Rich and Tasty: Recipes for the New Class Warfare

Portrait of a cute mature couple enjoying themselves while preparing foodYuri Arcurs. All photos courtesy of Shutterstock.

Rich and Tasty: Recipes for the New Class Warfare
A book proposal by Anonymous.

High Concept: It now seems inevitable that the downtrodden will succeed in wresting power, wealth and influence from the elite. But we live in America. A vast swath of the unemployed are not just disenfranchised. They are highly educated. They are discerning. And they are hungry.

When it comes time to eat the rich, these masses will not be satisfied with a Koch and a smile, or with Michael Dell on rye. These are people who went deep into debt stocking their kitchens with Italian espresso makers and complicated food processors. They are not going to want to face the revolution lacking knowledge in the finer points of preparing and presenting the new cannibalistic cuisine. This is the guide the 99% will turn to when the opportunity to feast on the fortunate presents itself.

In tight and search engine-optimized prose, Rich and Tasty will tackle the inherent problems the cook and home entertainer will encounter in serving up a plate of fresh high-frequency trader, or tenderizing a tough doyenne. Just as Julia Childs taught us to ignore the ninnies who worried about butter, so will this tome usher in a new gastronomic ethic: eating the rich is the best revenge.

Beautiful woman looking at her husband who is cooking at homewavebreakmedia


1. Why Eat The Rich?
A brief, but potent political and social thesis supporting the consumption of capitalists.

2. Local Is Fresh!
Although the ultra-rich make up less than one percent of the populace, they are easy to find. They congregate in specific areas, and their haunts are well-known. Chapter Two will explain the importance of local sourcing when obtaining ingredients, and offer simple, easy-to-apply tips for finding flavorful, affluent main courses in virtually every locale.

3. The Most Important Meal of the Day
Why a banker is part of every wholesome breakfast.

Happy satisfied chef and his aid - kids with cooking utensils, isolatedNagy-Bagoly Arpad

4. Eating the Rich on the Run
Let's face it. We all have hectic lifestyles. It's even more difficult to find a healthy, balanced lunch than a healthy, balanced portfolio. Tips for slipping some important financial figures into your mid-day repast.

5. Elegant, Everyday Dinners
Dazzle your spouse, and the rest of the extended family you've moved in with. Quick tips and ideas for turning boring billionaire left-overs into culinary diamonds.

Chef is decorating tenderloin steak with sauce, motion blur on spoonFedor Kondratenko

6. Desserts and Snacks
Sure, you lost the house, your fine credit rating and your health insurance. But you haven't lost your sweet tooth. And deep inside the coldest heart of the most cruel takeover artist there is a kernel of honey-like delight. We'll show you how to dig deep and find it.

7. Entertaining
You're nervous. A houseful of guests is about to arrive, and all you have to offer them is some less-than-ideal portions of the flank of Bill Gross. No need to panic. Sage advice on preparing and presenting even the most hoary of bond magnates, investment bankers and corporate raiders. Plus, a handy reference to fine wines that pair nicely with virtually any member of the Forbes 400.

Young couple cookingKzenon


Peter Kellog Corn Flakes
Roast Perlman with Confit de Kerkorian
Braised Bezos and Soros tips
Round Eye of Icahn on a George Kaiser Roll
Walton Family Stew
BBQ Sumner Redstone w/Pickled Sam Zell
Ross Perot Tartare
Sergey Brin in Brine


Anonymous is an award-winning food journalist, formerly employed by a respected national news media outlet. He/She now lives in a tent outside LA City Hall.

Chef presenting a plate with a doubtful meat, with a cow with a barcode in the backgroundFranck Boston. All photos courtesy of Shutterstock.


    1. Also, the couple in the first image don’t even appear to be American.  Or at least they’re cooking in a foreign kitchen.  Exhibit A: look at those electrical plugs in the background.  Un-American, I tell you!

  1. I dunno about anyone else, but from my particular vantage point in the bottom, unemployed part of the heap, wresting power, wealth, and that other thing from the elite seems *completely* evitable.

  2. I know it’s unethical, but I really don’t fancy free-range rich.  Too much fat and gristle.  I much prefer the gym-raised rich.

    1. But, they’re so tough and gamey (and full of ‘pharmaceuticals’). The best vittles are nice fat little rich kids.

    1. Excellent! (*taps the tips of her fingers together slowly*) I would take this a step further perhaps and catch them before they get the chance to be CEOs, or even breed.  I say use those tenderizing mallets for clubbing the rich youngsters on their noggins, instead of whacking away at some future date on a tough flank o’billionare to make it edible.  Why waste an MBA education on them! 

      Or we could use them as livestock, fattening up the kids like veal.  Nomnomnom.

      (Yes, I’m kidding…mostly).

  3. What was that previous post about everything being a remix?

  4. Really? I know BoingBoing’s a liberal-leaning site, and I’m totally okay with that. I like a lot of what they put out. But posting this, and letting it be authored and posted anonymously is pretty cheap. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for anonymous posting; it’s led to many an important, world-changing document. But I don’t feel this is the outlet for it. The great thing about BB is that through the posts, I feel that I get to know some of the authors. 

    And yeah, I think this whole movement is going about things the wrong way. Sure, there was corruption and collusion by some, and I hope they’re prosecuted and punished for what they’ve done wrong. But not all, and likely not even most of the people working in finance are immoral or corrupt or evil or however else the OWS folks want to portray them. That list of demands, which I’ve recently read isn’t official, is just absurd. The YouTube videos of the DC and Wall Street protests are chock full of liberal arts majors who apparently managed to avoid an introductory macroeconomics course and a post-1945 US history course and haven’t the slightest clue what inflation is or how the economy is widely agreed upon (at only a basic level) to work.

    Punish the wrongdoers, but don’t abuse those who have done nothing wrong. Finance is a productive industry and without the bankers, we’d be in a very different, less enjoyable world.

    1. I think capitalism is a problem, not corruption or collusion by some capitalists. I think some of the 99% Occupiers see it that way too, or want the system reformed drastically from the way it is now.

      Please don’t assume that people need introductory macroecon courses just because they disagree with you (or with their econ teachers).

      1. No, I meant that the people I’d seen in the videos really had no idea what they were talking about. They weren’t saying that capitalism was bad; they explicitly said that they weren’t anti-capitalists. They just had no idea how it worked or what the constraints of the system were. If you’re anti-capitalists, fine. I’d love to debate you, and I think you’re wrong, but what you believe is your own decision. But the people that I saw were not, they were just ignorant.

        1. There are many ways of understanding things.  Understanding something in a way that lets you regurgitate a media-friendly sound byte explaining it to a news camera is one way.  But few people can do that.  And actually those who are best at it often abuse their ability by misleading and lying to the public.

          Perhaps the root of the problem is that rather than engaging real people in deep discussion, you watch recordings and judge from afar.

          1. They did. not. understand. anything. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make myself. This kid did not understand the first thing about inflation.

            I live in Mississippi. Would you like to fly me up to New York to go see the protests? I thought not. Perhaps the root of the problem is that instead of engaging real people in deep discussion, you judge from a comment thread. (See what I did there? It’s not possible for you to actually talk to me in person and yet I condescendingly expected you to, just like it’s not possible for me to go talk to the OWS people in person and you condescendingly expected me to.)

            I know lots of intelligent people who support this movement here where I live and we’ve all talked about it. But they’re not the ones up there making fools of themselves to get on television or YouTube or any other press outlet. And the problem is that they’ve become the face of the movement.

