This post is written purely on [blind] emotion so I know from an economic – and possibly legal – point of view, there are holes in my argument all over the place, but I make no apologies because this is about life.
Like everyone else, I am very upset at the devastation being caused by the Victorian bush fires.
And like everyone else who either lives – or has lived – in Australia, I have friends who have been affected by the terror and horror that is going on there.
One of my friends, Tom, has lost everything.
His home has been destroyed, leaving nothing but the clothes he and his family were wearing when they managed to escape the fire that came towards them at a speed they found hard to comprehend.
Tom is being fairly upbeat.
As much as the guy has lost 40+ years of possessions, his family are alive and unharmed, which is more than can be said for some of his neighbours.
He accepts he lived in a higher-risk bush fire area. He accepts living there meant he was always going to be charged eye-wateringly high premiums on his house insurance. He accepts that one day his worst nightmares could come true.
But he asks for no money or support – because he believes there are other people out there that need and deserve it more.
Tom is the best of Australia.
Now let’s look at another situation.
Like everyone else, I am very upset at the devastation being caused by the economic collapse.
A loose acquaintance of mine, Steven, has lost everything.
His house, car and furniture has been taken away from him, leaving him nothing to do but to move back into his parents house at the age of 42.
Seeing all the trappings of his credit card taken away, Steven is angry, miserable and upset.
He doesn’t accept he lived a life built on financial sand. He doesn’t accept he should be forced out of the over-priced, image based home he bought. He doesn’t accept that all financial bubbles burst at some point.
Which is why he asks for money and support – because he thinks he needs and deserves it as much as anyone else.
Steven is a total wanker.
So how come the Australian Government are pumping billions [that’s with a ‘B’] to help people like Steven and yet have only put forward a fund of AU$10 million [that’s with a ‘M’] to help people like Tom?
I appreciate that in harsh terms, more people may be affected by the economic collapse than the bushfires – good, decent people who are about as different as Steven as you can get. I accept Australia’s prosperity is more linked to keeping the economy afloat than stopping houses and communities from being burnt down to the ground. I accept there are chaos-theory implications to the economy rather than the bushfires … but for all the tears and claims of arsonists being murderers, the fact is that the financial response to the people like Tom is a slap in the face – a demonstration that the urban wealthy are worth more than the calm community – and whilst I am sure the donations will come piling in from the good people of Australia [forcing the Government to stump up more cash to ensure embarrassment is kept to a minimum] I still find the inequality in the value of human misery terrible.
I know you can’t truly compare like-with-like – but at a time where Governments all around the World are talking ‘billions’ like it’s loose change, I find it tragic that at a time of genuine tragedy, they only think talking interms of ‘millions’ is necessary, even though the banks and utility companies will still expect their mortgage payments to be made on time as usual.
It’s only because people like Tom are such decent folk they can get away with it.