Dear Friends,
The question for this post is should the United States base its economic system on capitalism as the best way to advance the economic interests and provide better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner and is such an economic system the best one to strive for the goal of true equality of opportunity for all.
The logical conclusion of my three prior posts on Capitalism in America is that if we are to approach true equality of opportunity, it is the society primarily through its government which must provide the love and inclusion; food, shelter and clothing; healthcare; education; and security that are critical to equal opportunity. In that case what is the role of capitalism? What are the cases in which an enterprise whose mission is to make money, will do a better job of providing goods or services than a government agency whose mission is to provide goods or services in an efficient and fair manner?
In the case of security, I have no doubt that it should be provided to the society by various levels of government. The goal of any society should be to constantly reduce the need for security, reduce crime, reduce emergencies like fires and reduce worldwide tensions that lead to conflicts and war. If a for profit enterprise were in charge of security, its profits would increase as the need for the services increased. There would be no incentive to reduce the need for those services or to work with other parts of the society to do so. So the police, fire and military should all be government agencies. Those agencies should not be permitted to outsource their jobs to for profit contractors for all the same reasons.
The same logic applies to the suppliers of job specific goods for security. For example, a for profit manufacturer of guns, ammunition, tanks, warplanes, etc. has an incentive to make money by selling more of these goods to the government which is in direct competition with the goal of the society. The government should make all of this type of good.
The goal of public education is to ensure that all members of the society have the education necessary to have equal opportunity. For profit schools have the goal of making money. I would not ban for profit schools or private not for profit schools, but I believe the government must provide free public education to all from infancy through university. This public education must be of the highest quality and provide all the education to ensure equality of opportunity. It must also be paid for by all the members of the society not just those who benefit directly. If the billionaire class can have their children educated in schools that are better and/or offer more options than the public schools, there will never be true equality of opportunity. That is not to say that all schools must offer all courses or activities, but it does say that within a community all students must have true access to all the courses and activities.
Healthcare is very much like education. All people are entitled to high quality healthcare. All people must have equal access to the best physicians and medical facilities regardless of their ability to pay. The goal of the society is to provide high quality healthcare to all and to reduce the need for healthcare. For profit healthcare providers make more money the more people they see and the more procedures they do. Neither the healthcare providers nor the insurance companies have any long term interest in reducing an individual's need for healthcare services but the society has exactly that interest. That is not to say that there could not be for profit doctors and hospitals. Private hospitals and clinics could offer services beyond those needed for the healthcare. For example if a private room were not necessary to provide the same level of care, a person with the money could pay for a private room. But a healthcare system where people with money get a higher quality of care than those with less money will never provide equal opportunity for all.
In the area of food, shelter and clothing, there is more room for capitalism to play a role. The society's goal is to be sure that all people have the food, shelter and clothing appropriate to have true equal opportunity in life. In a society where the government provides the security, education and healthcare sufficient to provide everybody with true equal opportunity, if the government also provides a minimum annual income to all to cover the cost of the appropriate food, clothing and shelter as well as a reasonable amount for other costs of living, a well regulated capitalist system would work well to provide these items.
One very clear exception to this approach is the provision of the goods and services that can be provided more efficiently through a monopoly or an oligopoly. Municipal water, electricity, gas, etc. are prime examples. Those items should be provided by and run by various levels of government to provide these services to all on an equal and fair basis. The internet is a complex issue in this regard. The government should not determine the content but neither should the biggest content providers be able to make access to some content more expensive than other content. Internet access for all should be a goal of society as should equal access to the internet by all content providers. If the government supplies the internet access to all, it can insure that all content providers have equal access without censoring access by some.
Capitalism as practiced in the United States has made the goal of love and inclusion for all more difficult not easier. The extreme disparity in wealth and income has created huge divisions and those with power/money have used those divisions to secure for themselves more power/money. Capitalism must be regulated to provide for true equality of opportunity. That is not to say that everybody must have or make the same amount of money. If a person can make more money than somebody else because he works harder or has an aptitude that demands higher pay, that is a fine result. On the other hand if a person makes more money than somebody else because he got the money from his parents or had more opportunity than others, that is a result we should be trying to avoid.
