|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 14 |
 |
Is O'Neill out of his mind?
CRAIG GIAMMONA
Is O'Neill out of his mind?
Craig Giammona, Columnist
I became physically ill and vomited on two separate occasions over Winter
Break. The first time involved a bottle of Blue Moon Amigos tequila, a
Catholic priest, three gymnasts, and an impassioned discussion of social
democracy in Scandinavia. The second involved the secretary of the United
States Treasury Department, Paul O'Neill. I will focus on the latter occasion
primarily because it has some political relevance, but also because I
have not yet been able to discuss the former.
I was sitting in a kosher pizzeria in downtown Englewood, New Jersey,
enjoying a falafel and reading The New York Post when I came across an
article about the Enron debacle. Contained in this article was Paul O'Neill
waxing poetic on the subject of Enron and what general truths about capitalism
could be taken away from its savage demise.
"Companies come and go..." the quotation read, "...it's
the genius of capitalism." I read it over a few times, the only thing
preventing an immediate expulsion of the whole of my stomach contents
being the fact that I had read the quote in The New York Post.
It had to be some kind of slant, or spin, or twist, or wrong, or out of
context. Regardless, the secretary of the United States Treasury surely
had not referred to the collapse of Enron, in which hundreds of employees
lost their jobs and retirement funds largely because of questionable accounting
practices and false claims made by executives, as the "genius of
capitalism." I felt ill, paid for my lunch and headed back to the
Accounting Department at Town Motors Car Corporation to start my afternoon
work.
The car ride back to the office was marked by deep contemplation, mild
twinges of nausea, and the growing suspicion that the Post had reported
the quote correctly. This suspicion was quickly confirmed when I returned
to the office and grabbed a copy of The New York Times from the
afternoon receptionist. There it was, the same quote right in the Times;
it had to be true. I became dizzy and stumbled for a few steps before
I vomited violently and passed out.
When I came to a few moments later a janitor was cleaning up the vomit,
the receptionist was at her desk holding a picture of Jesus tightly to
her chest and sobbing softly, and nervous mothers were shielding the eyes
of their children and ushering them quickly away from the horrible scene.
I made my way upstairs and began putting the 2001 invoices in numerical
order. I assured my fellow workers that I was " all right,"
but I was deceiving them. I felt cold and had great difficulty sitting
still, let alone concentrating enough to do important accounting work.
My mind was jumping quickly from thought to thought. I felt as if people
were watching me. I was continually confronted with the suppressed memory
of an ex-girlfriend who ended our five-week 1996 relationship with the
line, "I just can't have a relationship with a guy with a good personality."
I remembered wondering what was worse: if she had really meant what she
said, or if she wanted to make up a diplomatic break line that would end
our relationship in as pleasant a manner as possible and that was what
she came up with. I starting shaking in my office chair, and screaming
Spanish profanities. I was sent home early.
A few weeks removed from the incident I have been able to contemplate
the events with a clear head and come to some fairly rational conclusions.
Finally, I have come to understand why the memory of my former girlfriend
was so prominent in my thinking that day. In the case of Paul O'Neill
and his callous comments, I once again find myself asking, "Which
is worse?"
So which is worse: Paul O'Neill actually thinking that the fall of Enron
is somehow an indicator of capitalism's genius, or-assuming that he does
feel this way and was stupid and unsympathetic enough to actually express
these views to the public-that there wasn't a great deal of public outrage
and condemnation?
I have no doubt that Paul O'Neill does, in no uncertain terms, believe
what he said, which to me is an indication that our American belief in
the inherent good and infallibility of capitalism has gotten a little
out of hand. I am not a socialist. I believe that capitalism is an effective
and natural way to organize citizens and business. I believe that competition
and free markets lead to better products for consumers and faster service.
However, the American government's deep-seated belief in free markets
has progressed to dogma.
We are now faced with a binding and blinding belief that markets, left
to their own devices, will inherently produce positive outcomes. In a
zero-sum free market there are always winners and losers, and the fact
is, positive results are usually apparent if you approach from the perspective
of those who have benefited. We have allowed business and big money to
pervade all aspects of our society, all the while prescribing to the belief
that free markets are inherently good and fair because they allow for
"fair" competition to determine winners and losers.
We deregulated media, and the result is information becoming a commodity
that is bought and sold. Big corporations and the money they spend on
advertising are able to control television and newspaper content-a direct
result of the marketization of media.
Politics have also succumbed to the pressure and influence of big money,
and have become just another marketplace where a product-policy, in this
case-can be purchased by consumers willing and able to pay the highest
price.
A strict reliance on the concept of free markets has led us to our current situation, and democracy cannot function properly if this continues. Arrogant and dogmatic comments such as those made by Paul O'Neill should not be taken lightly, and the political culture that allows for such comments to be made should be questioned-as should the theories of a drunk priest in the company of three gymnasts.