View all notes
Available query params: commented=1, untagged=1
With regard to the first, Colin talked at length about the current assault on the rich within national politics, propelled by a secret, but growing, movement toward socialism. High-tax environments like Connecticut, California, New York, and others are, for Colin, essentially “communism,” subscribing to the myth that the wealthy deserve to be exploited. Predicting a dire future, and speaking to me prior to the unexpected results of the 2016 presidential election, Colin says, “I tell my kids that after Obama and the inevitable [socialist] revolution where all hell breaks loose—with Texas and others seceding—head for Montana!” Talking with Colin, I can tell that his decision to buy a place up here is not simply about escaping from high-tax environments, but it’s also about being in what he perceives to be a more friendly “Wild West” cultural environment where he feels more insulated from exploitation by the federal government. “We needed a place where we could live among like-minded people.… Besides marrying my wife, it’s the best thing I ever did.”
this guy clearly has a really interesting definition of exploitation
With that said, what is the relationship between conservation and the intensification of inequality? First, we must understand the taken-for-granted macroeconomic theory that I found operating beneath the surface. My dinner partner Bob sums it up well with an aphorism and a story. The aphorism is a popular one: “A rising tide lifts all boats.” In story form, Bob tells about his friend who recently purchased a 200-foot yacht. With a price tag of $42 million, Bob notes that a cynic might view this purchase to be a selfish act that benefits only the privileged few who get to enjoy such luxurious ocean escapes. But, he argues, somewhat forcefully with an emotional tone to his voice, that these critics fail to realize just how many jobs this creates. “It provides a job for an entire year for a lot of different people.”
In the same way, he says that spending money for the purpose of enjoying nature—an activity that was often lumped in with conservation itself—provides a hell of a lot of jobs in the community: as the logic goes, for example, building a 7,000-square-foot house with local construction workers, hiring housekeepers, dining at expensive restaurants, employing exclusive fishing guides, and so on, all have widespread economic benefits to the general economy, especially to middle- and lower-income groups. This does not even begin to include the philanthropic giving to local conservation groups.
oh boy
I found that nature provides a special dispensation for purchases and practices that may otherwise be viewed as morally suspect, opulent, or greedy. Nature is priceless, but priceless experiences can be quite expensive. In communing with nature we experience something much deeper, honest, and True than our everyday experiences in society that are seen as inauthentic, morally hazardous, or just the product of selfish economic exchange. Thus, for the rich, the amount of money spent is a secondary concern—both practically and morally—not just because they have plenty to spend, but because the purity of this realm that we call “nature” offers invaluable joy, goodness, and groundedness to protect against the crass materialism rampant in a world of social corruption and elite competition. The many flawed human elements guiding our lives and society melt away in the face of the cosmic, the mountainous, the spiritual, the ecological.
The unsophisticated invocation of “science” and “balance” is also influenced by a certain economic naturalism, by which I mean an unquestioned commitment to fixed economic laws of private property rights and laissez-faire economics. One respondent, a leader of a local nonprofit who works closely with ultra-wealthy people, burst out in laughter when I asked him about recent moral critiques made by some working-class people that it is wrong for such a small selection of ultra-wealthy to own so much of the private land here. After laughing, he continued, “I’m chuckling because that to me is just utter nonsense and socialist drivel. I mean these people have paid for it.… I mean it wasn’t as though the wealthy have kicked out the lowly construction workers and those sixth-generation residents.… I mean, come on. That to me is just absurd.”
i guess that's the kind of parochial, shallow reasoning you're left with when you've never been exposed to systemic analysis
First, there is a strong sense that they have scratched and clawed their way to the top, but that once they’ve arrived, there is a risk of losing the honor and dogged authenticity that motivated them on that journey to begin with. Indeed, there is honor associated with the success, but the deeper and more authentic honor—especially given American reverence for self-determination and myths about rags-to-riches—is in the early stages of the struggle itself, where individual will seems the only fuel for survival.
But what happens to your self-identity after this noble struggle is complete, and you’ve made it? Success can squash authenticity. They are no longer the scrappy underdog, but the privileged aristocrat. They now play a different, and seemingly less honorable, role in the American story. The question then becomes, how, if at all, do you reclaim that sense of scrappy authenticity, both for your own self-identity, and for how you are perceived by the rest of society?
this is basically the whole point of pano
“There’s definitely resentment, when they see someone building a $15 million house. But in some ways the people are making a choice, ‘I want to be a ski-bum and work for the ski area [chuckles],’ you know,” explained one ultra-wealthy respondent. Other interviewees spoke in similar terms. An investment banker from New York City told me that the working-class people are “probably jealous as hell that someone’s worked harder than they have and gotten ahead.” This is all very straightforward and simple. “I could see how somebody who is a ski-bum, or somebody who has maybe not spent as much time trying to figure out how to make a lot of money, could have some resentment or could have the perception that all these rich people are, it’s easy money and they didn’t work for it, etc., etc. How that might generate resentment,” says another interviewee.
lol
“Thank God for rich people,” said one ultra-wealthy respondent, in his attempt to sum up the reason for why he doesn’t feel guilty. He was alluding to the way wealth percolates down from rarefied heights to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. One respondent—a CEO from the Midwest—made this same point crassly, explaining that the presence of extreme wealth disparity is “just the way life is. It’s reality.” But despite this harsh reality, he offers hope. “My answer to everything is jobs. We are giving you jobs, and you simply wouldn’t be here without us … we understand and believe that the noblest thing a person can do is to give people jobs … so while [the wealthy] may not really need a massage or spa things, or their lawn manicured, they do it because they know it provides work for people.”
hahahahahha
Others spoke in similar terms, underscoring exactly why they will not be shamed into feeling bad for working hard. It’s a matter of personal choice, according to a real estate developer who moved to this community from San Francisco. “There are people that choose to goof off” when they could have spent their young adulthood “productively steepening their own income curve.” And it’s not like he didn’t want to goof off like some of the rural Western working class do. “I mean believe me, every night that I was ordering Chinese food to [large bank name redacted] at ten o’clock at night, I would have much rather have been in Jackson at the Cowboy Bar with ski-bums having beers. But I didn’t do that and so you know those guys who are sort of bitter and struggling in Jackson, there’s a slice of them where I sort of say, ‘well you chose to spend your twenties [laughs] skiing and living on your buddy’s couch, and so you sort of get what you deserve.’ ”
my god
One gentleman we interviewed, who came to Teton County about twelve years ago with his wife and two children, put it this way: “People with money have it because of their work, or their ancestors have worked hard for what they had, and I know people that are in this position are humble and kind.” In his view, “I think rich people deserve the money they had because they have done things right. Gotten organized, they had an economic plan, and their money is more and more.”
oh no
But María isn’t averse to wealthy people, or even wealth itself. “I think [wealth] is great if you are wealthy,” she stresses, in good faith. But at the same time, “the people who are super wealthy, I would love it if they would share more and really help those who don’t have.” Undergirding her view is a moral and religious idea that we all deserve to have enough to live with dignity. Wealth doesn’t belong to individuals; it belongs to humanity itself. “Wealthy people do not deserve the money they have because the wealth of the world is for everyone, and we all deserve it.”
thank you!