So I have concluded that the best approach to achieving true equality of opportunity is to reform not through out our current economic system. As a result, my next few posts on this subject will discuss the constitutional and legislative changes needed.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Capitalism in America, Part 2
Dear Friends,
In my last post, I said that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed us both economically and politically, but deferred the discussion of its failure politically to this post. The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, i.e. a country where the majority rules except as limited by its constitution. In the United States, our constitution has always contained a number of very un-democratic features. Some of these features have been removed, e.g. slavery and only white male landowners can vote. Others continue to exist, e.g. the Electoral College and each state gets two Senators. In recent decades, gerrymandering by both major parties and voter suppression, primarily by Republicans have been added to these structural impediments to make the United States even less of a democratic republic. Capitalism has failed us politically because as it is practiced in the United States, capitalism protects and enhances the money and power of the already rich and powerful at the expense of all the others and has, therefore, encouraged this movement away from a true democratic republic.
Electoral campaigns in the United States are bribery contests. They are not at all democratic. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of American adults who contribute to a political party, campaign or organization has grown from 11% in 1992 to 15% in 2016 and 32% of households with income over $150,000 make such a contribution compared to just 7% of those with family income of less than $30,000 (here). Making political contributions is for the wealthy. According to Open Secrets, only 0.68% of US adults made political contributions in excess of $200 in 2016. Of the $4,533,700,000 in political contributions in 2016, $2,606,200,000 or 57.5% were given by just 45,129 people or 0.018% of US adults. The Open Secrets website has lots of very interesting and disturbing data (here). If you have time, take a look.
There can be no logical or intellectually honest argument that our elected officials are not impacted by the people who make big contributions more than they are by those who make little or no contributions. Consider for example that in the days leading up to the passage of Trump's tax bill, somewhere around 55% of the American people we opposed to the law and about one-third were in favor of the law. Nevertheless, Congress passed it because the big Republican donors demanded it. Or consider that when the FCC repealed the net neutrality rules 80+% of Americans were in favor of keeping them, including over 70% of Republicans, but the big Republican donors demanded the repeal. I could go on and on, but you can provide examples of your own.
While there is some debate around the edges of the amount of influence of money in our elections, there is a clear consensus that it is extremely influential, particularly in state and local races. Capitalism in the United States has led to gross inequality in both income and wealth and hence power, including the ability to contribute to and hence influence the outcome of elections. Capitalism has allowed rich donors the ability to unduly influence local elections which has enabled state legislatures to gerrymander both state and congressional districts. This gerrymandering in recent elections has led to the Republicans winning far more seats in state legislatures and Congress than the number of people voting for them (in the aggregate) would justify.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from an Associated Press analysis (here):
We should try to remove the influence of money from politics, but money will always equate to power. Our form of capitalism protects and enhances the wealth (and therefore power) of the already rich (white) and prevents all others from achieving a level of income or wealth to challenge the economic and political status quo. We need to constrain our current capitalism so that it provides for true equality of opportunity which is the only way that we will be able to say that capitalism as practiced in the United States is an economic system that advances the economic interests and provides better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. How to accomplish that result is the topic of another post.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
In my last post, I said that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed us both economically and politically, but deferred the discussion of its failure politically to this post. The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic, i.e. a country where the majority rules except as limited by its constitution. In the United States, our constitution has always contained a number of very un-democratic features. Some of these features have been removed, e.g. slavery and only white male landowners can vote. Others continue to exist, e.g. the Electoral College and each state gets two Senators. In recent decades, gerrymandering by both major parties and voter suppression, primarily by Republicans have been added to these structural impediments to make the United States even less of a democratic republic. Capitalism has failed us politically because as it is practiced in the United States, capitalism protects and enhances the money and power of the already rich and powerful at the expense of all the others and has, therefore, encouraged this movement away from a true democratic republic.