          2. Perhaps this is the problem of the press doing a very good job of making the movement look foolish.

          3. I haven’t watched cable news in months. I’ve been looking at individuals’ YouTube videos. So I suppose it’s possible, but I wouldn’t know.

          4. It’s sort of like what happens when a tornado wipes out a trailer park. The reporter is always going to find that stereotypical grungy old white dude in a wifebeater with 3 teeth and an accent. Sure they could talk to that dude over there, he looks smart, but that would just be dull. That’s why the images you are seeing on mainstream media outlets paint these protesters as crazy dirty hippies. Because that’s the stereotype people want to see. Call it lazy reporting or good TV, it is what it is.

        2. No, I meant that the people I’d seen in the videos really had no idea what they were talking about. They weren’t saying that capitalism was bad; they explicitly said that they weren’t anti-capitalists.

          “Capitalism” is a pretty vague word. Scandinavian social democracies like Sweden and Norway don’t have the state owning the means of production, and they have private corporations which are successful internationally like Nokia and Ikea, would you call these countries “capitalist” ones? I imagine most of the protesters just want to move in a direction of greater regulation and perhaps more wealth redistribution, probably not as far as Scandinavian countries but more like other European countries, or Canada or Australia. Would you jump to the conclusion that people who held positions like that, and therefore said that they “weren’t anti-capitalists”, must really have no idea what they’re talking about?

          1. No, I agree with the kid that he wasn’t an anti-capitalist. He generally supported the principles, he said, but he wanted more “social justice”. He had a liberal (in the American sense of the word) spin on capitalism, but in a general form, it was still capitalism. I don’t really know how many more times I can say this, but these guys were acting like asses and simply had no idea what the mechanics of even a broadly-categorized “capitalist” economy were.

          2. I thought you were saying they “really had no idea what they were talking about” because they denied being anti-capitalist yet espoused views you considered inconsistent with capitalism. If not, maybe instead of just throwing around accusations like these guys were acting like asses and simply had no idea what the mechanics of even a broadly-categorized “capitalist” economy were you could actually specify some of the things they said that you considered wildly ignorant? For example, would you say that you’ve seen a lot of protesters advocating policies that no Western countries, even the more social-democratic ones, have ever implemented or would ever seriously consider?

          3. Keep in mind the source on this one, though it doesn’t seem like the editing really made a difference; a libertarian friend of mine posted a related video on Facebook and I checked it out and saw that there were a lot of other Occupy DC videos and just went through them to see what all was going on.


            I wish what the people in the videos were saying had as much substance as your suggestion. The reason I can’t give you anything substantial is that they had nothing substantial to say. At one point, they simply denied the widely-agreeable notion that printing billions leads to inflation and then sort of walked away.

        3. Me and Herman Cain must have been watching different videos about the Occupy Wall Street peeps than you have.

          “It’s anti-American because to protest Wall Street and the bankers
          is basically saying that you’re anti-capitalism. The free market system
          and capitalism are the two things that have allowed this nation and this
          economy to become the biggest in the world. Even though we have our
          challenges, I believe the protests are more anti-capitalism and
          anti-free market than anything else.”
          – From a transcript of Cain on the Oct 9 Face the Nation.

          1. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond to this…
            I don’t agree with Herman Cain and I’m not sure I ever have? There are thousands of different outlooks on life contained within these protests; neither you nor Herman Cain nor I could ever know them all and be able to draw generalizations based on that information, so trying to do so is silly. Additionally, you drawing on Herman Cain, who is a politician running for the presidency and is trying to appeal to a Republican base is silly, as he’s going to classify anything that his base doesn’t like as anti-capitalist and anti-free market in order to show that he’s on their side about all this.

            My basis for saying it’s largely not anti-capitalist (at least within the portion of the protestors that actually know anything about anything) is that these people are still using their Apple MacBooks and iPhones to get their friends out there. They’re still using Elmer’s glue and Sharpie markers to make signs and they’re using Canon (hopefully, unfortunately they might be using Nikon) cameras to document the whole thing. They’re still engaging in the capitalist system, even as fundamentally different it is in its current iteration from what the model suggests.

          2. I’m using Herman Cain to point out I’m not way off base seeing some of these protesters (notice I used that qualifier earlier too) as anti-capitalist, or people who want heavy reform. (I put a lot of qualifications in that earlier post, allowing me to weasel out of it. But yeah, I didn’t say all of them were anti-capitalist. I said some were anti-capitalist, some wanted major reforms. Maybe there are some videos of protester interviews that reflect this, and some videos that don’t. You might be getting a different impression of the protesters than Cain and I have. Or maybe you and I and Cain could watch the same videos and we’d disagree on what it meant.

            Re:  protesters with iPhones can’t be anti-capitalist = not a good argument. A person stuck in a capitalist economy can’t be expected to become a hermit and obstain from all participation in it, any more than a person living in 1964 Soviet Russia could be expected to withdraw from participation in communism and survive. If they had any realistic choice between tech produced by capitalists or tech produced fairly (fair trade?), then not all of them would choose capitalist products.

          3. I dunno, Apple seems to have fulfilled its social ethical responsibilities, apart from the whole FoxxCon thing. And even then, it’s hard to blame Apple when the (communist-ish, might I add) Chinese government allowed it to happen.

            And if you’re so avidly anti-capitalist, I do expect you actually would abstain from all participation. Either you believe in it or you don’t. There are people who’ve lived without free market products. If you believe in an economic system other than capitalism, I invite you to join a co-op that lives by those economic rules.

          4. It’s not hard to blame Apple for that. All it takes is slightly higher standards than the Chinese government. (PS – not all anti-capitalists are communists.)

          5. And even then, it’s hard to blame Apple when the (communist-ish, might I add) Chinese government allowed it to happen.

            There is nothing communist-ish about the PRC. They are a state-corporatist nation where all market participation is at the pleasure of the political ruling-class selected by blatant cronyism. They are indeed capitalists; they reinvest capital earned from prior enterprise using a monetary standard. This is the very antithesis of communism, wherein money does not exist because the means of production are owned collectively by everyone and directed to task by central planning (whether by elected committee or ruling junta). In communism, money is irrelevant because no one owns the products of their or anyone else’s labor; the fruits of all labor are owned collectively.

            What China is not is a free market. Market participation depends on government connections, bribes and purchases of the right to do business. A close comparison is the fictional Ferengi Commerce Authority on Star Trek. We too are headed firmly in that direction, though not because of anything the Occupiers are doing, but because we the People have allowed our government officials to sell and gift market dominance and natural resources to the highest bidder, obliterating the free market, and to bail them out, at public expense, when their anti-competitive practices bring them and us to ruin.

            If the Occupiers are anti-capitalist – and I’m certain many are not – they are mere padawans to Wall Street’s grand masters.

        4. The YouTube videos of the DC and Wall Street protests are chock full of liberal arts majors who apparently managed to avoid an introductory macroeconomics course and a post-1945 US history course and haven’t the slightest clue what inflation is or how the economy is widely agreed upon (at only a basic level) to work.

          They don’t know how it works?  As opposed to the banker elite that impoverished our economy with their fraudulent gambling and speculation?  The same ones that us dummies had to save from failing?  And let’s not forget the wise media elite that basically gave them the thumbs up all along until it all fell off the cliff.  Disgraced Rand-roid bankers, fed leaders and treasurers?

          We know how capitalism in the U.S. works:  Socialism for the elite, capitalism for the rest.

