Salon Money | Dis Capital

A L S O__T O D A Y

How far will Wall Street fall?
By Jonathan Broder
Russia's economic turmoil may spread, says one stock analyst, but the fundamentals of the American economy are still strong

T A B L E__T A L K
What do you mean when you say you're broke? Discuss being down to your last "dime" in Table Talk's Business and Personal Finance area

R E C E N T L Y

Bull marketing
By Anita Bartholomew
While Wade Cook rides high on lucrative investment seminars, its customers' portfolios take a tumble
(08/21/98)
Hip! Hip! Hooray! Anyone remember who we're boycotting today?
By Kevin Kelleher
Boycotts are more effective than ever -- but the public's role in them is becoming increasingly irrelevant
(08/07/98)
The economy of fake fat
By Heather Chaplin
Olestra: the oil that leaves you running for the bathroom
(07/31/98)
Farmers of the American Dream
By Carol Lloyd
Financial infomercials promise "free money," but what they're really selling is their faith in your "potential"
(07/24/98)
Glutton for luxury
By Heather Chaplin
One woman's necessity is another woman's excess
(07/17/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Reluctant Capitalist archives
Salon Columnists
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DIS CAPITAL | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Cox does not seem the rabble-rousing type. He's a soft-spoken, 38-year-old civil engineer who describes his political stance as "confused." He is not aligned with any political party and said he only wanted the BART piece to inspire some sorely lacking debate. "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea of a society based on equality has evaporated," he said, "and it makes me sad that such a dream has disappeared."
Cox, who first ventured into guerrilla art last year with a bus terminal ad spoofing Citibank's "In Your Dreams Campaign" -- his featured a picture of Cuban rebel Che Guevara with the words, "In your dreams everyone is treated equally" -- is fully aware of the kind of baggage the very words "Soviet Union" carry. He's also aware that mocking or criticizing capitalism isn't necessarily going to win him any popularity contests.
"It's like it's unpatriotic to even talk about capitalism," he said.
Considering the kinds of prickly topics people will talk about, the idea of having a taboo against any topic now seems decidedly, well, un-American. Sex, arguably our longest-running taboo, now dominates public debate -- turn on the TV and Jerry Springer is interviewing the deviant of the week; pick up the New York Times and pundits are discussing the presidential penchant for oral sex; eavesdrop on any group of high school girls and the conversation is raunchier than I care to repeat.
It's not just sex and political subjects that have become declassified either. Not too along ago, money was a taboo subject. There was a time when asking someone what they earned would have been the height of rudeness. Now, telling virtual strangers intimate details of your financial life is prime get-to-know-you talk. But the notion that capitalism -- the system that's swallowed and regurgitated the whole of Western civilization into marketable units -- might have its limits has developed the taint of the unspeakable. Which would make you more uncomfortable, your date explaining over martinis the benefits of his stock-option plan or suggesting that drinking $8 cocktails was a questionable habit so long as hunger still exists?
In the rare moments when the media isn't pontificating about Lewinsky, they're talking about money too -- how to earn it, how to grow it, how to hide it from the long fingers of the government. There's no longer even a veneer of restraint paneling our national lust for wealth. You're a fool or worse to suggest there's value in working for anything other than personal profit and comfort. When was the last time you saw an article in Smart Money, Fortune or Forbes on how to share the fruits of your bull-market millions? (Articles on charities as tax write-offs don't count.) And while State of the Union addresses invariably serve up syrupy stories about "common" people moving from reliance on social programs (welfare, affirmative action, take your pick) to liberating entrepreneurial success, such stories are almost exclusively heralded as the triumph of free enterprise rather than evidence for the value of compassionate government. When President Clinton gestures, teary-eyed, toward the inner-city teacher who returned to the ghetto after her scholarship years at Harvard instead of taking a high-paying job on Wall Street, we applaud, thankful she's made the sacrifice so we don't have to.
Together We Can Defeat Capitalism spent $798 on an ad that did nothing more than question capitalism and immediately it caused a minor news sensation. (I'd like to meet the ad man who's gotten as much value for his buck.) Of course there was the commotion over those Calvin Klein ads, which people complained smacked a little too much of kiddy porn. Klein eventually killed the campaign and issued an apology; the man doesn't want to be associated with pedophilia, after all.
At least pedophiles get air time. Journalists love child-abuse stories. But when are we going to see the socialist, the anarchist and the Wall Street broker trading blows -- or at least getting makeovers -- on Jerry, Jenny, Sally or Ricki?
Believe it or not, there was a time when socialism, anarchy and communism were important parts of the national debate, each ideology sustaining viable movements and counting significant numbers as members. In 1912 Socialist candidate Eugene Debs ran for president and received 6 percent of the vote; in 1924, Progressive Socialist candidate Robert LaFollette ran for president and received 16.5 percent of the vote, actually carrying Wisconsin. Anarchy was also a serious movement in the earlier part of the century, not just a big letter "A" on punkers' jeans.
But the end of the Cold War and the much-heralded victory of the stock market seem to have caused many Americans to merge the principals of capitalism and democracy into one neat package. Question one and you question the other. And who wants to get branded as an anti-democratic pinko commie?
SALON | Aug. 28, 1998




