The Super-Rich Are More Rich than They Need to Be

Society is degenerating, partly because people who could be accumulating wealth if given the opportunity do not have the opportunity. This is because money is being syphoned to the super-rich, instead of growing among the poor and middle-class. The very wealthy accumulate wealth without regard for the greater good of the economy, which is becoming more and more suitable for small businesspeople.

However, part of the problem is the attitude of the poor and middle-class. Throughout my life, I've observed the attitude of others with regards to changing the world. With rare exception, everyone I've come across simply has no wish to change the world. I don't know if this is because public school beats it out of them, or if it is because of a hereditary attitude that has been promulgating itself since the time when people would be hanged, crucified, or burned for trying to change the world, or perhaps if it is just a personal lack of conviction in their own ideas. Whatever it is, I think it is a problem. Part of the reason the rich can get away with accumulating wealth that should've been ours is because 99% of people are at a loss for what to do with extra wealth when they get it. Maybe a new home theater system. A Winnebago. A trip to the Bahamas. Start a business? Make a film? No, no. That is for people who want to change the world.

The super-rich are going to become more meaningless over time, because our cultural consciousness and economy are becoming decentralized, making centralized wealth less important. But what will replace our major corporations if nobody wants to change the world? They will be replaced with a bunch of mindless sheep begging to be invaded by people with the chutzpah to actually do things. I hear complaints about how Americans aren't accumulating wealth like they used to. I complain about that, because I tend to get stuck in the economic doldrums spending all the money I get on rent and utilities. But I complain about it because I actually have ambitions to change the world, which cannot be realized without extra wealth. Unfortunately, I'm a minority. Most people could care less about accumulating extra wealth, because they are more concerned with living comfortably and quietly smothering themselves with their own down pillows.

I don't care if you want to be a follower rather than a leader. We need followers just as much as we need leaders. All I ask is that if you are going to be a follower, at least try to follow people who are changing the world, rather than just paying a salary. Follow people who challenge you. Follow people who reward enterprise and good decisions. Follow people with a conscience, and with vision. To survive, society needs to constantly change. And it won't change unless we change it. People who refuse to change the world, even if they're not natural leaders, aren't doing anyone any favors.

The Super-Rich Aren't as Rich as They Used to Be

I realize that is a contentious claim, and many would argue it runs directly contrary to the facts. After all, according to The New York Times, the top tenth of one percent income bracket in the United States saw their wealth increase by 21.5 percent, while the bottom 99 percent saw their incomes rise by just $80. However, just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you're very rich.

Consider the phenomenon of people winning the lottery and ending up poorer than they were before they won. These people have a lot of money, but they don't have a lot of capital. Capital is defined as holdings which produce income. But when you win the lottery, you don't have any holdings which produce any income, despite a sudden spike in income. The income, then, becomes quite worthless. I would argue something similar is happening to the super-rich.

The economy has been growing at an average of about five percent since 1984. But the structure of the U.S. economy is vastly different than in the latter half of the 20th century. The United States between 1945 and 1991 was a country defined by its mass-mobilization against an easily defined external enemy: the Soviet Union. The consciousness of the people of the United States was unified by the threat of nuclear war, and there were ways to speak to that consciousness. People wanted to define themselves with the "us" rather than with the "them," so they did particularly American things. But people aren't doing these things anymore. That is what, I believe, is suggested by the fact of the decentralization of our economy, a fact which is supported by evidence.

It has been becoming increasingly easy to buy small, local products rather than large, mass-marketed products in our economy. And according to marketers, it is no longer relevant to try to mass-market products. What this points to is a decentralization of the economy, and we do not know whether it is reversible. It certainly doesn't feel reversible. Unfortunately for the super-rich, the most obvious effect of a decentralized economy is that massive centralization of wealth becomes less financially relevant, and suddenly, the super-rich feel more like the person who suddenly won the lottery rather than leaders of the economy.

Think about it. Our economy could grow at 20 percent a year, but if the super-rich can't find places to invest their money, it won't benefit them. And as markets become increasingly segmented rather than unified, it becomes harder and harder for a guy sitting in a penthouse in New York City to find the real money-makers in the economy. Granted, our economy is hardly so massively decentralized now that it is impossible to make money simply by having money. But in the future, it may be more and more difficult to do so. That, certainly, is the trend. And when you look at it this way, the tax cuts for the super-rich and economic policies favoring greater income inequality suddenly make a lot of sense. Certain members of the super-rich, I think, are probably sensing that they are becoming a dying breed, because their massive financial holdings are going to quickly lose relevance as the 21st century progresses and the economy further destabilizes.

The solution, I think, is for the super-rich to stop frantically grasping at more and more money, and rather, embrace their roles as leaders of the economy. They should restructure their holdings to favor local enterprises in localities they care about. This would help them maintain financial relevance in our economy. The fact of the matter is, the mere fact of being super-rich is becoming less and less a guarantee of income. This is because major corporations are becoming less and less relevant as economies become more and more localized. Americans no longer crave the unity they used to feel in the fifties knowing they were all watching the same television screen, so that feeling no longer is going to capitalize your assets.

