There was a time during an American electoral campaign when a controversy erupted as to who were the makers and who were the takers. The campaigners were trying to identify who were the producers of the nation’s wealth, and who were the receivers of that wealth, perhaps undeservedly.
This part of the debate ended unofficially, having
established that the makers were (1) the people who extract the resources from
nature (such as the farmers and the miners); (2) The people who manufacture
these resources, turning them into useful products that the citizens want to
consume and; (3) The people who work in the vast array of service industries,
ranging from the street sweepers to the brain surgeons.
What the debaters did not discuss was the part of the
service industries known as Financial Services. Simply put, this is the part
that is connected to the Central Bank (The Fed) which is singularly responsible
for printing the money that makes the economy work. For this to happen, the
Central Bank channels the money throughout the economy via a network of banks,
near-banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms and other money-processing
institutions known as the Financial Institutions, which are supposed to operate
as utilities. But this is where the debate can go on to eternity, and still not
fully cover the subject.
However, the problem troubling this industry can be put
simply as follows: the Service Industries are supposed to service the public,
which they do. But the industry is made of people who are imperfect by their
human nature. So, what happens is that the part of the industry that’s handled
by human beings, unfolds more like a self-servicing contraption rather than a
business servicing the public.
There is an infinite number of ways by which the money that’s
supposed to be distributed fairly among the producers of the nation’s wealth,
ends up not in the pocket of the producers but the pocket of those who work in
the “self-service” industries and their cohorts. The latter being the people
who generally work in the communication industries, ranging from journalism to
lobbyism.
In fact we have a recent example that shows how those who
produce not even an apple a year, get paid handsomely to do nothing but attack
those who create the products that make up the wealth of the nation; products
that the consumers need, buy and enjoy. The example came in the form of an
article under the title: “Ben & Jerry’s Ukraine Tweet Is Not Just About
Russia,” and the subtitle: “Ben & Jerry’s is now a cautionary tale on the dangers
of the Environmental, Social, Governance [ESG[ movement run amok.” It was
written by Jonathan Schanzer and Richard Goldberg, and published on February
22, 2022 in the National Interest.
Shanzer and Goldberg, the two attackers who live the
highlife yet produce nothing that is useful, are not shy about spewing the
hatred they hold in their hearts for Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the two
men who, at a young age risked everything they had to start an ice cream
business that turned out to be so successful, it proved them driven by the
talent of accomplished entrepreneurs.
The problem that Shanzer and Goldberg have, is that they
are affiliated with a comical outfit which thinks of itself as a think tank
named Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where the only thinking that’s
done, aims at perpetuating the self so as to protect that which could not stand
on its own, like for example, Israel’s system of apartheid. Ben Cohen and Jerry
Greenfield, producers of the nation’s wealth, would have nothing to do with
that. Jonathan Shanzer and Richard Goldberg who live on donations from those
they deceive, are furious that Ben & Jerry who could no longer be deceived,
pulled out from the Palestinian West Bank that’s under Israeli occupation, a place
where apartheid is practiced.
To give an excuse as to why they are attacking Ben &
Jerry who produce wealth for the nation, Shanzer and Goldberg who live freely
on that wealth, came up with a reason that is not much different from attacking
motherhood because mothers raise moralistic children who don’t get into trouble
often. Thus, having attacked the ice cream company because of its stance with
regard to Israel’s apartheid, the slippery slope on which Shanzer and Goldberg
found themselves, compelled them to attack the entire “Environmental, Social
and Governance” movement. See for yourself:
The following two paragraphs represent a condensed
version of what Jonathan Shanzer and Richard Goldberg are saying about the
subject:
“Ben & Jerry’s is a
cautionary tale on the dangers of ESG. Last year the company, which is owned by
Unilever, announced it would terminate its license to distribute in
Israel. In doing so, the company [switched] sides in an old clash. The decision
was odd, given that the company failed to take such position” in every little
dispute around the globe whether Ben & Jerry’s operates there or it doesn’t.
Shanzer and Goldberg went on
to say this:
“To be fair, Unilever isn’t
alone. Many corporations that advertise their commitment to ESG are selective
in their application. Take, for example, the major sponsors of the Beijing
Olympics. Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Visa, Toyota, and Panasonic all
purport to adhere to ESG principles, with dedicated pages on their websites to
all the good they do for the world. Yet, they have all chosen to ignore the
lives of millions of Uighur Muslims in China”.
This is the defense that was invented by the demonic
minds of the professional evil doers. They will say to anyone trying to do
good: If you cannot solve all the problems of humanity in one fell swoop, don’t
try to solve anything separately.