Morning:
8°c
MY neighbour at dinner, a hedge-fund manager originally from Texas, was emphatic.
“If your only identity is in your job or your money then there is no point living in New York any more,” he said. “Anyone who thinks like that
will leave.”
He had a point. This town seems to have become unhinged by the populist rage against Wall Street and the rich. President Obama has said openly of the AIG bonuses: “I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry.” Meanwhile, a livid Congress has demanded a 90 per cent tax on bonuses.
This leaves many New Yorkers feeling dislocated, unsure of themselves. This town is the national epicentre of ostentation and consumerism. Now those qualities are considered tasteless. Wealth has become a dirty word.
Consider the divorce trial between Marie Douglas-David and George David, the head of United Technologies, now on the front pages of the tabloids. She is battling to raise her settlement from $37 million to $100 million — and says $37 million will only last her 15 years.
While she's not the only woman to squabble over her divorce settlement, she is the first to do so in times when the mantra from Washington seems to be “kill the rich”.
Marie Douglas David attracts ire because she precisely fits the stereotype of a rich New York dilettante: she appears spoiled, superficial, disloyal and keen to make a buck off someone else's back.
The problem, of course, is that not all the rich are like this, just as not everyone at AIG deserves no bonus. I know someone who left a top bank for a post at the insurance giant last year, taking a pay cut and no bonus. Now he has received death threats and requires 24-hour security.
So it is we New Yorkers who are caught in today's cultural crossfire. In my orbit last week there was yelling at the television screen from friends who believe Congress is trying to strangle the American dream of meritocracy.
I think the President will eventually find a middle road through this mess — but it's hard to think clearly when passions run this high. And it's also hard to keep one's bearings living in the city that stands for everything this country currently holds in deep contempt.
* Vicky Ward is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair.
Reader views (8)
I don't think that the government should "kill" anyone for anything. I think the general nature of citizens who ask for things like, "Stop them from..." or "Punish them for..." are simply giving up their rights to the same people whom they wish vengeance upon.
The true nature of an activist is to go out and do it yourself. Show yourself and the rest of the world that you are a human being just like the president, or a soldier or a billionaire. You don't need a president's or anyone else' permission to go out and change the world. Do it.
- mikemike, NY, USA, 25/05/2010 03:32
Report abuse
You know the line... "if I can make it there, I'll make it any where. It's up to you New York, New York." The bankers seem to have not made it. But, I'm sure New Yorkers will find another dream to follow. Hopefully one requiring less stark greed.
- Kath, Sunningdale, UK, 25/03/2009 10:36
Report abuse
There is a distinction between the rich. Those who create wealth i.e. entrepreneurs and those who bottom feed, get paid for failure and make money from peoples deposits. Until we incourange the former and discourage the latter we are stuck in a reoccuring ngiht mare.
- Font64, London, 24/03/2009 11:11
Report abuse
I agree with Flybob. It is not "kill the Rich" but those who became rich dishonestly.
Those who became rich in this way are responsible for "killing the dream"
Peter
- Peter, London thr, 24/03/2009 10:51
Report abuse
The problem with a meritocracy is: What do you do with people who *are* less able, less intelligent, less nimble? Do you just leave them to rot?
No, we don't - or we shouldn't, anyway, not if we're in the slightest bit humane.
- Jo, London, UK, 24/03/2009 10:04
Report abuse
Its he Capitalist system which the US is trying hard to impose on the rest of the world. Exploitation of others is the watchword for the "American Dream". It has now reached the UK.
- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK, 23/03/2009 14:58
Report abuse
The 'American dream of meritocracy' is precisely what's being (re)defined. Some Americans have grown wealthy by the sweat of their labors, and others have grown wealthy through exploitation of artificial financial constructs.
Bill Gates, who built a better mousetrap, does not face the same ire as those on Wall Street, who are perceived to unscrupulously take our money (bank fees, insurance rates, debt interest) through processes unknown and unavailable to us, and use it to grotesquely grow their own personal wealth.
Many on Wall Street don't produce any tangible good for the economy -- they don't produce anything of perceived value to the man on the street; they simply create artificial middle-man processes to divert our money from the economy to their own pockets. Take the now-infamous mortgage re-packagings as a prime example.
Americans have increasingly longed to stop this fleecing, long shielded beyond our reach, and the author is seeing what that building resentment looks like looks so far. Dilettantes, indeed; Wall Street may, for the first time, find itself in some danger if it cannot make itself relevant for the rest of us, because the angry mob apparently seems intent on breaking down barriers one way or another.
- Flybob, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 23/03/2009 14:26
Report abuse
I don't see how Congress is "strangling the American dream of meritocracy" by attempting to remove bonuses from those working for companies that have failed.
Surely removing their bonuses IS meritocracy?
- Liz, London, 23/03/2009 11:13
Report abuse