The Era of Great Pain

It is possible that we are entering an era of great pain. This is an era where:

• Every concert is a "recreational activity."
• Every day of work is a "job."
• Every formal learning experience is an "education."
• Every animal is a "pet."
• Every blog post is "self-expression."
• Every tennis match is a "hobby."
• Every computer is a "computer."
• Every piece of food is "food."

Every hallelujah is cold and broken. Every experience is psychological. Every activity is a behavior. And every dissenter is "mentally ill."

Look. Concerts are NOT "recreational activities." They are LIFE. In short, everything is pain. And "living in the moment" has lost all meaning apart from forgetting everything, as though the phrase holds little more promise than recreational drug use.

Work is not a "job." It is LIFE.

Learning experiences are not "education." They are LIFE.

Animals are not "pets." They are LIFE.

Blog posts are not "self-expression." They are LIFE.

Tennis matches are not "hobbies." They are LIFE.

Computers are not "computers." They are LIFE.

Food is not "food." It is LIFE.

We cannot go on as though everything is meaningless. We simply can't continue as a species if everything is trivial and forgettable. NO. Every experience should be profound and meaningful. We MUST take every form of being, doing, experience, and so forth AS SERIOUSLY AS THOUGH OUR LIVES AND THE ETERNAL SALVATION OF OUR SOULS DEPENDED ON IT. When we feel upset, or when we need a little pick-me-up, we cannot simply say, "Recreational activities help pick me up. I should choose a recreational activity that will pick me up. I think I'll go to a concert."

I can't think of any more meaningless thing we could possibly ever think. It is absolutely cynical and wrong. We should NEVER think like that. We should go to a concert because it will ROCK OUR WORLD, or we shouldn't go at all. We should get a job because it will FUNDAMENTALLY IMPACT EVERYTHING, or we shouldn't get a job at all. We should eat food because it will ALLOW US TO COMPLETELY REJUVENATE THE WORLD, or we should eat red-hot balls of iron. There is no excuse. Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, you're part of the Great Pain. You'll do nothing but cause everyone around you great pain. If you can't enjoy life, GTFO.

The evil of the machine thrives on insecurity. We feel we have to be "hip enough to be square." But there is NOTHING that makes life more beautiful than insecurity. And if we can't recognize that, then we should demolish all the Universities. We should set fire to all the schools and libraries. We should forbid all scientific and academic inquiry. Because all it will do is make the human race more cynical, more painful, and more evil.

Science is for risk-takers. Knowledge is for risk-takers. Comfort is for risk-takers. Otherwise it is the purest form of curse. And I believe our society is currently cursing itself. I wish EVERYONE would take a moment to LIVE IN THE MOMENT—which, properly understood, means NOT forgetting everything, but THROWING AWAY scientific knowledge, security, money, food, computers, "recreational activities," "jobs," "education," as UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, and living completely in the state where it is possible that the world will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've trained for will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've worked for and earned will DISAPPEAR. And you should live the rest of your life that way.

Ironically, if you don't do that, it would be better if it DID disappear, because all it will cause is Great Pain.

Art and Business

In my filing cabinet at home, I have a dollar bill.

It is a special dollar bill. I had it when I was in the mental hospital years ago. When I was in that place, I had only a couple of dollars to my name. And every couple of days the hospital would send around a cart and allow you to give them your money for whatever they had for sale. I decided early on that while I would buy perhaps a couple of items, I would save exactly one dollar and never spend it. The mental hospital took away everything important to me—it took away my freedom, my dreams, my artistic capabilities. I was spiritually broke. I was NOT going to let them make me financially broke as well. So I saved that one dollar bill, and still have it to this day.

A lot of people do things similar to what I did. Businesses everywhere take the first dollar they earn, have it framed, and hang it on their walls. I think we're doing something very interesting when we do this.

See, when I took that dollar and decided not to spend it, I grew the United States economy by exactly one dollar. And now, to me, that dollar bill is worth more than $1. I would not sell it for $1 (or something worth $1)—if I ever do sell it, it will be for more than a dollar.

For me, personally, that dollar has increased my wealth. I can put a measurement on it: Say I'm not willing to let go of the dollar and all it means to me for less than $50. If that's the case, I have increased my personal wealth by exactly $49. And I would have grown the economy. See, when I bought the dollar bill for $1, I grew the economy by $1. The number on my bank account is decreased by $1. When I put the dollar back into circulation, I diminish the economy by $1. But when the other person buys it for $50, it grows the economy by $50, causing a net growth of $49.

Of course, so far, I've talked only about my personal wealth. I, personally, am not willing to sell that dollar for less than $50 (we're assuming). However, the real question is of course whether or not someone else agrees with me. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to say I've grown the economy. I may have grown my own psychological economy, but I haven't grown the U.S. economy. Getting others to agree is a work of art.

By saving this particular dollar, I am making an artistic statement brimming with social commentary. That dollar is fine art. It tells a story involving one man and the mental health system. It gives a moral lesson of patience and frugality. It criticizes systemic exploitation in the psychiatric establishment. It has a happy ending: I left the hospital victorious because I didn't spend it. And it improves the value of the person who buys it: They can hang it on their wall now and share in my triumph against the system. (If they buy my story about it, that is.)

