Perspective

December 2000

Staff Editorial
There is hope in an era of Bush.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

UC Endorsement
Steve Smith and James Coleman are the liberal's choice.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

Canadian Comrades
It really is better up there.
by Danny Schlozman

Triumph or Tragedy?
Clinton's legacy is one of calculated compromise.
by Jeffrey Theodore

Buying Survival
Africa needs money, now.
by Ved Lekic and Alexandra Neuhaus-Follini

Pharmitas
Pharmaceutical companies fund Harvard research.
by Nathan Perl-Rosenthal

Students for What?
Folic acid has a hidden message.
by Shelby Meyerhoff

Greens Take Root
PERSPECTIVE talks to Cliff Ginn.
by Dev Purkayastha

A Year to Remember
A year from Seattle, the WTO protests go on.
by Bob Elliott

Cry Freedom
America's ideal of freedom is questionable.
by Nikhil Jaikumar

Introspective
In Defense of Money
by Brad Hershbein

Salmagundi

The Back Page
Keeping Christmas
by Julia Silvis

In Defense of Money

introspective

By Brad Hershbein

I am a rabid materialist. I possess dozens of DVDs, a few hundred pounds of books, a computer that cost way too much when I bought it (and now sells for far too cheap), and a smorgasbord of other chatchkes. And it's never enough. I always find myself in the pursuit of more. In fact, it's probably the primary goal of my life.

For those of you who have prematurely dismissed me as shallow and are about to peruse elsewhere, shame on you. Why would I be the president of a liberal publication if I did not champion progressive and socially conscientious programs? Keep reading.

I studied and worked hard in high school so that I would get into a good college. I study and work hard at a good college so that I can get a good (high-paying) job, pay off my loans, and live the life that is the reward for all the effort I've put into its attainment.

I want to do I-banking, or consulting, or some other lucrative, challenging occupation that requires workweeks that would make medical residents blush with indolence. I don't get the stigma, frankly. How am I selling out? I worked hard all my life. Shouldn't I finally get financially compensated for it?

So what, you say? He's just another money-grubbing elitist. They're all the same. They want to get rich and live in their own bubbles when they could be helping real people who don't have enough to eat or a roof under which to live or the opportunities this son of a bitch got.

It's not that I just care about the accumulation of wealth. A million dollar bank account may impress at your 10th high school reunion, but it will also breed envy. After all, money can't buy happiness; it can only lease it for a while. No, I don't want financial success so I can yell at my friends “Hey! Look at me! Look what I've accomplished!” Although, granted, that can be temporarily gratifying.

I want to make money because I feel that I personally can do a better job taking care of it and distributing it than most other people. After all, who can better share the wealth the way I think it should be shared than myself? All right, this does sound a little arrogant. But let me put it another way. How well do you think wealth is distributed now? Haven't you ever caught yourself admitting that if you were in charge, you would give far more money for the creation of a homeless educational center and would prevent tax dollars from buying Congressman Smith a new stretch limo? If I amass a nice chunk of dough, then I can give it to whom I see fit. The recipients are happy for getting, and I'm happy for giving.

Unlike most Republicans, who think that leaving everyone to their own merits and abilities constitutes fairness, I am a liberal Democrat: I believe those who are more successful should-no, are morally obligated to-help those who aren't so fortunate. If I can succeed financially in a private setting, I would like to apply what I've learned on a larger scale to benefit more people. One could say that such an arrangement leads to a higher utility for all parties and thus to a superior Pareto efficiency (okay, that's what I would say). I'm an Economics concentrator. A liberal one. And I'm proud of it.

In fact I feel that being a liberal economist grants me a unique perspective. While many liberal political activists may believe a certain policy, say a living wage, should be immediately adopted and cannot possibly fathom why people would be opposed to it, I view things from a more pragmatic and long-term standpoint. This is not to say that I'm opposed to the idea of a living wage (I'm not); nor does this mean that non-Economics concentrators can't think objectively about social actions (they can). Rather, I feel my background in economics helps make certain results more apparent. I'm sure a Classics concentrator could figure out that if Harvard paid a higher living wage, it would encourage more workers to get jobs working here, and the influx of people looking for jobs (and homes) would cause already stratospheric rents to rise even further. However, that realization might not come as intuitively as it does for a well-versed Ec concentrator. Economics teaches one to look a little deeper at what could happen if certain choices are made.

In no way do I believe that my realistic (if not always optimistic) outlook makes me less liberal. I believe it makes me more liberal. Mere optimism and dedication will not get Harvard to join the Workers' Rights Consortium, bring an end to greyhound racing in Massachusetts, or eliminate corruption from our electoral process. No, these goals require patience, manipulation, and viable fiscal solutions. They require a strong desire for progress coupled with specific plans on how to achieve it.

They require liberal economists.

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu