Wealth knows best

or thinks it does

If you’re new here, welcome to On the Commons!

Here, we explore questions as varied as: Why are three little-known 15th-century papal bulls still being weaponized against Indigenous sovereignty today? How is the right to forage for food related to the Magna Carta, freedom, and public lands? Or for something different: What Is Wrong With Russia?

✔️ Join a community of 6,800+ On the Commons readers. Upgrade here.

Messengers for Health, founded “to improve the health of Apsáalooke (Crow Indian) men, women, and children using solutions that respect and honor Apsáalooke strengths, culture, stories, and language,” will receive 5% of On the Commons paid subscription revenue from now until the end of March. Blackfeet ECO Knowledge received last quarter’s 5%. (Accountability: this page shows receipt of revenue return from each quarter.)

Resistance often starts with property

Audio version:

---

My first semester of college, I had a neighbor who had a nice stereo system. I don’t know anything about stereo systems so I had to take her word for it that it was nice, or at least expensive.

My neighbor set up her CD player and speakers inside her closet, against the interior wall that separated it from my closet, and when she played music loudly, which she liked to do, especially at night, it thumped right into my room. Sometimes I asked her to turn it down, and at one point asked if, in general, she could not turn the volume so high because it was just as loud in my room as it was in hers. Or if she could even just keep it off at night.

Her response was one of my first encounters with the particular kind of entitlement that comes with having money: “What’s the point of having a nice stereo system if you can’t play it?”

I remember struggling with a vague feeling of injustice, of thinking about shared space and why her right to play her pricey stereo system shouldn’t come at the expense of my right to quiet, or sleep. I didn’t have vocabulary for that feeling until many years later, not until I’d lived overseas for a while, gotten married, and moved back to the U.S. to bumble around inarticulately and angrily liberal during the entirety of the George W. Bush administration in the early 2000s. I’m still liberal and often angrily so, but I hope more articulate.

Entitlement is a vague thing to try to pin down, an unvocalized feeling that one person, or group of people, has more of a right to exist, to take up space and air and attention, than other people. It is often accompanied by an expansive idea of ownership, a feeling that the fact of possession, whether of property or money or achievement or identity, implies a right to the unconstrained use of the thing possessed, no matter how the possession was gained or at whose expense it’s employed.

Being wealthy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for entitlement—some of the people I know who act most entitled do so due to their status, professional success, identity, or sense of grievance—but they do often seem to correlate. Wealth entitlement infects our civic and social life and the functions of our political and social systems at every level. Why buy an expensive car if you’re not allowed to drive as fast as possible wherever you like? Why own land if you can’t mine it, or build a plastics factory on it, or claim ownership of all wildlife who happen to live on it? Why finance a politician’s political campaign if you can’t use their influence to forward your own interests?

Patrick Wyman, host of the Tides of History podcast and related newsletter, was on an episode of TrashFuture a few years ago talking about some of these issues, and he said quite a few things about wealth entitlement that have stuck with me:

“It’s very hard for them to accept the fact that the system that produced them and made them people who matter, people whose needs and whims are catered to and who feel like they have some positive role to play in society—the idea that the systems that put them where they are might somehow be bad or might have negative consequences . . . it’s very hard to wrap their heads around.”

Wyman and the podcast hosts were discussing a kind of capitalism divide prevalent in the January 6, 2021, attempted U.S. insurrection and the movements leading up to it, which they said were partly a result of two different kinds of wealth opposed to each other: “the Davos guys versus the boat dealership guys,” a “revolt of the regional elites, the regional gentry.” An opposition that seems to have dissolved in the past couple of years in favor of shared purpose and the acquisition of unbelievable political power.

Who comprises regional gentry rather than the international über-wealthy is something Wyman got into in a newsletter he wrote about the kinds of wealth you see in the power players of small North American towns and mid-sized cities—not the ilk of the Koch and Mercer families, or the likes of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, but people who run McDonald’s franchises or large local construction companies. People who are much better off than you’d think but who also work hard. People like car dealership owners, which made sense to me—the owner of the local Subaru and Chevy dealership where I live seems to be incredibly well off, and there’s no other place within hours to buy a Subaru. He’s also the former head of the Montana Republican Party, which I wouldn’t have minded so much if he hadn’t become more vocally right-wing and anti-democracy over the past several years.

These are people, Wyman pointed out, who derive their wealth from ownership of actual, physical assets rather than from salaries like a doctor or lawyer or hedge fund manager would. Their wealth is still more tied, if with thin and fraying threads, to their local communities than that of the billionaire class.

“Wherever they live, their wealth and connections make them influential forces within local society. . . . We’re not talking about international oligarchs; these folks’ wealth extends into the millions and tens of millions rather than the billions. There are, however, a lot more of them than the global elite that tends to get all of the attention. . . . It’s not hard to spot vast apple orchards or sprawling vineyards and figure out that the person who owns them is probably wealthy; it’s harder to intuitively grasp that a single family might own seventeen McDonald’s franchises in eastern Tennessee, or the kind of riches the ownership of the third-biggest construction company in Bakersfield might generate.”