A L S O__T O D A Y How far will Wall Street fall? By Jonathan Broder Russia's economic turmoil may spread, says one stock analyst, but the fundamentals of the American economy are still strong T A B L E__T A L K What do you mean when you say you're broke? Discuss being down to your last "dime" in Table Talk's Business and Personal Finance area R E C E N T L Y Bull marketing By Anita Bartholomew While Wade Cook rides high on lucrative investment seminars, its customers' portfolios take a tumble (08/21/98) Hip! Hip! Hooray! Anyone remember who we're boycotting today? By Kevin Kelleher Boycotts are more effective than ever -- but the public's role in them is becoming increasingly irrelevant (08/07/98) The economy of fake fat By Heather Chaplin Olestra: the oil that leaves you running for the bathroom (07/31/98) Farmers of the American Dream By Carol Lloyd Financial infomercials promise "free money," but what they're really selling is their faith in your "potential" (07/24/98) Glutton for luxury By Heather Chaplin One woman's necessity is another woman's excess (07/17/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Reluctant Capitalist archives Salon Columnists - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -		DIS CAPITAL \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Cox does not seem the rabble-rousing type. He's a soft-spoken, 38-year-old civil engineer who describes his political stance as "confused." He is not aligned with any political party and said he only wanted the BART piece to inspire some sorely lacking debate. "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea of a society based on equality has evaporated," he said, "and it makes me sad that such a dream has disappeared." Cox, who first ventured into guerrilla art last year with a bus terminal ad spoofing Citibank's "In Your Dreams Campaign" -- his featured a picture of Cuban rebel Che Guevara with the words, "In your dreams everyone is treated equally" -- is fully aware of the kind of baggage the very words "Soviet Union" carry. He's also aware that mocking or criticizing capitalism isn't necessarily going to win him any popularity contests. "It's like it's unpatriotic to even talk about capitalism," he said. Considering the kinds of prickly topics people will talk about, the idea of having a taboo against any topic now seems decidedly, well, un-American. Sex, arguably our longest-running taboo, now dominates public debate -- turn on the TV and Jerry Springer is interviewing the deviant of the week; pick up the New York Times and pundits are discussing the presidential penchant for oral sex; eavesdrop on any group of high school girls and the conversation is raunchier than I care to repeat. It's not just sex and political subjects that have become declassified either. Not too along ago, money was a taboo subject. There was a time when asking someone what they earned would have been the height of rudeness. Now, telling virtual strangers intimate details of your financial life is prime get-to-know-you talk. But the notion that capitalism -- the system that's swallowed and regurgitated the whole of Western civilization into marketable units -- might have its limits has developed the taint of the unspeakable. Which would make you more uncomfortable, your date explaining over martinis the benefits of his stock-option plan or suggesting that drinking $8 cocktails was a questionable habit so long as hunger still exists? In the rare moments when the media isn't pontificating about Lewinsky, they're talking about money too -- how to earn it, how to grow it, how to hide it from the long fingers of the government. There's no longer even a veneer of restraint paneling our national lust for wealth. You're a fool or worse to suggest there's value in working for anything other than personal profit and comfort. When was the last time you saw an article in Smart Money, Fortune or Forbes on how to share the fruits of your bull-market millions? (Articles on charities as tax write-offs don't count.) And while State of the Union addresses invariably serve up syrupy stories about "common" people moving from reliance on social programs (welfare, affirmative action, take your pick) to liberating entrepreneurial success, such stories are almost exclusively heralded as the triumph of free enterprise rather than evidence for the value of compassionate government. When President Clinton gestures, teary-eyed, toward the inner-city teacher who returned to the ghetto after her scholarship years at Harvard instead of taking a high-paying job on Wall Street, we applaud, thankful she's made the sacrifice so we don't have to. Together We Can Defeat Capitalism spent $798 on an ad that did nothing more than question capitalism and immediately it caused a minor news sensation. (I'd like to meet the ad man who's gotten as much value for his buck.) Of course there was the commotion over those Calvin Klein ads, which people complained smacked a little too much of kiddy porn. Klein eventually killed the campaign and issued an apology; the man doesn't want to be associated with pedophilia, after all. At least pedophiles get air time. Journalists love child-abuse stories. But when are we going to see the socialist, the anarchist and the Wall Street broker trading blows -- or at least getting makeovers -- on Jerry, Jenny, Sally or Ricki? Believe it or not, there was a time when socialism, anarchy and communism were important parts of the national debate, each ideology sustaining viable movements and counting significant numbers as members. In 1912 Socialist candidate Eugene Debs ran for president and received 6 percent of the vote; in 1924, Progressive Socialist candidate Robert LaFollette ran for president and received 16.5 percent of the vote, actually carrying Wisconsin. Anarchy was also a serious movement in the earlier part of the century, not just a big letter "A" on punkers' jeans. But the end of the Cold War and the much-heralded victory of the stock market seem to have caused many Americans to merge the principals of capitalism and democracy into one neat package. Question one and you question the other. And who wants to get branded as an anti-democratic pinko commie? SALON \| Aug. 28, 1998