U.S. corporate profits in 2005. And this making of
money is built on – can you guess? Debt. There are huge profits to be made by
servicing debt, as we are all becoming more and more aware. Glass-Steagall (the
Banking Act of 1933, inspired by the Crash of 1929) was repealed in 1999. We
all know what happened in 2008. Now Congress is poised to repeal the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. It seems our memories grow
ever shorter as time goes on....
Better Late Than Never to
Meet a Poet
My husband knew poet Philip
Levine slightly. I wish I’d known him. From what little I’ve read, he sounds
like a wonderful guy. A Michigan poet, Detroit native, poet laureate (2011),
and David knew – how could I have missed reading him for so long, only to
“discover” him now, after his death?
It’s all right. Many a reader
is unknown to a poet whose works the reader loves, and many a time it is just
that, the time, when a poet’s work
enters one’s life that matters deeply. And poetry, my friends, is the real
world, too. The money runs out, the poets and the financiers die, but the poems
live on.