          1. Christ, if I never hear the phrase “media elite” again, it’ll be too soon.

            Yeah, Navin, these kids don’t know how it works. They think printing billions more dollars is the answer to our economic woes and that printing money, even as an abstract hypothetical, does not cause inflation. That’s fundamentally wrong. Just absolutely, blatantly, flat-out wrong. I doubt you’ve ever looked at a balance sheet, much less a financial model, but these bankers do know what they’re doing. Look at Goldman: they knew exactly what was going to happen. What an on-the-ball bunch of guys, huh? There was moral hazard, there was certainly adverse selection and there was some corruption too. There was also a foray into a largely unknown branch of finance with new financial products, and the inability of humans to be able to predict the future with any accuracy. If you fail to understand that life, and therefore the stock market and all sorts of financial markets, is just a big ol’ gamble, I suggest you give that idea a few hours of thought, because it’s very important that you know that.

            The causes of 2008 are much too complex to break down into “the banker elite that impoverished our economy with their fraudulent gambling and speculation” and  “the wise media elite that basically gave them the thumbs up all along until it all fell off the cliff”. I ask you not to try to do so, as it’s insulting to the people who have actually taken the time to study the causes. Especially if you’re one of those people who has studied it, as it devalues all the effort you’ve put into your studies.

          2. Sir,

            Would you be so kind as to point us in the direction of footage of these ‘kids’ demanding the printing of billions (? – try trillions) more dollars?  

            Also, I suspect that by ‘media elite’, Navin Johnson is referring to by far the most watched news network in the US. 

            Which, incidentally, is the cause of many US citizens being misinformed about politics.


            Really, if I were a less polite person I could suggest that it’s insulting for you to dismiss the idea of a misinforming media elite, as it devalues the efforts of those people who have put all of the effort into studying the issue of media monopolies and the negative effect they have.  But I won’t suggest that. 

            I would, however, respectfully suggest that it’s not your right to tell people who it is that can or cannot debate the issues surrounding OWS.  You have no idea how much time the people on here and in the streets have taken to study the causes.

          3. Here’s your link. The part you’re looking for is at the end, but the whole thing’s worth a good watch.:

            If I were a less polite person, I’d tell you to drop in on a reading class sometime this week, as you obviously don’t understand that I was telling ol’ Navin that to try to break down the causes of 2008 into “the banker elite that impoverished our economy with their fraudulent gambling and speculation” and  “the wise media elite that basically gave them the thumbs up all along until it all fell off the cliff” is far too simplistic and that he should refrain from doing THAT, not from discussing the whole thing at all. But I won’t suggest that.

            I would, however, respectfully suggest that you stop acting like I’ve attacked you or belittled your work, if you’ve done any regarding what I was talking to Navin about. And I’d also tell you to stop thinking you’re being victimized, as when I said that it’ll be too soon if I ever hear “media elite” again, I was simply saying I’m sick to death of that phrase. Especially since it’s got nothing to do with the bias you’re talking about. I’m just really tired of hearing “media elite” and “political elite” and “banker elite.” Just please, for the sake of anything and everything, get a new word.

          4. “If I were a less polite person, I’d tell you…. But I won’t suggest that.”
            This trick does not actually work. You got across the insult that you wanted.

          5. For twenty-three years, I’ve been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now… well, being a Christian woman, I can’t say it!

          6. Nice. Notice that Auntie Em expresses her anger but holds back the content of the insult. Julian and most people who try that just make a show of closing the barn door of politeness after the insult horse is out.

          7. Not much sway for common sense here, but nice to see you trying. 

            As much as we’ve read that these protests are as sensible, rational and calm, most of what i’ve seen are incoherent, hazy thinking with zero basis in economic reality. (And they’re just as unhinged as the sample you’re likely to get from the average Tea-Party rally or NORML protest.) 

            I know it’s gotta feel good to go chant along with the crowd in the ol’ Che shirt and come up with a snarky sign about solidarity with the 1% against Wall Street fatcatz. But most of the footage I’ve seen is of these protestors just yammering on about wanting more stuff for free – college educations, huge tax hikes, free loans, public handouts, etc. It’s just emotion completely divorced from logic and totally removed from how a real-world market functions. 

            Who are they even protesting to -the 1% millionaires of their own party who rub elbows with the very people they protest? Those are the selfless public servants that are gonna deliver sensible economic change? And if senseless reforms aren’t made and magically deliver the promised economic manna, then we can just keep piling on the “fixes” and not figuring out that more rules (made by people who’re themselves easily compromised) is not the answer to the problem.

    2. “But posting this, and letting it be authored and posted anonymously is pretty cheap”

      I don’t see that authored/posted anonymously is a problem, I just think it comes off as lazy preaching to the choir.

      1. I think it’s just a matter of how it comes across to different people. To each his own, I suppose.

    3. Punish the wrongdoers, but don’t abuse those who have done nothing wrong. Finance is a productive industry and without the bankers, we’d be in a very different, less enjoyable world.

      As with most instances of abuse of power, the real problem is not the relatively small number of people actually committing the crimes, but the larger populations that makes themselves accessories by enabling their guilty peers.

      In other words, if you work in the financial sector and haven’t resigned in protest you’re just as guilty.

    4. “Finance is a productive industry and without the bankers, we’d be in a very different, less enjoyable world.”

      Hi Julian. I have a sneaky suspicion that the opposite of this statement may be true. Finance doesn’t actually produce a thing except for creative ways to steal more money. Perhaps reading some William K. Black would help. He wrote, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry, 2005. Dr. Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings & Loan crisis.

      Black assets that the banking crisis in the United States that started in late 2008 is essentially a big Ponzi scheme; that the “liar loans” and other financial tricks were essentially illegal frauds; and that the triple-A ratings given to these loans was part of a criminal cover-up. He said that the “Prompt Corrective Action Law” passed after the Savings and Loan Crisis mandated that ailing banks should be put into receivership. Black also stated that trying to hide how bad the situation is will simply prolong the problem, as happened in Japan’s lost decade. Black stated that Timothy Geithner is engaged in a cover-up, and that the administration does not want people to understand what went wrong or how bad the banking situation is today.

  5. The biggest problem with eating the rich is that there just aren’t enough of them to go around.  Only 1 in 100 is of sufficient quality for consumption by the the other 99%  This may lead to the factory-farming of the rich in rows and rows of small grey boxes, force-feeding them caviar and pate while ensuring a quality skin through exposure to only second-hand monitor light.

    1. The biggest problem with eating the rich is that there just aren’t enough of them to go around.  Only 1 in 100 is of sufficient quality for consumption by the the other 99%

      Easy solution: just slide the percentile to the left a bit. The top twenty percent could go a long way with the right garnishments. If we eat the top fifty percent, we could be dinning in style for months. Though we’ll need more wine…someone call up France quick!

      ~ Max Robespierre

  6. Are we worried that Swift’s Modest Proposal would actually be taken seriously by Wall Street, so we need to suggest an alternative in order to get their attention?

  7. Julian ,

    Part of the reason we’re in this mess is PRECISELY BECAUSE those making decisions in the Fed, heading corporations, congress, etc. took  those “introductory macroeconomics courses” and believed in the mythologies laid out there as if it was gospel truth.
    The reality is that mainstream economics does not study the natural world, it studies trends and finds rationals (some of it can be very complex) for decisions made by people who are ultimately looking out for their own interests, without questioning some of the underlying assumptions.
    A little critical thinking, please.

    And NO, the OWS movement is not about taking pitchforks and skewering all the bankers as the new scapegoats for everything that is wrong in society (although some of them actually deserve it much more than many of the kids who are now in prison in this country) – it is about reclaiming some of the space taken away from the majority of powerless individuals by powerful interests – and reinstating a public debate and participation in decision-making rather than leaving it to a select group of cronies who for the most part have been failing upwards and rewarded for their recklessness.

