Split Personality

You may have noticed that I’m not exactly ideologically consistent.

In some posts you will find me waxing poetic about global warming, avoiding prejudice, income inequality, progressive taxation and the need for more upward mobility built into the structure of our society.

Why don’t we just call this character, “Gand-me.”

Gand-Me at your service…

In other posts you will find me scheming to hide every possible dollar of my income in tax-sheltered retirement funds, deifying Mitt Romney’s mysterious ability to get $102 million into an IRA, and waxing poetic about the ability of an early retiree with spending discipline to never pay taxes again.  (Go ahead click the link, it’s a great article on Go Curry Cracker.)

Shall we call this character “Mitt Romn-Me?”

Name’s Romn-Me, good to meet ya!

So the obvious question is, what’s the justification?

Is this a simple case of hypocrisy?

Is the Gand-Me-esque high-minded rhetoric just a thin veneer papering over the real substance of my being; naked selfishness and greed (A la Mitt Romn-Me?)

It could be, but obviously that’s not how I see it. After all I want to sleep well at night.

And as it happens, I do have a justification, and it goes something like this.

In your own personal financial life, it is better to be hard-nosed, ruthless and ever cognizant of your own bottom-line.

No one cares more about your money than you do. And if you delegate the responsibility for your money to others, you’re placing yourself at real risk for being taken advantage of.

So when you’re dealing with how to manage your own money, you should always look to put yourself in the most advantageous position, seize opportunities that are there for you, and be ruthless, just as Mitt Romney was as he crafted his impossibly large IRA.

But when you’re thinking politically, it makes sense to have a broader focus. Your goal should be to create the best possible society for everyone, while being cognizant that most individuals are ruthless bastards (just like you.)

In other words, its better to try to model yourself after Gandhi or Mandela in the voting booth.

Regulation makes sense, because we we are all trying to position ourselves in the most advantageous way possible, and we need an impartial umpire to keep the peace and level the playing field.

Carbon taxes make sense, because it takes the  real risk of financial loss, to make us avoid expediency in our daily routines, and change our behavior for the betterment of the society as a whole.

Progressive taxation makes sense because everyone is trying to get what is best for themselves, and the rich undoubtedly have influence in proportion to their wealth. This creates incredible inertia for the concentration of wealth, and income inequality, which is (I would argue) bad for the health of society as a whole.  True progressive taxation acts as a needed counterbalance to this.

So while I applaud fiscal conservatism in the private arena, I find it distasteful politically.

As far as I can see, supply-side economics is a pretty fairytale that we wealthy tell ourselves in order to justify our own desire to not pay taxes. It quite simply doesn’t square with economic reality on any measurable level.

On the other hand, moral purity, it seems to me, is a quick pathway to the poorhouse when it comes to making personal financial decisions.

Put simply, it is the role of government (and by extension us as citizens,) to create the most just and beneficial society possible.

And just as simply, it is the role of the individual to act in a rationally self-interested way and to vigorously pursue his own interests.

I want not to be poor, or morally bankrupt, so I’m comfortable with these internal inconsistencies.

So I admit it. I have a form of multiple personality disorder. But as far as I can see, it’s better than the alternatives.

After all I am no more likely to begin to believe in political fairytales, than I am to go on a hunger strike.

I am eager to hear your criticism of this philosophy.

Agree, or disagree, your comments are welcome below.