This is why I am somewhat confused that our economy isn't an art-based economy. In fact, people often claim, falsely, that we need to be less "artistic" about our economy and produce more physical things in factories. I can't think of anything more Marxist and further from the truth. When you produce physical things, you're stealing wealth from the Mother Earth and selling it for hardly any more value than it was worth in the first place. This is what China does: the Communist Party extracts wealth from their banks, who extract wealth from the workers, who extract wealth from the Earth. There's no growth, regardless of what the numbers say: it's just exploitation. When you make art, however, whatever you do is nothing but pure added value. If you're an artist, the materials you work with, whatever they are, are worth hardly anything compared to the worth of the final piece of art. China's Communist Party could never allow this, because it gives so much wealth and power to individual artists, when they want all the wealth and power for themselves. So why on Earth is our economy so eager to profit off of stuff other than art while almost completely ignoring this treasure trove of business opportunity?

For whatever reason, we have not developed the infrastructure necessary for an art-based economy. Certain art forms have taken some steps, of course—Western music is based on the accumulation of hundreds of years of deep meditation and hard work. The twelve-tone musical system and our system of musical notation have allowed for extremely complex and rich musical ideas unmatched by any other culture. In music from other cultures, it's rare to find even basic harmony, let alone key changes, because in their musical systems such concepts don't make any sense. They have spent less time developing their musical infrastructure.

Fashion has had a similar experience. (Well, women's fashion at least. Which is why I wear women's clothes so often. Shh.) Before Louis IV, people wore traditional dress which remained unchanged for years. But to increase the glory of the kingdom, I suppose, they began to think of ways to change the fashion of the time. Now, as a result of developments in the fashion art's artistic infrastructure, we have a kind of fashion grammar rich with all kinds of innovative concepts (collars, collar stands, a-line forms, shifts, hour-glass forms, etc.) This rich array of elements in the art's infrastructure is what allows our fashion to be so complex, exciting, and ever-changing.

So in a couple of art forms, some basic infrastructure has been developed. The business infrastructure may also be developed to some extent, but, I would argue, not enough.

Think of the things investors look at before they invest in a business. They look at the psychological characteristics of the CEO. Are they a leader? Do they have drive? Are they motivated? Excited? Do they work well with others? The answers to these questions determine whether or not the company will succeed. They look at the product. Is it something people want? Does it satisfy a need? If they put it on a shelf, will it move? They look at history. Has this person ran successful businesses in the past? Have products like this sold well in the past? They look at the research. Is there concrete, empirical evidence that the product will sell? They also look at the intent. Does the company have a solid plan moving forward? Does this plan take into account incomes and costs? When investors look into these things, in depth, they can gauge how much they and the economy will benefit.

See, when we think of artists, we have this notion that you just go out into the world and be yourself and somehow, unexplainably, end up being brilliant and make tons of money. I think this is nonsense. What is someone buying when they buy your art? If you can't answer that question, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't become an artist. Imagine if we treated businesses this way. "I'm going to be a businessman. I'm going to go out in the world, be myself, and make a business that's brilliant in some unexplainable way, and people will be inspired for some unexplainable reason, and I'll make tons of money." I wouldn't invest in this person, would you?

People don't buy art just because you're so awesome they can't stand not spending their money on you. But I think people tend to think this is how it works. So what we need to do, then, is think less about what art says about the artist, and more about what it says about the person who spends money on it. This means that instead of being subjective, we must be objective. I know... that sounds sacrilegious. But it's true. I make movies as well as music. But I invest more in my movies than my music. Why? Because the people who listen to music want to have a shared experience with their friends and their communities, which usually implies a live performance. And I can't perform my music live. So I know no matter how good the music is, it's never going to sell. The only way it would sell is if it were so popular that a shared experience would be implied regardless of whether or not it's live.

Movies, on the other hand, play a slightly different cultural role. If people wanted a shared experience of film and video, there would've never been such a thing as television, and people wouldn't sit alone in dark rooms at night trancing out in front of it. Yes, I know, there is also radio. But how do people listen to music on the radio? In their cars, with the windows rolled down, and as loud as possible! They obviously want to share their experience! But people who watch television, on the other hand, don't do it with the curtains self-consciously drawn. So I've made a business decision: I'm going to invest in film more than music.

And another thing: I'm not going to even think of distributing my films with a distributor without some kind of business sense about whether or not the stuff would sell. Otherwise, I'm wasting everybody's time.

This is how we artists need to think. We need to think of art as a business, objectively, with detailed numerical measurements of potential for making money. If we do this, we can grow ourselves and the economy. And, by the way, we won't in any way diminish our creativity or value as an artist. Creativity is not measured by how "true to ourselves" we are. It is measured by how inspired the work is. And how inspired the work is is measured by how inspired people are by looking at it. How inspired we are is merely a convenient way of gauging whether it will inspire others. And, by the way, if it inspires others, it'll sell. We need to think about this. If we don't, we're wasting everybody's time.