    Anyone who has been studying the economy for the last several years know exactly why these people are out there, and if you don’t understand it it only means that you’re too lazy to inquire into it.  The best thing to do would be to just get out of the way.

    1. You’ve totally missed my point. Congratulations, sir. But it’s nice to know that there are some people out there who are constantly looking for a fight on the internet. It warms the cockles of my cold, capitalist heart.

      I had a hard time understanding the last sentence of your first paragraph; you seem to be under the delusion that economists attempt to ascribe motives to people’s decision making patterns other than that they’re looking out for their own long-term rational self-interest. That would be entirely wrong, as the model of capitalism us ultimately based on the assumption that rational people make decisions based on how well the outcomes would serve their long-term rational self-interest.

      I don’t know why you’re complaining about my critical thinking skills. And I believe this is the point at which I can complain about your post’s confusing spelling mistakes and difficult-to-read run-on sentences. Seriously. Your whole second paragraph is one sentence.

      From what I’ve read and watched, it’s about “taking back” some sort of shimmering, emancipating, liberating “power” which had been at some point in the past stolen from you. I’m not exactly sure how you plan on doing that, nor what you believe it will accomplish, as it’s a rather abstract and impossible task. You all seem to operate on the premise that the individual is powerless and that the only way to influence the future is to petition government channels. You all seem to ignore the fact that what you want the government to do to give you back your ever-lost “power” is largely illegal, disruptive of the economy and immoral. As I’ve said before, I am not for crony capitalism. I actively work against that in the little way that I can, as it’s wrong and channels capital into unproductive and oversaturated markets.

      About this last paragraph here. You’ve managed to write two lines without actually saying anything, which is a special feat in its own right, and for that I suppose I must congratulate you. If you wouldn’t mind clarifying what exactly it is that I am too lazy to inquire into and of what exactly I should be getting out of the way, I’d be ever so grateful.

      My point is that on the whole, you’re attacking people and industries that are productive and necessary components of the economy. There are many members of those industries that are corrupt and deserve to be punished. There are also a number of government officials that facilitated the corruption in the private sector including the entirety of Congress that created the moral hazard that made the CDOs so appealing.

      1. Let’s stop right here, shall we?

        productive and necessary components of the economy.

        All they produce is more profit for themselves. As a by-product, we get burst bubbles and New Great Depressions. Thanks. Thanks a ton.

        1. People in finance can actually create jobs and boost the economy by taking companies public and raising funds for new technologies.
          Bankers do add value by getting company founders appropriate prices when they sell, which in turn leads many of the founders to invest in new ventures and create more jobs.
          Financiers also give fund managers at places like Fidelity – the people who manage retirement savings accounts for millions of people – places to invest their money.
          Banks play a critical role in the economy by allowing businesses to borrow, expand, and hire new employees, thereby creating jobs in the process.

          1. Fixed it for you:
            People in finance are supposed to create jobs and boost the economy by taking companies public and raising funds for new technologies.  Bankers make money by getting company founders to believe that they are needed in order to figure out appropriate prices when they sell, which in turn leads many of the founders to have less money to invest in new ventures and create more jobs.  Fund managers at places like Fidelity invest in publicly traded companies, either via stocks or bonds.  This process is obscured by financiers creating highly complex instruments which hide the true value of what is being traded. Retail banks, not investment banks and vulture funds, are supposed to play a critical role in the economy by allowing businesses to borrow, expand, and hire new employees, thereby creating jobs in the process.  Unfortunately, their ability to do that is impeded by their exposure to the huge losses incurred by their investment arms.  Which wouldn’t have happened if provisions in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies had not been repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

  8. No thanks. The rich are far too high cholesterol and full of junk calories for my taste. Speaking of “taste,” they are pretty bland-tasting too. You can’t even say they taste like chicken.

  9. It might work. Food trucks can sell long pig tacos. Froofroo places can serve fancy schmancy ‘cochon millionaire’ entreés. I support this idea.


  10. If anonymous is far left, he/she doesn’t understand satire well and should read lots of Jonathon Swift and analysis of it.  If anonymous is more right leaning, good job of using satire to ridicule the direction that a lot of the far left seems to be headed.

    1. I don’t think you understand satire well if you think it can only be about exaggerating the views of your opponents. Comically exaggerating your own more id-like desires can be a valid form of satire too–read a sampling of articles from The Onion and you’ll see plenty of this sort of thing.

  11. Last Gasp would consider publishing this, but we’re a little worried about how to legally get photos of the rich being plated *before* the revolution. 

  12. Don’t go there, America. If this catches on, it’s only a question about time before someone on Wall Street starts a chain that serves up faux-riche, and the poor will be toast. Literally.

  13. You’re all laughing NOW… but when it’s UP AGAINST THE WALL time, well…

    You’ll probably still be laughing, but it’ll be a laugh of relief that you’re not considered part of the 1%.

  14. The problem is not that ” Finance is a productive industry and without the bankers, we’d be in a very different, less enjoyable world.”
    The problem is that those who are at it are isolated from the consequences of their bad performance. While they reduced the world economy to shambles, they kept getting more money, and while the rest of the people are recovering painfully, out of job and struggling, they keep getting even richer while refusing to pay more taxes and whining about class warfare. 

    So, in a regular job, you screw it up, you go to the street. Here, you do a worldwide clusterfuck and you get… more money that you refuse to invest in improving the society. And the system is not being fixed so that cannot happen again, like banks being prevented of getting too big to fail. Meanwhile, you tell everybody else to get ready for more misery and poverty. How do you want people to react to this? It goes fucking beyond economy, this is about fairness and human nature. If you are asking me to change my habits and get used to sacrifices, while you are doing even better than you were, why should I comply? 

  15. I find this hostile attitude towards the rich quite unhealthy (not to mention the suggested dietary regimen ;-).
    I sympathize with the underlying angst and welcome the passion and desire to change our crappy system of crony capitalism. But I believe the common analysis of the causes to be superficial (and the conclusions therefore misplaced).

    Let’s consider a few situations and consider the possible effects:

    1) A fiat money system is set up with fractional-reserve rules, where bankers get a special privilege of multiplying money by virtue of credit expansion. Whenever the money supply is increased, the first hands to touch it gain disproportionately (overall prices haven’t adjusted yet).
    Could this result in bankers promoting a debt-driven culture without bearing the risk of such lending?
    Could this lead to bankers getting disproportionately rich?

    2) To service increasing government spending and target some macroeconomic conditions (“price stability”), the central bank (Fed) continuously expands the money supply.
    Could this cause people’s savings to lose significant value over time? Could this lead people to gamble their savings in un-necessarily risky activities (stock market)?
    Could the artificially low interest rate lead a large number of people to make similar bad decisions (unsustainable business investments and mortgages that later crash)?
    Could that lead to a period of high unemployment which such systematic mistakes later need to correct?

    3) A representative government is set up, which ignores its constitutional bounds and purview.
    Could this result in individuals and corporations (large or well-connected ones) taking advantage of such regulatory opportunity to gain unfair advantages and exclude competitive threats?
    With reduced competitive pressure, could said corporations grow to unhealthy sizes, with their irresponsible behavior (too much risk, lower quality service) not kept in check?
    Would it become very profitable to pursue this kind of regulatory capture and receive subsidies and bailouts, as opposed to actually serving the public?

    4) When you have the effects of the above, would the political class have incentives to direct blame away from government interventions and promote further intervention to “fix things”?
    Would the incentives of crony corporations create a ratcheting effect whereby prior bad legislation is very difficult to repeal, and they also tend to direct attention away from themselves?

