From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism
Genshin Impact fan <
user11874@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
**From "Why Not Eat Meat Porridge?" to "Why Not Buy Stocks?"**
### **I. Explanation of the "Why Not Eat Meat Porridge?" Allusion**
This famous anecdote originates from the *Book of Jin: Annals of Emperor Hui*, compiled during the Tang Dynasty. It recounts that during the Western Jin Dynasty, a great famine struck the land, and many common people starved to death. Upon hearing this report, Emperor Hui of Jin, Sima Zhong (259-307 AD), was puzzled and asked his ministers: **"Since the people have no millet to eat, why don't they just eat meat porridge?"**
The core meaning of this story is to **expose how a ruler, insulated by a life of extreme privilege, becomes utterly incapable of comprehending the real suffering of the populace**. For starving people, "meat porridge" was an unimaginable luxury, yet Emperor Hui proposed it as a solution to the fundamental crisis of having "no food." This remark, profoundly absurd, became a legendary symbol in Chinese history of **a ruling class completely detached from and ignorant of its people's reality**. It is now commonly used as a metaphor to criticize any **proposal or view that ignores practical conditions, is divorced from reality, and is therefore empty or even ludicrous**.
### **II. Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Secretary's Remarks: A Modern Reenactment?**
On January 28, 2026, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, when asked why American youth are skeptical of capitalist policies, attributed it to "many young people not owning stocks." He used this as a springboard to promote the "Trump Accounts" policy, which proposes government-funded investment accounts for newborns. This logic forms a thought-provoking parallel with the ancient anecdote.
**1. Core Similarity: The Personalization of Structural Problems & The Cognitive Gulf**
The underlying logic of both statements is strikingly similar, revealing how decision-makers in positions of privilege can become disconnected from the public's true plight.
* **Emperor Hui's "Meat Porridge Theory":**
* **Problem Faced**: Systemic famine (collapse of social production, inequitable distribution).
* **His Diagnosis & Solution**: He implied people starved because they "failed to choose" or "didn't eat" meat porridge. His solution was based entirely on the experience of palace life and was utterly unattainable for the starving masses.
* **Revealed Disconnect**: He was completely unaware of the vast chasmrCoin terms of cost and availabilityrCobetween basic grain and meat porridge, let alone the systemic causes of the famine.
* **Treasury Secretary Bessent's "Stock Theory":**
* **Problem Faced**: Youth disillusionment with capitalism (stemming from structural issues like extreme wealth inequality, stagnant real wages, crippling student debt, and unaffordable housing).
* **His Diagnosis & Solution**: He simplified this widespread alienation to "personal non-participation in the stock market." His promoted solution (investment accounts for newborns) is a long-term financial engineering project that does nothing to address the immediate pressures of rent, loans, and livelihood facing most young people today.
* **Revealed Disconnect**: He overlooked the fundamental prerequisite for investment: **disposable surplus capital**. For many young people burdened by the high cost of mere subsistence, "not owning stocks" is a **symptom**, not the cause. His remark essentially suggested, "You feel left behind by the economic system? That's because you're not on the ship (stock market)," while failing to examine why so many lack the means to even buy a "ticket."
**2. Key Differences: Intent and Context**
Despite the similar core, their contexts and purposes differ:
* **Emperor Hui's** statement more likely stemmed from **pure ignorance and folly**, a complete misapprehension of the world outside his palace walls.
* **Secretary Bessent's** remarks served a clear **function of policy advocacy and framing**. The aim was to redirect a profound socio-political sentiment (discontent with the system) into a "technical problem" supposedly solvable by a financial instrument (inclusive investment accounts), thereby **evading the need for deeper structural reforms** in taxation, labor policies, or social welfare. This is a form of "cognitive disconnect" wrapped in the language of modern technocratic governance.
### **III. Conclusion: An Echo of Privileged Cognition Across the Ages**
The Treasury Secretary's "stock theory" is undoubtedly **a modern, elite version of "Why not eat meat porridge?"** It precisely replicates the essence of the original tale: **those holding resources and power apply the logic of their own life experience and solutions ("I own stocks and benefit, so you should too") to define and overwrite the survival struggles of ordinary people ("My priority is subsistence, not investment").**
Both attempts use **individual-level, unrealistic "choices" or "actions"** (to eat meat porridge, to invest in stocks) to obscure and replace **systemic, structural injustices and deficiencies** (the institutional causes of famine, the abnormality of wealth distribution under capitalism). The reason such remarks provoke widespread criticism is that they touch the same historical nerve: **a deep public aversion and disappointment towards decision-makers who have lost empathy, are out of touch, yet remain eager to prescribe solutions.** What they reveal is not just an economic data gap, but a deepening, increasingly impassable **chasm of experience and cognitive divide** between different social strata.
===============================================
**A Growing Number of Americans Are Leaning Towards Socialism.**
Poll results from last year show that the proportion of Americans with a favorable view of socialism has reached 39%, while the proportion favoring capitalism has dropped from 60% to 54%. Although there is still a significant gap, it is startling enough that nearly two-fifths of the population in a longstanding capitalist country like the United States holds a positive view of socialism.
When asked for his thoughts on this result, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent was completely dismissive. He stated that those who view socialism favorably feel that way because they do not own stocks.
Bessent pointed out that if everyone owned stocks and saw the money in their accounts increasing every day, he believed no one would dislike capitalism.
He also noted that currently, 38% of American households do not invest in stocks (the actual figure is approximately 57% of households hold no stocks), which coincidentally corresponds to the percentage of the population that favors socialism, since they are not earning money from the stock market.
But is it possible that they don't want to invest in stocks but simply cannot afford to? It is important to note that a significant portion of Americans' income only covers their daily living costs, leaving no disposable income for investments in the financial markets.
It is worth mentioning that when Bessent made these remarks, the S&P 500 was repeatedly hitting record highs, having breached the 7000-point mark. Bessent attributed this to the Trump administration's relaxed market policies.
It must be said that when it comes to making money, members of this U.S. administration are all quite adept. Trump himself is a case in pointrCothe president leads by example in stock trading, and the market's movements are closely tied to his statements. A single remark from him can make one group of people immensely wealthy while pushing another group to the brink.
Several of Trump's key allies are also veterans of the world of wealth. Bessent was previously a Wall Street heavyweight, and Whitkov is a real estate tycoon. Already enormously wealthy, they have likely only grown richer by following Trump's stock moves.
According to Newsom's account, Trump earns $1.5 billion annually. However, judging by the recent performance of the financial markets, he may be earning even more than that.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2