Electoral campaigns in the United States are bribery contests. They are not at all democratic. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of American adults who contribute to a political party, campaign or organization has grown from 11% in 1992 to 15% in 2016 and 32% of households with income over $150,000 make such a contribution compared to just 7% of those with family income of less than $30,000 (here). Making political contributions is for the wealthy. According to Open Secrets, only 0.68% of US adults made political contributions in excess of $200 in 2016. Of the $4,533,700,000 in political contributions in 2016, $2,606,200,000 or 57.5% were given by just 45,129 people or 0.018% of US adults. The Open Secrets website has lots of very interesting and disturbing data (here). If you have time, take a look.
There can be no logical or intellectually honest argument that our elected officials are not impacted by the people who make big contributions more than they are by those who make little or no contributions. Consider for example that in the days leading up to the passage of Trump's tax bill, somewhere around 55% of the American people we opposed to the law and about one-third were in favor of the law. Nevertheless, Congress passed it because the big Republican donors demanded it. Or consider that when the FCC repealed the net neutrality rules 80+% of Americans were in favor of keeping them, including over 70% of Republicans, but the big Republican donors demanded the repeal. I could go on and on, but you can provide examples of your own.
While there is some debate around the edges of the amount of influence of money in our elections, there is a clear consensus that it is extremely influential, particularly in state and local races. Capitalism in the United States has led to gross inequality in both income and wealth and hence power, including the ability to contribute to and hence influence the outcome of elections. Capitalism has allowed rich donors the ability to unduly influence local elections which has enabled state legislatures to gerrymander both state and congressional districts. This gerrymandering in recent elections has led to the Republicans winning far more seats in state legislatures and Congress than the number of people voting for them (in the aggregate) would justify.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from an Associated Press analysis (here):
The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010.The AP analysis also found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.While gerrymandering often has racial overtones because people of color tend to vote for candidates from the Democratic Party, voter suppression efforts lead by state legislatures are more overtly racial and with the same effect to keep the rich (primarily white) in power.
We should try to remove the influence of money from politics, but money will always equate to power. Our form of capitalism protects and enhances the wealth (and therefore power) of the already rich (white) and prevents all others from achieving a level of income or wealth to challenge the economic and political status quo. We need to constrain our current capitalism so that it provides for true equality of opportunity which is the only way that we will be able to say that capitalism as practiced in the United States is an economic system that advances the economic interests and provides better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. How to accomplish that result is the topic of another post.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Capitalism in America, Part 1
Dear Friends,
I am in France for a couple of months and as I reflect back on America from outside its borders and as the year ends, I consider the idea that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed us both economically and politically and that is why we are where we are today - in a real crisis.
As you know, I am very disillusioned with the Democratic Party so much so that I began to consider joining the Democratic Socialists of America. Statements by leaders of the Democratic Party establishment make it clear to me that the Democratic Party has lost its way. When Nancy Pelosi was asked why the Democratic Party did not move to the left on economic issues the way it has on social issues, her response was "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is." She then went on to explain that capitalism in the United States had taken a turn to working only for those in power, but she still defended the idea of capitalism as is. She would never criticize her Wall Street donors or suggest significant changes to the economic status quo. In that regard, she epitomizes the Democratic Party establishment.
I have decided not to join the Democratic Socialists of America even though I agree with many of their positions, e.g. $15 an hour minimum wage, Medicare for all, pro-union, anti-discrimination of all kinds, etc. I will not join them because I am not ready to completely abolish capitalism in the United States. I am, however, ready to fight to change the way capitalism is practiced in the United States.
Capitalism and socialism are different forms of economic systems, but I believe the ultimate goal of any economic system must be to advance the economic interests and provide better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. In the United States from time to time, capitalism has done a good job of working towards this goal and at other times (such as the last 3 to 4 decades) has done a terrible job.
One way to measure whether or not capitalism is advancing the economic interests of all Americans, is to look at the wealth and income disparity in the country. It is important to remember that wealth disparity and income disparity, as the names imply, are not the same. First let's look at wealth disparity. The following chart is from an article on WhoRulesAmerica.net entitled Power, Politics, & Social Change by G. William Bomhoff (here).