    We do have a problem. But we need to look beyond the symptoms, to consider the root of that evil.
    I would suggest that we maybe consider the aggression inherent to government, which allows it to control what people use as money, inflate the money supply and lower the interest rate, and legislate people’s behavior in the economy. The results are irresponsible widespread bubbles, irresponsible risk-taking and regulatory capture.
    In that light, it is misplaced to argue about which people should hold the gun, or which interest rate or rules they should set, or which “services” you should get in return.

    The problem is with our tolerating and legitimizing the aggression, or thinking we’d do a better job if only we were the ones holding the gun. That bankers and their fellow top-1percenters unfairly benefit from the system is a second-order problem.
    By its existence, government threatens a peaceful and cooperative society. People can easily see that when considering small scale situations (tribe, community), but tend to have a blind spot when it comes to government. Once you allow aggression, there is no controlling it; it will corrupt the foundation of society over time.

  16. I find it entirely appropriate that this informative and engaging article is illustrated by stock photography. Stock photography is the slavering maw of meaninglessness yawning wide to swallow all that ever had meaning in the world. It is the putrid stench of soul-dead horror which seeps through the hairline cracks in everything you want to believe is OK about the world. It is late capitalism fixing you with a robotic stare and baring it’s gleaming white teeth at you as it it locks those (minty-fresh and ultra-whitened) teeth around your throat, and begins to thrash.

    When we eat the rich, we will do so off plates upcycled from the CD libraries of stock photography that have driven many a lowly content-generating peon of the ‘information age’ deep into the depths of insanity.

  17. The only thing more delicious than lean Millionaire Rump are the sweet, sweet brains of humor-impaired libertarian fan-boys unable to recognize a goddamn joke when they see it.

  18. I’d ask the ghost of Milton Friedman for economic advice but somebody is cutting open my stomach and dropping me out of a helicopter into the sea at the moment.

  19. I’ve been handing out copies of Jonathon Swift’s A Modest Proposal to friends for months and I’m glad someone else sees the analogy.  I’ve never seen a better time  for a new Age of Satire.  

  20. Julian & Julien rock.

    I feel like OWS could have gone in a good direction for fighting corruption, but it’s been derailed by this anti-rich meme.  There was a bill proposed a few years ago to disallow corporations with government contracts of more than $10k/year from lobbying the government– but it was brought up by Ron Paul, so I doubt it would get much momentum with OWS.

    Further more: “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” Is something that most of OWS seem to miss. Their ethereal solutions require massive gov. intervention.

  21. The truth is dwindling rain forests, spreading deserts, mass tree die-offs on every continent; looted pensions, groaning burdens of student debt, people working two or three dead end jobs; children eating dirt in Haiti, elders choosing between food and medicine… the list is endless, and we will make it no longer possible to hold it in disconnection from the money system. That is why we converge on Wall Street, and anywhere that finance holds sway. You have lulled us into complacency for long enough with illusions and false hopes. We the people are awakening and we will not go back to sleep.”

    1. Wow, dude. So taking a larger bite of private money and dumping it down the public sinkhole is gonna fix these complex, multinational, environmental issues HOW, exactly?  

      Oh, whichever. Just take more money. It’ll totally work out. As soon as it goes into the public fund, the deserts gonna sprout into vibrant life and those poor Haitians can stop eating dirt. 
      And if it doesn’t then you can just say that they didn’t take enough money. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

  22. “These are people who went deep into debt stocking their kitchens with Italian espresso makers and complicated food processors.”

    Yawn. I bought a damn good (if not barista-worthy) espressomaker for well over a hundred dollars and have two main appliances  I use on a near-daily basis, a food processor and pressure cooker. Both are incredibly useful for making good, quick, and incredibly cheap food.

    “Fancy” food doesn’t have to be expensive, and owning a few necessary appliances doesn’t amount to throwing around money.If you want to talking about their McMansions and other goods, that’d be much more useful.

  23. Julian –

    You’re missing the point, but there is too much to say for the comments here.

    1 ) Capital is mostly about power – not about money.  The federal government (by the undemocratic Federal Reserve and other institutions, interest rates, money printing, etc.) manipulates the economy in ways which are mostly detrimental to the poor, true. We agree on this. If you re-read what I wrote (instead of concentrating on highschool level English composition formalities), I list the Fed as one of the problems and so do many of the protesters.

    2 ) Coming with a bunch of memorized simplified talking points comes off as a little artificial – even though I agree with much of what Mises wrote, and so do a lot of those who are sympathetic to the demands of OWS.
    Most of those protesting are NOT simply asking the government to find solutions, it’s all about finding solutions themselves because they know that it is useless to petition the government for anything.

    3 ) “Capitalism” is NOT industrialism, corporations, etc. We disagree on the meaning of the term, which isn’t surprising because in the usual US political discourse, many terms are almost the opposite of their original meanings. You’re trying to turn this into a “people vs. business” confrontation, but that’s not what this is. They are not protesting those who innovate and make things, they are protesting precisely the opposite – govt + crony capitalists who DON’T make things grifting off the rest of the population and sticking it in offshore fiscal havens, while they see their wages shrink and pensions vanish and are asked to make sacrifices themselves.  Again, this is about a balance of power.

    They see no future, and this is a relatively new development : this is the fault of government monetary policy AND the large central banks, AND corporate management offshoring the industrial base and the profits AND a certain very restricted form of “globalization”, AND Americans not wanting to curb their energy consumption or change their way of life – not just one or the other. This is not to say that one does not bear any responsibility for one’s own problems – however, the most general tendencies of the economic decline and continued recession are mostly the result of very powerful institutions, not those protesting.

    Whatever your take is, there is a growing realization that the “economy” (however you define it) and profits should be subordinate to the needs of humans and not the other way around. Positing corporations, private enterprise and free trade as a meaningful alternative to government abuse and power can be helpful only if you’re planning on basically abolishing the present monetary system and the concept of debt altogether (which I doubt you are). Otherwise it is only a means of transferring tyranny and control to smaller units and geographical areas, more like feudalism. The people here want real liberty, not Democratic or Ron Paul slogans.

    1. 1) I wasn’t focusing on your grammar except that it made your comment incredibly difficult to decipher. If it didn’t make a difference in readability, I’d’n’t’ve said anything, but it did, so I pointed it out. I honestly could not understand your point because of the language you used to try to make it. So try proofing next time. And I’m not an End The Fed-er. I don’t like what they’re doing, but I understand the necessity of the thing in some areas.

      2)I don’t read Mises all that often. Certainly not often enough to have their talking points down pat. And again, what I have seen does not corroborate your claim. So I respectfully disagree with you on a matter of fact here.

      3) If you’d’ve ever read my original post, I said that I too am against crony capitalism. I’m just not a protectionist, which is what this seems to also be.

      I want liberty. Which is defined differently to you than to me apparently. My liberty is my freedom to do what I like within my rights unmolested by others.

      1. I want liberty. Which is defined differently to you than to me apparently. My liberty is my freedom to do what I like within my rights unmolested by others.

        It says a lot that you define liberty as your freedom to do what I like within my rights unmolested by others, but make no mention of others’ freedom to do what they like within their rights unmolested by you.  When you passionately argue ethical principles but forget to extend them to people who aren’t you, it looks a bit disingenuous.

        1. No, not really. I assumed that it would be understood that as I was talking about “my liberty” and not anyone else’s, as that’s what I typed. If I’d said only “liberty” I’d agree with you. If you’d like, I’ll extend out to liberty in general.

          Liberty is one’s right to do what one likes within one’s rights unmolested by others.

