This, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5767/ is a long read, but I think it is worthwhile. I have to admit. I have never read Marx. At least, when I tried to read some, I could not stay engaged with it. On the other hand, I have read just about everything by Rand, a fair amount of Friedman, and other pro capitalist essays. What most of you don't accept is that I agree that capitalism does a lot of what it says it will. Namely it well rewards those who are successful and provides the needed incentive to encourage risk taking. What it also does, however, is establish very sharp gaps between winners and losers and it creates social problems that many are not happy with. Somewhere in the 80's, the attitude that you did not rub your wealth in the face of others was replaced by an attitude of "Fuck you, you're just jealous that you aren't as smart as me." That attitude persists today.
This link here is to Andrew Carnegie's essay called, "The Gospel of Wealth". Nothing I have ever read more succinctly describes my views then this piece. In general terms, Carnegie "preaches" it is right and just for a very few to have enormous control of vast sums of wealth. Moreover, he says it is a natural consequence of markets, and on that score, I agree with him. However, from here, he begins to steer in a much different direction and preaches that the wealth is not really the property of the wealth holder, rather it is an accumulation of community that the wealth holder needs to reinvest wisely in the community.
In the communist world, control of the economy and everything else is planned by bureaucrats and predictably, this has failed. However, now that we have reached a point in our society where the majority of wealth is again concentrated in a small pool of hands, we see communities collapsing everywhere. I believe that some of the best brains of our day are rightfully wealthy and successful. However, I also believe they are essentially just hoarding the money and sitting back contently while the country around them goes to shit. I've frequently made mention that people of my grandparent's generation did not live so selfishly. After the great depression, they basically told the wealthy that if you won't help manage the community with your money, we will take it and do it for you. I don't quite like that solution, but it I see it as preferable to creating a super race of wealthy who will simply spawn and do nothing but sit back and live off the wealth they gained after others paved the way for them. Obama has been endlessly ridiculed for his, "You didn't build that" comment, but the ridicule is fierce solely to stop people from actually considering what he is really saying.
If I'm a Marxist and agree 100% with what Carnegie is saying here, what does that make him?
In a nutshell, capitalist economies have booms and busts. The booms usually last much longer than the busts, and historically the boom after the most recent bust added more jobs and increased wages. However, in the last 100 years of American capitalism things have taken a drastic turn for the worst. First, we had a republican, Woodrow Wilson allow for the establishment of the Federal Reserve, a.k.a. a central bank that the founders warned us about setting interest rates artificially high or in our current situation, artificially low. Then, we had the bust in 1929 that ushered in FDR, what a failure that was. Grossly high taxes, social programs, regulation after regulation, and nationalization of assets and key industries. Then with a super majority in Congress, the little POS tyrant threatened the USSC with stacking if they disagreed with his proposed legislation. This opened the door post-WWII for ever expanding government and regulations that are stifling American ingenuiety along with failed trade agreements with countries like China.
ReplyDeleteAnother reality is the fact our tax code is screwed up. Business should not be taxed or taxed at a flat rate much lower than 35% and no subsidies given whatsoever, without exception. Why do corporations have lobbies? To either get a subsidy to a tax break. Also, if we are going to continue our unfair personal income tax situation, we need to make sure everyone pays something regardless of income. If even the "poor" had some skin in the game, they would think twice before voting for a party that promises them cradle to grave payments to secure further party votes in the future.
Lastly, immigration reform must be addressed. We used to be a country where hard working immigrants arrived via a port like Ellis Island and many were turned back due to health, or criminal issues. Now they poor in through our southern border with little or no consequence. Get in line like my forefathers did, and wait for your turn. How many Americans could find jobs if the wetbacks had to get wet again to go back home and the "jobs wanted" signs showed up all across America?
The Fed has played an enormous role in our collapse. But, I don't think many people know how, or even agree on how they have done it. What I find a little hard to square in what you are saying Brian is that in the recent financial boom bust, it was very quick and the extent of the damage was massive. Yes, the Fed played a part, but the Greenspan fed was did not act the way the Volker Fed did. Like the CRA, Glass/Steagall, FHA and so on, the Fed was an agency that at least existed for a long time without causing damage. The worship of Alan Greenspan had as much to do with that as anything. I guess I'm saying I see a difference between the existence of something and how it is manipulated. As for FDR, in some ways, he was a bastard and the SCOTUS stuff was over the top. But tell me, what POTUS hasn't had that mentality? It goes with the job. Still, despite high taxes, strong unions, good benefits and so on, the nation thrived. I believe there is a lot more to this picture then you are willing to take on.
ReplyDeleteAs for taxes, well, we did that under Reagan and over time the deductions came back WITH the low rates. The paper rate is 35%. What corporations actually pay is much lower. To say the poor have no skin in the game is kind of ridiculous. The truly poor pay a lot of hidden taxes that you and I don't even think about. My credit union doesn't charge me to have a bank account. What about the poor though? Every interaction they engage in has someone skimming them. And they make a hell of a lot less money. They don't pay income taxes because they don't make enough money. The wealthy who control our business could divest some of their burden by paying workers better.
But, I had really wanted to start a discussion on what Carnegie was saying.
Edit: what I meant to say was that worship of Greenspan had a lot to do with the role the Fed played. Not only that, but his influence across the entire legislative process as a guru was unquestioned and the guy was freaking knighted. He was also a tireless champion of deregulating everything. IMO, I believe you can draw precise timelines linking certain deregulations with the massive expansive of Too Big To Succeed banks. After it all went to shit, AG himself came to congress and said he "found a flaw in the model" of his free market thinking.
DeleteHere you go, you commie. ;-)
Deletehttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/4-ways-the-government-is-discouraging-hiring-2013-06-06?pagenumber=1
In short, more trickle down economics. I found it interesting to tap on some of the Madoff links on that page and hear him say that lack of supervision is in part how he got away with what he did for so long. Objectively, I believe local economies grow when you are producing something people need. There has been a shift in thinking here to want to make money by shuffling paper. We have exhausted a lot of ideas though and at this point, business is simply arbitraging labor, which is to say, they are making the same stuff year after year and just keep moving the production.
DeleteI still want to talk about what Carnegie said though. Is he a communist for suggesting what he says in the essay?
Test
ReplyDelete