As an update to the chart, in 2016 the top 1% held 38.6% of the wealth, according to the Federal Reserve (here). As you can see, we had the worst disparity in wealth right before the Great Depression and the stock market crash of 1929. We then had lower rates of disparity during the 1950s, 60s and 70s. But starting in the 1980s disparity has been constantly on the rise hitting a high in 1995 followed by modest declines and a major decline with the early 2000s recession. Since then disparity has continued to rise and 2016 provides the worst disparity since the Great Depression. There can be no doubt that with the passage of the Trump tax bill, wealth disparity will continue to rise.
Income inequality has shown a similar disturbing trend as can be seen from the following chart.
As you can see there is a close correlation with the changes in the wealth disparity. The disparity peaks just before the stock market crash of 1929, drops to much more reasonable levels during the 1950s, 60s and 70s and then begins its march upward with just little blips for recessions to once again be close to an all time high. David Leonhardt has a piece in The New York Times (here) entitled "Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart". He provides another look at this subject.
This data demonstrates that capitalism as practiced in the United States is not serving the economic interests or improving the living conditions of all. Data is equally clear that capitalism as practiced in the United States is not providing a sustainable model. Perhaps the best demonstration of that fact is global warming and pollution. Businesses operated under the United States version of capitalism are not required to account for the secondary costs and damages to the society of their actions; consequently the businesses make more money and the society bears the ecological cost of their activities. At certain times in the Untied States, legislation has attempted to require the businesses to pay these costs as with the superfund legislation but even in the best of times, these efforts were too little too late. The Trump Administration has done everything it can to eliminate or reduce the requirements that force businesses to pay for the secondary expenses they place on the society.
Global warming is an existential threat to the earth, and the United States has contributed more carbon emission over time to this crisis than any other country. Yet even under the Obama Administration, capitalism as it is practiced in the United States failed to provide a sustainable economic model and under the Trump Administration, we are even worse. The continued use of fossil fuels will destroy the earth and our capitalist system has no mechanism for curbing their use. Capitalism, left unchecked, will never provide an environmentally sustainable system.
There is no doubt that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed in its ultimate goal to advance the economic interests and provide better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. In another post, I will discuss how capitalism has also failed us politically.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
I am in France for a couple of months and as I reflect back on America from outside its borders and as the year ends, I consider the idea that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed us both economically and politically and that is why we are where we are today - in a real crisis.
As you know, I am very disillusioned with the Democratic Party so much so that I began to consider joining the Democratic Socialists of America. Statements by leaders of the Democratic Party establishment make it clear to me that the Democratic Party has lost its way. When Nancy Pelosi was asked why the Democratic Party did not move to the left on economic issues the way it has on social issues, her response was "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is." She then went on to explain that capitalism in the United States had taken a turn to working only for those in power, but she still defended the idea of capitalism as is. She would never criticize her Wall Street donors or suggest significant changes to the economic status quo. In that regard, she epitomizes the Democratic Party establishment.
I have decided not to join the Democratic Socialists of America even though I agree with many of their positions, e.g. $15 an hour minimum wage, Medicare for all, pro-union, anti-discrimination of all kinds, etc. I will not join them because I am not ready to completely abolish capitalism in the United States. I am, however, ready to fight to change the way capitalism is practiced in the United States.
Capitalism and socialism are different forms of economic systems, but I believe the ultimate goal of any economic system must be to advance the economic interests and provide better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. In the United States from time to time, capitalism has done a good job of working towards this goal and at other times (such as the last 3 to 4 decades) has done a terrible job.
One way to measure whether or not capitalism is advancing the economic interests of all Americans, is to look at the wealth and income disparity in the country. It is important to remember that wealth disparity and income disparity, as the names imply, are not the same. First let's look at wealth disparity. The following chart is from an article on WhoRulesAmerica.net entitled Power, Politics, & Social Change by G. William Bomhoff (here).