          1. And magick faeries with ‘rational self-interest’ dust make sure everyone’s unmolested….

          2. Sorry, you’re right.  If we’ve learned anything through history it’s that people and markets behave rationally and predictably. 

          3. The mechanisms of trade that we call the markets are predictable. Events are unpredictable, though humans’ reactions to those events are usually predictable. Nothing’s going to be perfect, but what we’ve got, or rather what is both possible and likely to be achieved in terms of a market and economic system, is better than any alternative I’ve come across.

            And the beautiful thing is that we can all disagree and argue on a comment thread about it. I think you’re wrong, you think I’m wrong, we’ll both work to advance our respective economic theories and policies and eventually some sort of middle will be reached. We’re getting ever-closer to having perfect information and discussion like this only facilitates that. And perfect information helps the markets run more smoothly. And government intervention diverts capital to sources that don’t require it and away from those that do.

            Really, I think most of the things that people believe in are approximately the same and would end up with nearly the same outcome, and we’re arguing over marginal differences. That’s all. I have to go now, so I won’t be responding on this thread again. I had fun, and wish you all the best.

          4. Nothing’s going to be perfect, but what we’ve got, or rather what is both possible and likely to be achieved in terms of a market and economic system, is better than any alternative I’ve come across.

            You aren’t looking hard enough then, there are other countries that are beating us in nearly every measure of success, coincidentally they’ve managed to balance the needs of their larger society with the needs of business.

          5. And yet, the word choice fits the philosophy.  Consider the following quote from Emily Brontë.  Substitute ‘economic theory’ for ‘Bible’ and you’ve defined libertarianism (at least as practiced on the internet.)

            He was, and is yet most likely, the wearisomest self-righteous Pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses to his neighbours.

          6. I’m sorry, I feel I’m missing your point here. Are you saying that because I said “my liberty” instead of “liberty” in general I’m a selfish libertarian? It might’ve just been that I was about to have to leave the house and I was just trying to put something down so that I could move on to the last few replies to me before I left. Or that I was distracted by someone calling me or a conversation I was having or the music I was playing or the tweet that popped up right by where I was typing. It’s not necessarily a Freudian keystroke. (Yeah, I’m hijacking the idea for my own nefarious purposes.)

            I simply defined my own liberty. I suppose if you’d like to break down my reasoning for adding “my,” aside from all of the other reasons I listed above, there’s the fact that I don’t really like telling others what something means to them. In my definition, liberty means to do what I like within my rights without molestation from others. And within my definition, someone else’s liberty is to do what they like within their rights without molestation from others. But within your definition of liberty, the same might not be true. I phrased it the way I did, among other reasons, because I wanted to leave room for other opinions and not sound like I was proclaiming that I had the ultimate definition of liberty and that I would not listen to others’. Though I must admit, I never thought I’d have to explain all of this when I wrote it. If I’d known, I’d probably rather have just come across as an intolerant ass (as we can all see that I’m not really afraid of being seen as an ass sometimes).

            If I’m wrong, do correct me, because I’d like to understand what you’re saying in this, I’m just afraid I’m missing the connection between your first sentence here and the rest of it, though I do understand them separately.

          7. I’m saying that your word choice is a Freudian slip that reveals the fundamentally self-centered nature of libertarian philosophy.  I’m not necessarily saying that you personally are self-centered because, thank God, most people don’t truly, deep-down believe every aspect of the philosophies that they espouse.  But the philosophy is predicated on the worship of self-liberty at the expense of all other life.

          8. Here is what many people mean when they say they adhere to a libertarian philosophy:

            Obviously this is not what every soi-disant libertarian means. But the philosophy of libertarianism, like socialism or liberalism or anarchism, is many things to many people. Humans may start from similar precepts and arrive at very different conclusions. You say the self-centered nature of libertarian philosophy, others say the egalitarian nature of libertarian philosophy, and both are correct for different people who call themsleves libertarians. But to dismiss anyone who advocates under a libertarian banner by pointing to the least defensible ‘libertarians’ is as irrational and unconstructive as those that do the same for other sociopolitical philosophies.

            But the philosophy is predicated on the worship of self-liberty at the expense of all other life.

            That is inaccurate. That many with no knowledge of the history of libertarian philosophy beyond the narcissistic rants of Ayn Rand misappropriate the term by applying it to themsleves and only themselves does not make all libertarians narcissistic.

            That said, I find it unlikely that you, Antinous, would dismiss people based on labels. But I do notice a tendency, on the interwebs, to address -isms in lieu of debating the ideas themsleves.

            I do not consider myself a libertarian, and I would meet almost no functional or historic definition of libertarian, but I find one of its core principles, the maximization of mutual liberty, to be an excellent basis for any social philosophy, and I find that this is not an uncommon outlook, even on the internet where cyber-libertarians have long been at the forefront of issues such as the crypto wars, free expression, and the freedom to exchange information.

          9. Well, I did qualify this as a reference to libertarians who comment on the internet. I’m sure that there are plenty of sane libertarians (and proponents of other political philosophies) out there. Internet comment threads are just not the best place to find them, since sane libertarians are probably just as appalled by crazy ones as everybody else is.

          10. Fair enough. And as I said, I know you’re too conscientious to make gross oversimplifications. My reply was mainly in the spirit of clarity. Those crazy libertarians you mentioned are the real source of frustration since they run otherwise sane ideas through the mud. Glen Beck, et al. are far more irritating to the sane libertarians (and libertarian-esque lefties such as myself) than Boingers could ever be.

            Edit: Also wanted to add my agreement that anyone who follows any philosophy with blindly religious zealotry is a moron and an oxygen-thief.

  24. I believe in progressive taxation, the closure of loopholes, &c. &c. &c.  

    But stuff like this makes me sick.  My desire is not to enforce an antagonistic rich vs. poor/middle-class dichotomy, but to effect a change in people’s thinking and remind everyone that as a society, we’re all in this together.  

  25. What do Cato/Mises/Reason interns get paid in?  If you swamp 500 political stories with neoliberal spam a day do you get a bonus of some kind?  A pass to the Koch picnic?

  26. Guys,  stop responding to Julian Delphiki. It’s like you’ve never seen a troll before :P

    Here’s a clue – he said this:
    “the model of capitalism us ultimately based on the assumption that rational people make decisions based on how well the outcomes would serve their long-term rational self-interest.

    I don’t know why you’re complaining about my critical thinking skills”
    Nobody in the world is stupid enough to juxtapose those two sentences unironically => troll.

  27. It’s funny/creepy to see how people assume that economy exists in a vacuum. It is not related to anything else and it is the standard according to which all things should be measured. Again, this goes beyond the economy, it has deeper roots and if it is not handled properly it can make a lot of damage to everything and everybody. 

    This attitude it’s like thinking that the battery life is all that matters in a smartphone, so you download an app that dims your screen to the bare minimum, and sets the cellphone to silent mode, in order to avoid vibration and sound that drain the battery. It also turns off your wifi and 3G, and if you have few signal bars, it won’t even try to spend more energy getting phone signal. Now your battery lasts 30% longer, but your phone is unusable. That is what’s happening with the economy. Economy is not a fucking end, it is a means to build a society worth living in. What’s the use of a 10% growth rate if you live in misery, without access to health care and starving? If more and more of the wealth goes to the same people, no matter if they are good or bad at their jobs. Economy as we know it cannot work in a society that is disfunctional and unstable, it is pretty nearsighted of those who defend the status quo to prevent this change. In the end, if your society breaks and there’s turmoil, all that virtual money in the Cayman islands won’t help you at all.

    1. A compounded 10% growth rate over a few years is really going to change the meaning of “no access to healthcare” and “starving” though.