It’s ownership, Wyman said, that creates the basic divide between the two kinds of ruling capital. “To what extent is ownership central to your identity? The more central ownership is, the more likely you are to fall on the right side of that spectrum.”

Wyman drew a solid line between different kinds of ownership—physical assets like an orchard versus, say, savings in a Swiss bank account—but that line has never really existed. Wealth and ownership morph into each other, both feeding the possessor’s sense of entitlement. Of deserving more than, being more than, other people, much less the rest of life.

I’m reminded of 19th-century British novels, Jane Austen in particular, and the class divide that the landed nobility tried to make between themselves and those who’d become wealthy through “trade.” It’s a line drawn through socioeconomic class that tries to maintain entitlement only for certain types of wealth: inherited wealth. But the truth is that all kinds of wealth provide opportunities to purchase and hoard power.

A real-life example of ownership, wealth and entitlement closer to the Davos end of the capital class was covered in a feature in High Country News in 2021: When Gunnison County, Colorado, tried to exile non-resident homeowners in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, those property owners (who tend to extreme wealth; David Koch owns a vacation home there) fought back with a breathtaking display of entitlement, rather than relying on either the law or a cooperative attempt to address the community’s concerns.

Whether banning non-resident homeowners from staying in their homes was a wise or legal choice for the county isn’t something I know enough about to comment on, but the homeowners’ responses reflected not arguments for what would be best for the community or even what their own legal rights were but what they personally felt entitled to no matter the consequences to anyone else.

In addition to setting up a PAC (political action committee, a non-profit created to fund political campaigns) to raise money to unseat county commissioners and replace them with more congenial candidates, a group of non-resident owners set up a private Facebook group as they worked against the ban, and some of the comments that have become public were . . . telling.

“‘People who rely on others for their livelihoods should not bite the hand that feeds them,’ wrote one second-home owner.”

“‘Where is the appreciation and gratitude for the decades of generosity?’ wrote another.”

“‘Maybe don’t run your mouth so much on social media when you depend on those people to help pay your bills,’ one Facebook commenter wrote.”

“According to the second-home owners,” wrote the author of the article, Nick Bowlin, “Gunnison County’s economic survival and most of its residents’ livelihoods depend on their economic contributions and continued goodwill.”

It’s easy to see the logic of this thinking, but it also shouldn’t take that much work to pause, for a moment, and comprehend more fully the expectations of those who see themselves not as integrated members of a community, but as generous and gracious people of means to whom local residents should be grateful—but also for whom the health of that community itself is a matter of choice and leisure rather than necessity. People who have no bonds to the community but still feel it owes them something.

When I buy books from the local bookstore, I don’t expect the clerks or owner to be grateful to me. I am part of my community, interdependent with it; the continued existence of the bookstore and the coffee shops and the library and all the small downtown businesses also make my life whole. I am grateful to them. It is their existence that makes our community thrive, along with the hard work and many non-monetary contributions of people who live here. When the non-resident homeowners of Gunnison County lambasted a local restaurant server who’d publicly disagreed with them—“One of those big mouths is slinging drinks for tips—I’ll be sure to leave her a little tip,” wrote one of the Facebook group’s members—it was clear that what those residents expected was not service but subservience.

Escaping this kind of landed gentry vs. villein, serf, or tenuous and beholden tenant relationship was exactly what originally drove so many people like my ancestors out of Europe and into North America. We’ve been recreating feudalism under the guise of property rights right here, and it’s only getting worse.

Bowlin tried to talk about the wealth divide in Gunnison County with Jim Moran, who launched the PAC to attempt a takeover of the county commission and whose vacation home in Crested Butte was worth, according to Zillow (referenced in the article) at the time, $4.3 million:

“I pointed out Gunnison County’s housing shortage to Moran, who, from 2008-2011, was an advisor of the private equity firm Lone Star Funds—the biggest buyer of distressed mortgage securities in the world after the 2008 financial crisis. After the crash, the firm acquired billions in bad mortgages and aggressively foreclosed on thousands of homes, according to The New York Times. I asked Moran if, compared to locals who struggle to pay rent, people who own two or more properties should be considered wealthy. ‘I think that’s wrong,’ he replied.”

Once you’re in a position of wealth and power and mostly surrounded by people who are the same, it can be very, very difficult to see yourself as wealthy, or powerful, much less to understand how your position affects the lives of everyone around you. “These people exist in a world that caters to them,” Wyman has said.

