Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Rhetoric of Omission


          In a 2009 radio interview for WNYC, New York Public Radio, David Harvey differentiates between the “trickle-down” effect in terms of wealth versus quality of life.  Yes, he says, some wealth does indeed trickle down with increases in capitalist accumulation; but this does not ensure that improvements in quality of life trickle down as well.  He explains that capitalists do not actually invest in production as much as in assets and that this enables them to accumulate more and more while doing nothing or very little to improve anyone's life but their own.  Sure, some jobs are created through construction, “but the wage rates were very low, extremely low, and of course, as we know, the social protections were negligible.  So it is not as though well-being trickled down.  A certain sort of job structure was created which was very low wage, very badly protected, which actually then produced goods which allowed the rich to get even richer.”1
          Mr. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs would disagree.  In fact, in a recent Op-Ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, Blankfein adeptly implies quite the opposite.  In “The Business Plan for American Revival,” he suggests that “the Obama administration and large segments of the business community [must] forge a more productive relationship,” and that this will “do wonders for the economy.” He goes on to say, “We in the business community have a responsibility to contribute to a better understanding of the urgency of averting a crippling and self-inflicted recession [and] we also need to talk about the significant opportunities that result from forward-looking change” (A17).  On first read, it is difficult to argue with his seemingly benevolent and disinterested position of looking out for the general interest.  The economy is important; forward-looking change sounds great; but, as seems to be norm in political-economic rhetoric, there is a wealth of information waiting to be mined from the implications of what has been omitted.
            Without explicitly saying it, Blankfein assumes the position that Harvey so lucidly denigrates.  Nowhere in Blankfein’s solicitation of “sensible immigration reform,” “spending cuts, [and] entitlement reform,” or “restor[ing] confidence in public finance,” does he mention what that would look like for the millions of people it is supposedly intended to help.  For instance, immigration reform, to him, is limited to “mak[ing] it easier for talented people to live and work in the U.S.  Like much of his position, this sounds inarguable, but it is only inarguable because it says so little.  If he were to address the real-life circumstances of the millions of people who live here illegally without having attended college or developing advanced skills, there might be plenty of room to argue.  What might he propose we do with or for them?  Indeed, “spending cuts” and “entitlement reform” function much the same way.  Rather than delineate exactly what these would look like for the people who will be most affected, he simply encourages a “comprehensive and balanced solution.”  Even if such a solution could be achieved, what has gone unaddressed is exactly what the problem is, who it plagues, and how their lives can and should change. 
            Yes, Mr. Blankfein is a businessman first and foremost, so it makes sense for him to stick to an assessment of how government can get out of the way of business in order to facilitate economic growth.  Up to this point, it sounds as though the “trickle-down effect” of wealth is in order and realistic.  But Mr. Blankfein does not outright say that this is the best thing for business, for his business; instead, he says that business leaders “want to see progress and contribute to it” and that “we are all ready to roll up our sleeves and work with the Obama administration and Congress to help fulfill America’s enduring promise.”  Here, he obliquely links a very particular and limited kind of economic growth to the fulfillment of an American “promise.”  What he doesn’t say is what this fulfillment entails. 
            Harvey would have some feedback.  In Rebel Cities, he gives voice to exactly what’s between the lines of Blankfein’s position: that “the economy of wealth-accumulation piggy-backs violently on the economy of dispossession” (25).  What Blankfein does not say is that whatever little wealth trickles down only serves to reproduce the very conditions which sustain the increasing wealth of a few while ensuring the ever-decreasing wealth of the many.  What he does not mention is how reforming the system and spurring growth will directly affect people’s lives.  Will a few be granted crumbs under the pretense of democratic access to the capitalist pursuit while the rest stay mired in state dependence and financial debt cycles?  Or is there another way, a way to look past simply giving the same old system a kick-start to create the same results?  These are tough questions because they require radical changes to a system Mr. Blankfein seeks to preserve.  These are tough problems because any massive solution proposed will undoubtedly be subject to vehement critique.  So it is much easier to say a whole lot of nothing, and that is just what he does. 


1.  See the above YouTube clip, beginning at 2:48 min.

Works Cited
Blankfein, Lloyd.  “The Business Plan for American Revival.” Opinion-Editorial.  Wall Street
Journal 14 November 2012: A17.  Print.
Harvey, David.  Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.  London:
Verso, 2012.  Print.

1 comment:

  1. You are very articulate, Angeline. I disagree with Harvey on many counts. When he said we'd be better off renting than owning a home, I thought he was nuts. So we should pay someone for the privilege of living on their property and face the constant threat of being evicted or having rents raised, and then die without anything to call our own - over buying a home that we can pass on to our children. Sure it takes 30 years to pay off (and I don't disagree that the mortgage thing and the exhorbitant home prices are a way to shackle us to debt) but very often mortgage payments are less than paying rent. So I'm not sure what Harvey was really trying to say there - but you have a great way with words and express your thoughts very well.

    ReplyDelete