Economics of suffering

I have tried to start this article three times now, getting halfway through and scrapping it because I’m not saying what I mean.

I’m not an economics whiz. But I am a parent, and for me that is a calling to seek equality and justice. I don’t know who my kids will love when they grow up, or what my grandchildren will look like, or whether all my loved ones will be able to advocate for themselves up to their deaths. I hope they have fulfilling careers, but the most fulfilling jobs aren't generally the most lucrative. I want things to be fair -- for them to have a fighting chance -- whether they are rich or poor, able-bodied or not, black or white, gay or straight.

I also have a soft spot in my heart for an underdog. I feel bad for people who find themselves in one of life's rough spots. Sometimes people get themselves into sticky places – I’ve been guilty of it – but other times life picks them up like a whirlwind and carries them against their will, and they wake up in Oz, with no idea how to get back home. For the most part I believe people do the best they can.

And because I usually feel pangs of sadness for the downtrodden, I was surprised at what I felt this week as Merrill Lynch, AIG and Lehman Brothers all gave up the ghost. I feel bad for the people who’ve lost their jobs and their dreams. But mostly I am angry, because the decision-makers there, who have profited the most by taking advantage of people who never should have been talked into mortgages, will not be hurt by any of this. They will be absorbed by new companies, their savings accounts and retirement funds will remain intact, they will not lose their homes.

It’s not that I want vengeance, or I want rich people to suffer – again, I don’t think these executives are evil. I’m sure they convinced themselves that they were helping people get into a home, not selling them a mortgage that would eventually ruin them. I’m certain they believed in the need for individuals to stand on their own feet, and assume responsibility for understanding their own finances and making good decisions. I don’t imagine any (or many) of them were rubbing their hands together greedily, cackling over the poor hopeless suckers who signed their lives away. But it seems unjust that the government is saving AIG from financial ruin, when no one is doing that for people whose homes have been foreclosed – or even worse, their tenants, who are left homeless.

Like I said, I’m not an econ whiz. I’m sure there are sound reasons to spend all this money keeping a corporation alive, when people are homeless and starving. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture: AIG is a big company. I guess I just envisioned the big picture featuring more faces, and fewer logos.

Edited to add a link to this story: AIG Bailout Raises Bar for Action on Mortgages