That characterization applies to both types of capital classes and most of the spectrum in between. I don’t think my former neighbor in college was from serious wealth, but from my vantage as someone who grew up on food stamps and who was in college by the grace of that institution’s generous financial aid program, she was pretty well off. She had a bank account. With savings in it. Nobody in my life had ever come near such a thing. Maybe it’s ungenerous of me, but I could easily see her going from insisting she had a right to turn up her music to becoming one of those non-resident homeowners making disparaging comments on Facebook.

“So what do we know about them, these vocal second-home owners?” wrote Bowlin in High Country News. “They worked hard for everything they own. They are clear on this. Their critics, they believe, are often motivated by jealousy. “‘I’m certainly not ‘rich.’ I’ve worked for my entire life to have the properties I own,’ wrote one group member.”

Properties. First of all, owning more than one property of the type described in the article, in a country where millions of children go hungry every day is, yes, rich, no matter how hard you’ve worked. Secondly, we have a problem when the very fact of ownership becomes its own justification. How is that wealth gained? At whose expense? And what impact is one’s ownership having on the local community?

As someone who also lives in a resort town with a high percentage of non-resident homeowners, these are not a minor questions to me. Wealth that translates into property ownership frequently has a terrible and nearly immediate downstream effect on the affordability of homes for people who live and work in that community full-time. Those effects cannot be counterbalanced by tipping generously when you go out to dinner.

Ownership in and of itself is not a value-neutral position. Its injustices compound over time, as the wealthy gain power, influence policy, and use both to acquire yet more wealth. My state’s current multi-millionaire governor, Greg Gianforte, not only used his millions to fund his several political campaigns but last year, with the conservative-dominated state legislature’s help, quietly lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised them on the poor and middle class—a direct wealth transfer from those who have the least, to those who already have the most and are now guaranteed to have more.

The arguments in favor of these kinds of tax policies—that somehow the benefits will “trickle down” to everybody else—wore thin decades ago, as real wages and salaries declined while the wealthy bought more vacation homes. And yet the mindset persists: making the wealthy wealthier will eventually be good for everyone. Someone with wealth can use those assets to benefit the community, if they desire.

But they often don’t desire, and if they do, it often comes with demands that reflect the power wealth has bought. My own community saw this play out less than two years ago, when a billionaire who’d built what looks like a literal palace overlooking the town objected to a zoning adjustment that would have allowed a new development to include affordable housing. The intricacies of that development’s proposal are less important here than the fact that that billionaire went to the town’s community foundation and told them that if the proposal passed city council, the local housing non-profit would never see another dime from him. His wealth, he thought, gave him the right to decide what was best for the community as well as for himself.

“Equating wealth,” wrote Wyman,

“especially generational wealth, with virtue and ability is a deeply American pathology. This country loves to believe that people get what they deserve, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. Nowhere is this more obviously untrue than with our gentry class. They stand at the apex of the social order throughout huge swathes of the country, and shape our economic and political world thanks to their resources and comparatively large numbers, yet they’re practically invisible in our popular understanding of these things.”

Entitlement whitewashes wealth’s questionable values within the owner’s own mind. It makes all that one does and thinks automatically valuable. It grants people, they believe, the absolute right to do whatever they like with their property regardless of the consequences to others. And just like the problems of white supremacy and Christian nationalism, entitlement isn’t the sole province of high-profile stories located in a few specific enclaves. It’s everywhere.

The fact that there exist wealthy people who don’t buy into the sense of entitlement in a way proves the point: it’s not a requirement of wealth. It is at some level a choice. There are plenty of examples of people with wealth who would prefer less of it in favor of a society where everybody thrives. Musician Brian Eno, for example, has recently spoken out and advocated for higher wealth taxes in Britain, saying,

“I don’t like the thought that half of the population are struggling, and I don’t think there’s any need that they should be struggling. . . . wealth doesn’t trickle down to anybody. I trickles up, actually. . . . Rich people really piss me off.”

People like Eno, and others who quietly do whatever they can with their money to benefit the rest of life, are far outnumbered by, say, those covered in the High Country News article, those who believe that nobody should tell them what they should or can do with their wealth, and very definitely that their wealth shouldn’t be taxed, no matter how detrimental extreme wealth is to a society or how ethically questionable the accumulation of that wealth has been. Only those who own the wealth are entitled to determine what they’re allowed to do with it.

And if the rest of us do benefit from the choices the entitled make in how to employ their wealth and property? Well, we should be grateful that they’re willing to share—or, at the very least, grateful that they’re begrudgingly willing to turn down their music once in a while and throw a few tips our direction.

Maclay Flats just outside Missoula, Montana. I sat right here to record the audio version of this essay. Nothing like running water for some much-needed restoration. I forgot to mention in the audio that it’s a place with a tremendous number of ponderosa pine trees, just behind where I was sitting. My part of Montana further north is not rich in ponderosas and I always like spending time with those big-shouldered relatives when I’m down there.