Everyone does better when everyone does better

"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." – Willi Schlamm.

In 2005, three years before his ultimate demise, the great William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote: "Every 10 years, I quote the same adage from the late Austrian analyst Willi Schlamm, and I hope that 10 years from now someone will remember to quote it in my memory. It goes, 'The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.'"

In avoiding the 2015 rush to publish, we'll quote WFB today and grant his hope.

In 2005, Mr. Buckley's topic of capitalistic excess was Viacom. More specifically, the top three executives at Viacom who received "total compensation in 2004 valued at about $52 million to $56 million each – in salary, bonus, and stock options."

Hey, it's good work if you can get it.

Mr. Buckley then quoted Geraldine Fabrikant in the New York Times, citing "a whiff of sobriety, as from someone hanging on to a tree limb in the landslide. Ms. Fabrikant quotes Brian Foley, 'a longtime compensation specialist,' and what he said was, 'The compensation is beyond breathtaking.' Viacom's share price, in the year of the gold rush for its managers, decreased by 18 percent."

Of course, Viacom was very much in the news at this time with its pending acquisitions in the media industry.

More recently – as recently as this week, in fact – HCP columnist Jim Thompson touched on income disparity and referenced those supposed correlations between executives' total compensation and stock performance, particularly as they relate to rank-and-file wages.

In the case of Viacom in 2005, Mr. Buckley takes the incredible to the unbelievable.

"We learn from Viacom's SEC filing that its chief executive, Sumner Redstone, who is 81 years old, is presumably guarding against the hazards of senior-citizen penury. His salary was $4.97 million, and he received a bonus of $16.5 million…

"Why does capitalism tolerate such institutional embarrassments? The answer has to be that embarrassment simply isn't being felt."

In other words, some people simply have no shame.

And one doesn't have to travel to Wall Street to witness the obvious indifference. Lord knows, there's plenty of it right here at home.

Some people never learned that a little humiliation now and again is a good thing. Well, that's not entirely true. Eventually, and one way or another, we all learn.

Mr. Buckley continues: "One does have to allow, in the mind's eye, for the truly unique person. If Thomas A. Edison were alive today, his genius intact, it would be unwise to cavil at any arrangement whatever made by a company seeking his services exclusively. Bill Gates is not a genius on that order, though his gifts are complementary to Edison's — Gates knows how to exploit a technological epiphany. Edison had the epiphanies, but was no good at all at exploiting them. Imagine if Gates had come up with the patent to the light bulb.

"What dismays is the utter lack of class in such businesses and businessmen here parading their skills in distortion. Michael Eisner appears twice in the table of the 25 largest compensation packages paid in a single year. In 1993, he took home $203 million. In 1998, $575.6 million. That money was taken, directly, from company shareholders. But the loss, viewed on a larger scale, is a loss to the community of people who believe in the capitalist free-market system. Because extortions of that size tell us, really, that the market system is not working — in respect of executive remuneration. What is going on is phony. It is shoddy, it is contemptible, and it is philosophically blasphemous."

Many of our intelligent readers tell me they feel the same way about a number of people in local, state and federal government.

And as far as anyone being worth $575 million a year, well, that's not something my limited brain can fathom. For one 10-year period, I worked many 72-hour weeks in a local factory. I thought I worked hard. Many others worked harder. But the hardest worker I saw in those days was Orland Willis. I will flat-damn guarantee you that Orland Willis could outwork the likes of Eisner, et. al, even on his worst day.

Of course, we mustn't confuse working hard with manipulating the system. One has its merits, while the other has its faults. (Thank God for mirrors.)

A recent email from one reader questioned the political contributions accepted by a state representative (easily searchable at the Ohio Secretary of State's website). Another email questioned local public officials who appear to be "working the system" for personal profit. (No way!)

Yet another asked about some apparently Byzantine section of the Ohio Revise Code, and seems hell-bent on sharing this with me on at least a fortnightly basis (apologies to the late WFB, whose National Review remains the best fortnightly publication on the planet).

This well-meaning soul probably does not realize that any of us with a computer or one of those Fancy Phones can find this information online by looking up Ohio Revised Code 102.03.

Nevertheless, and in my humble attempt to keep in good graces with a loyal reader, here is the chapter and verse from the ORC:

"A public official or employee is prohibited, by R.C. 102.03 (D) and (E), from accepting, soliciting, or using the authority or influence of her position to secure anything of value, where the thing of value is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon her with respect to her official duties.

"The Ethics Commission has held that Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code prohibit a public official or employee from accepting, soliciting, or using the authority or influence of her position to secure anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value from a party that is interested in matters before, doing or seeking to do business with, or regulated by, the agency with which she serves. A public official or employee is also prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or using the authority or influence of her position to secure anything of value that could otherwise impair the official's or employee's objectivity and independence of judgment with respect to her official duties."

Having read this again (for the last time, I hope), I couldn't help but notice that political correctness has found its way into the Ohio Revised Code. Note the effeminate usage of the third-person pronouns "her" and "she."

Wouldn't it be nice if all elected and appointed officials, corporate CEOs, and all working men and women could reach an understanding that, as Professor Bill Horne used to say, goes like this: Everyone does better when everyone does better?

As things are today, we have thousands of federal public employees who, collectively, owe more than $3.5 billion in back taxes and thousands of state and local public employees who owe millions more in back taxes. Moreover, we have many more public officials who see their respective office as little more than a better stall at the feeding trough.

Unfortunately, we also have a rather willing populace, equally content on riding the latest wave of what passes as the status quo. Some people like to be a few degrees away from mediocrity, after all.

The late Willi Schlamm was correct when he said "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."

Let's add that the trouble with power and greed is power and greed.

Didn't someone once say that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Rory Ryan is owner and publisher of The Highland County Press.