Table 4: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in
the United States, 1922-2013.
|
|
Bottom
99 percent
|
Top
1 percent
|
|
1922
|
63.3%
|
36.7%
|
|
1929
|
55.8%
|
44.2%
|
|
1933
|
66.7%
|
33.3%
|
|
1939
|
63.6%
|
36.4%
|
|
1945
|
70.2%
|
29.8%
|
|
1949
|
72.9%
|
27.1%
|
|
1953
|
68.8%
|
31.2%
|
|
1962
|
68.2%
|
31.8%
|
|
1965
|
65.6%
|
34.4%
|
|
1969
|
68.9%
|
31.1%
|
|
1972
|
70.9%
|
29.1%
|
|
1976
|
80.1%
|
19.9%
|
|
1979
|
79.5%
|
20.5%
|
|
1981
|
75.2%
|
24.8%
|
|
1983
|
69.1%
|
30.9%
|
|
1986
|
68.1%
|
31.9%
|
|
1989
|
64.3%
|
35.7%
|
|
1992
|
62.8%
|
37.2%
|
|
1995
|
61.5%
|
38.5%
|
|
1998
|
61.9%
|
38.1%
|
|
2001
|
66.6%
|
33.4%
|
|
2004
|
65.7%
|
34.3%
|
|
2007
|
65.4%
|
34.6%
|
|
2010
|
64.6%
|
35.4%
|
|
2013
|
63.3%
|
36.7%
|
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996). 1992-2013 data from
Wolff (2014).
Figure 3. Share of total income earned by people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution
As you can see there is a close correlation with the changes in the wealth disparity. The disparity peaks just before the stock market crash of 1929, drops to much more reasonable levels during the 1950s, 60s and 70s and then begins its march upward with just little blips for recessions to once again be close to an all time high. David Leonhardt has a piece in The New York Times (here) entitled "Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart". He provides another look at this subject.
This data demonstrates that capitalism as practiced in the United States is not serving the economic interests or improving the living conditions of all. Data is equally clear that capitalism as practiced in the United States is not providing a sustainable model. Perhaps the best demonstration of that fact is global warming and pollution. Businesses operated under the United States version of capitalism are not required to account for the secondary costs and damages to the society of their actions; consequently the businesses make more money and the society bears the ecological cost of their activities. At certain times in the Untied States, legislation has attempted to require the businesses to pay these costs as with the superfund legislation but even in the best of times, these efforts were too little too late. The Trump Administration has done everything it can to eliminate or reduce the requirements that force businesses to pay for the secondary expenses they place on the society.
Global warming is an existential threat to the earth, and the United States has contributed more carbon emission over time to this crisis than any other country. Yet even under the Obama Administration, capitalism as it is practiced in the United States failed to provide a sustainable economic model and under the Trump Administration, we are even worse. The continued use of fossil fuels will destroy the earth and our capitalist system has no mechanism for curbing their use. Capitalism, left unchecked, will never provide an environmentally sustainable system.
There is no doubt that capitalism as practiced in the United States has failed in its ultimate goal to advance the economic interests and provide better living conditions for all in a sustainable manner. In another post, I will discuss how capitalism has also failed us politically.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Assholes, A Theory
Dear Friends,
I just finished a book by Aaron James entitled Assholes, A Theory. James is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He has a blog entitled "On Assholes/More Theory" (here). The book was interesting but slow at times, but I really loved the chapter on Asshole Capitalism. His thesis provides a very good way to understand the existence and rise of Asshole Capitalism and the incredible danger it represents to a fair and just society. I cannot do justice to the book and its thesis, but I want to give you my thoughts (borrowing heavily from James and the philosophers he cites).
When James described himself as a "progressive in the style of John Rawls, he went on to describe the style of John Rawls (p. 156). I think that he described my beliefs as well. Roughly the Rawls style calls for
So what does a fair and just society look like. Rawls (as paraphrased by James) has a good definition. (p. 160)
It is equally true that you can not possibly have a just and fair society if assholes are in charge and the economic system is based on asshole capitalism.
I believe that I can safely say that many of the riches people in our country are assholes and that our economy has become one of asshole capitalism. Senator Bernie Sanders' Facebook posts contain significant evidence to support my position. For example,
It is this sense of absolute entitlement regardless of the cost to others or society, that if it runs rampant will destroy real capitalism. As James says (p. 161-2)
"SOCIAL LIFE CAN BE FAIRER AND LESS FOUL, IF, BUT ONLY IF, COOPERATORS OF THE WORLD UNITE."