      1. I see that you do not address any of the other points of my argument, neither my other posts about the personal responsibility of the bankers and the reasons why people are angry. 

        And, I could believe you, if it weren’t for the fact that the recent history of the US proves you wrong. It had good growth and wealth increased a lot, but it barely improved the general quality of life and income of the middle classes during the last 30 years or so, and access to health care is still not as good as in other, less rich countries with even less growth. If most of the fruits of the growth goes to the already rich parts of the society, but all of us are expected to share the sacrifice of the downturn, why any rational actor would want to keep playing that game?

        1. Sorry, I’d stepped away from my desk to take my roommate to her car. I was just scrolling through and saw that and responded. I’m not intentionally ignoring your comments, bud. Just fair warning to all, I’ll not be able to answer in another 30 minutes, so don’t be offended if, you know, I don’t respond to you. I’m probably not coming back after that anyway. I’ll post my schedule for the next month if it’ll make you all feel better, but beware, it’s subject to change.

          Listen, I’ve heard this argument before and there are different ways of generating these statistics and everyone picks out the ones that suit their argument best. A capitalist system’s got a top and a bottom, but a growing economy’s going to move the whole thing. Maybe it’ll stretch some, but I guarantee you that I personally would rather live in what we’ve got than what anyone else in the world’s got. No system doesn’t have a top and a bottom in implementation. Just pick which flavor you want and work for that or move to a place that suits you better. (This is not an “IF YOU DON’T LIKE AHMURICA THEN GTFO” post. I don’t want it to come off that way. Which is why I included the “work for that” option. Just clarifying, lest I be taken out of context.)

        2. Julian’s claims work if a person believes/pretends that wealth actually trickles down to help middle and working class people. But to honestly believe that, a person would need to have been in a cave avoiding the political economic events of the last 30 or 50 years.

      2. And, why is it preferable to a 8% growth in a more stable, better educated, fed and more healthy society?

        1. You can’t make consequentialist or utilitarian arguments on me. They don’t work. I’m more of a Kantian. Motives and means matter.

  28. Thank you Aneurin.  I saw the troll, but it managed to do a sexy little troll-dance before I called it and next thing I knew I was lecturing it about media and banking elites and the Glass-Steagall act.  
    Sigh.  Must be tired.  
    Solution – get my energy up with a delectable banking elite foie gras or a nice media elite meatshake

  29. The “Masters of the World” jacked the rest of us. 
    If you aren’t miffed by that and/or don’t get the joke and/or your delicate sensibilities are offended, well… maybe you need a “dinner invite”.

  30. Yeesh. I thought the original post was way to long and not funny enough to warrant the word count and giant, generic photos…

    And then I got to the comments.

    I usually love BoingBoing — articles and comments alike — but this page is just a red hot mess.

  31. Wow, congratulations, Anonymous: you just managed to make our side even more repulsive than Westboro Baptist Church, Operation Rescue’s Army of God faction, and the Tea Party all together. All Westboro does is peacefully cheer whenever somebody popular dies; all Operation Rescue’s Army of God faction does is assassinate people they don’t like and bomb their buildings; all the Tea Party does is threaten politicians by showing up armed to the teeth and threatening “second amendment remedies” if they don’t get their way. As repulsive as all those right-wing movements are, none of them descended to even tongue-in-cheek recommendations for mass murder and cannibalism. Way to go!

    I hate the banksters more than any of the rest of you, and have done so since before half of you realized what they were up to, but I hate whoever wrote this more than I hate the banksters, and I hate the lapse in judgment that approved this for one of the most widely-read blogs on the Internet even more. This needs to get deleted from the blog as soon as possible, please, before it does any more damage.

    1. All Westboro does is peacefully cheer whenever somebody popular dies; all Operation Rescue’s Army of God faction does is assassinate people they don’t like and bomb their buildings; all the Tea Party does is threaten politicians by showing up armed to the teeth and threatening “second amendment remedies” if they don’t get their way. As repulsive as all those right-wing movements are, none of them descended to even tongue-in-cheek recommendations for mass murder and cannibalism. Way to go!

      Right, because tongue-in-cheek is pretty much just as bad as deadly serious! It’s kind of like how when the Futurama writers have beloved robot character Bender say “kill all humans”, that makes them worse then people like Army of God who assassinate the occasional abortion doctor, because joking about killing 6 billion people is way worse than actually killing a small handful!

  32. Somewhat nonplussed that anyone reacted to this piece by registering a serious objection. Too much truth to be comfortable?

    1. “Somewhat nonplussed that anyone reacted to this piece by registering a serious objection. Too much truth to be comfortable?”

      I don’t think that’s the most likely scenario. But it’s likely enough that I do not want to be accused of joking about it, and I don’t want people who joke about it associated with my side of the argument over what are we going to do with the corrupt hedge funders and banksters who stole everything that wasn’t nailed down, and who pried loose a lot of stuff we thought was nailed down? As bad as what they did to the country was, and as corrupt as every real fortune in this country is, it is terrifyingly plausible that, if justice continues to visibly not be done, Americans might just rise up and kill everybody who owns a clean shirt.

      And no, I don’t want that.

  33. I find it sad that someone at BoingBoing found this article funny.   The people who are fucked in this economy are not the ones who bought espresso machines.   They are the ones who never could have bought espresso machines, and are either unemployed, underemployed, or working three jobs to keep up.   What this article is really describing is the somewhat rich eating the richer.   Which isn’t even remotely what OWS is about.

    In order for satire to be funny, it has to be satire of a real thing.   This is not satire of a real thing.   It comes across as right-wing satire precisely because it pretends that the people who are protesting are doing so because they are whiners.   They are not whiners.   It really is hard to make a living these days.   If you’re not finding it hard, it’s because you’re lucky, not because you’re virtuous.

  34. That would probably have something to do with the high cost of quality food.
    If all you can afford is cheap, filling, crap, full of saturated fats and high fructose corn syrup, it is frighteningly easy to be both dangerously obese, and ill from malnutrition.
    Just because someone is obese does not mean they are eating well – they are more likely to be sating their hunger with empty calories, because they can’t afford food with vitamins etc.

  35. Now read  ‘”The Last Supper” by Russell FitzGerald in Quark/2, edited by Samuel Delaney and Marilyn Hacker; Paperback Library,1971. This is really how to prepare people food.

  36. I’m rather sMITTen with the thought of a Robust Romney Remoulade, drizzled delicately to dress Breast of Bush Medallions & accompanied by a delightfully piquant Parchment Poached Perry Puree.

    But I don’t know, maybe Helen Mirren could offer a suggestion or two from the set of _The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover!_

  37.  The problem with eating the rich is that, due to better healthcare opportunities, they are often full of nasty antibiotics and artificial hormone treatments. I shall just have to stalk mid-afternoon pilates classes and yoga retreats to find one of the more palatable, hormone-free organic rich.

  38. this comment thread set the lulz cannon to kill! so great. WHILE INTERNETS R SRS BIZNS, THIS POST IZ NOT.

  39. I don’t think this article is very funny. Even if the people being vilified here believe in a doctrine of class warfare, it’s hardly the right move to agree with them. We don’t exist in dialectical opposition to investment bankers, we’re part of the same society and civilization. We all want a more stable and fair financial system, and we don’t need to eat anyone to make that happen. Taking that attitude, even jokingly, just fuels comments like Herman Cain’s; he said the protests were motivated by jealousy, and with articles like this bashing the rich as a class he’ll have plenty of justification the next time he says so.

    We’re all part of the same world and have to live in it together. Let’s not waste time on bitterness like this.

