Holiday Excess
So it's the holidays, and it's time to add my voice to the chorus (pun intended) of writers bemoaning holiday excess. I guess my big beef with people who decry the rampant consumerism of the holidays is that holiday overspending and overconsuming are - well, very democratic.

Let me explain.

Years ago, when we lived in Reno, the local grocery store, Safeway, was scheduled to be open on the most sacred of U.S. holidays, Thanksgiving day. It was only going to be open for 4 hours, and at that point, Christmas openings were fairly commonplace.

So I wander into Safeway on Thanksgiving, and find about 30 people in there buying things, in what is otherwise a massive American grocery store. Then the most extraordinary example of hypocrisy happened in the checkout line. The woman ahead of me had the audacity to say to the clerk, in the most sympathetic tone, "It's a shame that you have to work Thanksgiving."
"She only has to work today," I barged in, "because you are shopping. If you would refuse to shop today, then next year she could be with her family."

This was NOT a popular response, although I did get a wink from the Checkout clerk after the very huffy customer left.

But it led me to a conclusion. Americans vote in two major ways. One is with their ballot, which has seen a big resurgence in popularity in the last month or so, which I find very heartening.

The other way is with their dollar. American's like to euphemistically call it "voting with their feet" as in, which stores they walk in to, but we all know it's really voting with their dollars.

So in the end, if enough Americans vote to keep Safeway open on Thanksgiving day, then that's what they get.

Churchill once said that Democracy is the least bad of all the options for governing.

My take on democracy, is that the people get exactly what's comin' to 'em. The same I guess is true of Capitalism.

So in the end, if people want to over-leverage their homes (which a) they couldn't afford in the first place, and b) are certain to never decrease in value) and spend obscene amounts of money on plastic crap, then shouldn't they be entitled to do so.

I guess the answer is 'yes', iff (if and only if) they are willing to accept the consequences when the whole house of cards comes crumbling down.

And at the risk of coming off as a raving right wing lunatic (I voted NDP in the last election...really!), that's the one thing lacking in this whole discussion of bailouts (be it Wall Street, Bay Street or Detroit) - and that's someone willing to stand up and say "Ooops. I goofed. I'm an idiot. Sorry. I'll resign my position immediately, and you can turn the reigns over to someone who isn't a complete numbskull."

All it would take is for the CEO of AIG, or Chrysler, or Lehmen Brothers to stand up and say "Boy did I take you people to the cleaners. Sorry 'bout that. I'm going to sell my Lear Jet and donate the proceeds to homeless shelters. As a matter of fact, I feel so bad I'm going to liquidate 1/10th of my portfolio and feed DR Congo for a month. Won't happen again...Anyway, I'm going to dedicate my life to teaching High School Ping Pong, because apparently I have no idea of how to run a company."

Even if they just said the first part, I would be fine with that. I would like to say that saying the second part would be a prerequisite to ever having a job more complex than running a Burger King ever again. The sad truth, is that even if Dodds gets his way and Wagoner has to walk, he'll probably be the CEO of Frito Lay in a week.

Ok, rant over.