    1. No, I think you’re projecting your own goodness here:

      We all want a more stable and fair financial system

      No, I’m pretty sure there is a fairly sizable population (~10%, I’d guess) who are perfectly happy with the status quo. And a good subset who would love to see it move further in the wrong direction. That’s the 1%, and they absolutely should be devoured at the earliest opportunity.

      1. I doubt many wealthy people enjoyed having the values of their stock portfolios or homes plunge by nearly a quarter, especially given that a huge proportion of their net worth was likely invested in some fashion. I’m sure most of the wealthiest 1% would love a more stable financial system–one that wasn’t prone to bubble-based implosions certainly–and only the current incumbent leadership of many financial firms would prefer the status quo. They may be more apathetic than the average Joe on the issue, as they’re farther away from the risk of destitution, but the wealthy certainly have a stake in the state of the economy–in dollar terms, far more than anyone in the 99%!
        If we have a problem with the leadership of financial firms, then let’s complain about them and their practices. If we have a problem with the way our financial markets are regulated, let’s discuss how the SEC is run and talk about legislative solutions. These are specific policy issues. There’s simply no need to generalize our collective anger and frustration to the wealthiest 1%, which is what the satirical gist of this piece seems to be. 

        1. I doubt many wealthy people enjoyed having the values of their stock portfolios or homes plunge by nearly a quarter, especially given that a huge proportion of their net worth was likely invested in some fashion.

          Are you kidding? Depressions and recessions are when the wealthy soak up all the money that the middle class has been investing during the boom years.

          1. So the total invested wealth of the top 1% of Americans increased during 2007/8?  And have been growing at a rate significantly faster than stock market indices since then? The values of their property didn’t decline? The total market value of the companies they owned didn’t shrink precipitously? The US’s income inequality is atrocious, but also hasn’t risen since the early 2000s. I don’t know of any statistical backing for the statement that the wealthy “soaked up” any wealth during this crisis. The wealth invested by the middle class was destroyed, not stolen, and the same happened to the wealth of the wealthy.

            Unless you’ve seen statistics I haven’t, of course.

          2. Well, that’s a measure of CEO pay compared to average worker wage, not a comparison of the top 1% or rich Americans as a class. I took issue with the satirical article’s slant towards blaming the wealthy for the mess; I’d rather blame specific corrupt individuals and bad practices, and there’s plenty of blame to go around there–enough to fill several white collar prisons or at least generate a hell of a lot of settlements.

            Instead of focusing on these serious policy issues, though, I find that much of the focus of the protests is being wasted on condemning the wealthy and engaging in what is seen as “retaliatory” class warfare. Your reflexive assertion that the middle class’ income was being “soaked up” betrays this attitude somewhat; even if income inequality continues to increase it’s likely due to the same factors that have been causing the trend since its inception in the 1980s and not due to the recession at all. Nobody’s income is getting stolen by anyone else. Instead, conditions that lower labor demands by firms and favor capital-intensive  information-based technology have consistently depressed wages in the lowest quintiles of American society, leading to stagnating income and quality of life for those quintiles. This is a serious problem that is making a lot of people suffer, but it’s a collective action failure and not predation–as this article slyly implies by satirically suggesting reciprocating.

  40. Well, the piece is clearly satirical (isn’t the ridiculous stock photography enough of a hint?) 

    If the point of satire is to stimulate discussion, this is certainly working.

    And for the people who are simulating horror at the sentiment in the article, all I can do is simulate patience in return.  Of course nobody wants to eat anybody, ferpetesakes. 

      1. Crap! Couldn’t parrotboy have dived in 10 hours ago?!!

        Now I have to repack all the good silver I was tricked into soul-crushing debt to accumulate.

  41. “Nobody’s income is getting stolen by anyone else.”

    Tell that to the thousands of people who had had their houses taken away by mistake. Tell that to the fired workers while their bosses get even bigger bonuses.

    1. Your first example is a gut-wrenching case of a destructive corporate error, but represents a relatively small proportion of all foreclosed homeowners; most homes were foreclosed on because of irresponsibly constructed loans or bubbled asset pricing, both regulatory issues and in both cases the “value” of the house was destroyed by bad business practices and not stolen. Fired workers whose positions aren’t ever refilled are part of firm over-employment, and if their bosses got raises it’s part and parcel of company policies linking CEOs, boards of directors, and disinterested shareholders. A few were robbed, but all were made to suffer by bad markets. 

      I agree there are strong individual cases of greed and malfeasance, but saying the entire economic crisis was the product of greed by the wealthiest Americans and not collective action failure mistakes the worst offenses for the most significant causes. We can’t solve our problems with recrimination and blame; we need technical solutions to technical problems. Our rage and upset at the damage done by this economic crisis is well deserved, but directing it at the wealthiest 1% is scapegoating. Why not direct it at individuals, as the latter half of this article seems to with its silly recipe names? Why make wealth the determining factor for how “bad” they are instead of their actions?

  42. Incidentally, since a username keeps reminding me of them, someone should have  eaten Orson Scott Card before he got around to writing those awful Ender’s Shadow books. Is he rich?

  43. So today the OWS folks are gonna march uptown to the rich folks homes – like from the Five Points to where Martin Scorsese is dining with his family. Can’t Bill Cutting control these people?

  44. The problem is banks, governments and large companies need to learn to “take a loss”. Every bit of can-kicking is only prolonging the pain. I could go into a long discourse about the efficiency of middle-men when it comes to finance or politics (since both are seemingly joined at the hip), but it all boils down to TAKING THE LOSS.

    Debt needs to removed from the system, and not at the expense of someone barely scraping by on a pension. The large bondholders of sovereign governments and those substantially invested in the banking system – who reaped record profits after 2008, I might add – need to negotiate the haircut, and do it now.

    I also have an issue with people posting here complaining about anonymity. It is this attitude that allows full body scans, face recognition algorithms, scanners installed on school buses, CCTV networks with no accountability. Being able to post without fear of reprisal is a foundation of free expression. I’ll let the rest of you blithely line up and get your wrists tattooed with the new TSA boarding pass protocol (Oh wait, they haven’t done that yet… just wait.), but I’ll be damned if I will sit silently while someone posting some controversial satire gets piled-on for being anonymous.

    Like it or hate it, but don’t throw away free expression just because it gets under your skin. It isn’t “inconvenient” or “a real shame” — it is a basic RIGHT and should be defended.



    1. I certainly don’t oppose the concept of anonymity in general, or even for satirical articles that might cause unduly negative reaction to the writer. I was somewhat disappointed this was posted anonymously because it seemed such a departure from BoingBoing’s usual tone. I’ve grown fond of Cory Doctorow’s incident based reporting on all kinds of civil rights stories, and Xeni Jardin’s reports on the protests have always had a delightful human touch. This article, however, is basically an expression of blanket distaste for wealthy Americans in general. I miss the policy emphasis, I miss the fact-based complaints, and I certainly miss the touch of humanity and fair-mindedness the other writing here has. I thought it seemed like an abdication of the usual professionalism and basic respect I associate with the BoingBoing brand, so to speak. It felt cheap.

      If the author thinks they’d face some kind of reprisal for expressing this sort of sentiment, I certainly respect their desire to post it anonymously–however, I certainly dislike their attitude because it seems like a mirror of the ugly class-warfare attitude I see on the right.

  45. Eh, I’m a supporter of OWS and I think that even though it was supposed to be a humorous post I find it, (pardon the pun) tasteless. 

    This is just going to put more fuel on the flames of the opposition and we will have to work that much harder to put them out. 

Comments are closed.