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
I just finished a book by Aaron James entitled Assholes, A Theory. James is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He has a blog entitled "On Assholes/More Theory" (here). The book was interesting but slow at times, but I really loved the chapter on Asshole Capitalism. His thesis provides a very good way to understand the existence and rise of Asshole Capitalism and the incredible danger it represents to a fair and just society. I cannot do justice to the book and its thesis, but I want to give you my thoughts (borrowing heavily from James and the philosophers he cites).
When James described himself as a "progressive in the style of John Rawls, he went on to describe the style of John Rawls (p. 156). I think that he described my beliefs as well. Roughly the Rawls style calls for
(1) equal basic liberties; (2) fair equality of opportunity in access to positions of greater reward and power, which dramatically mitigates the effects of fortunate birth; and (3) limits on the inequalities in income and wealth we allow in order to create incentives for hard work, risk taking, an so on, so that they must work out, over time, to the greatest advantage of the least well off social class.Rawls thesis allows for a capitalist system but with limits. James reaches that same conclusion as I will discuss in a moment. First, I should give you James' definition of an asshole. Please understand that James takes great pains to be clear about his definition of an asshole. I am only quoting here is own summary (pages 4-5).
... a person counts as an asshole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.James posits that the reason to select a capitalist system is that its core purpose is to provide freedom, opportunity, and general prosperity. Asshole capitalism will in fact destroy capitalism. "The culture of an asshole capitalist system ... sends just this kind of strong entitlement message. Roughly, the message is that you can rightly get something for nothing or get rich without having to worry about the cost to others." (p. 145)
So what does a fair and just society look like. Rawls (as paraphrased by James) has a good definition. (p. 160)
Rawls suggests that we are to consider what kind of society we would be willing to live in, assuming that we are ignorant of our particular social position, including such things as our race, gender, class, or talents. The just society is the one we would each accept from this impartial point of view.While it is hard for me, as a person born with great privilege, to actually construct a society in that manner, I know very well that we are far from anything that would construct be consistent with that definition. I also know that we could construct a fair and just society that uses capitalism for its economic model. Capitalism that has as its goals freedom, opportunity and general prosperity is entirely consistent with the just and fair society envision by Rawls.
It is equally true that you can not possibly have a just and fair society if assholes are in charge and the economic system is based on asshole capitalism.
I believe that I can safely say that many of the riches people in our country are assholes and that our economy has become one of asshole capitalism. Senator Bernie Sanders' Facebook posts contain significant evidence to support my position. For example,
The Koch brothers clearly represent the assholes that are destroying the capitalist system that America had been striving for - one that provides freedom, opportunity and general prosperity and certainly one that Rawls could support. To make a few more dollars which the Koch brothers wrongly believe they are entitled to, they will take those dollars from those in our country who need them the most and in many cases have not had the opportunity to be financially successful.
James discusses what entitlements are warranted and how to determine them. This paragraph (p. 157) made the issue quite clear to me.
What one is entitled to, we may assume, is fair treatment by the system of social cooperation overall. Any specific entitlements one has are then subject to adjustment as needed for cooperation to be fair to all. So if the social promises of capitalism require increasing teacher or trash collector pay, then teachers and trash collectors will have a moral entitlement to a pay increase. And if those same promises include things like well-maintained roads and schools and refuse services, where this requires things like capping or heavily taxing banker or CEO bonuses, then bankers and CEOs have no moral entitlement against this change in the rules. All is fair if needed for capitalism to actually do what it is suppose to.James goes on to tell the story of the meeting, at the beginning of the Great Recession, when Hank Paulson meet with the big banks to tell them that the government would bail them out with taxpayer money (p. 158). The immediate question by John Thain, Merrill Lynch CEO was "What kind of protections can you give us on changes in compensation policy?" By any definition of an asshole, John Thain is one and his expectation of entitlement also demonstrates the entitlement feel by the big banks. They believe that they are entitled to all the profits, and the taxpayers can bear the risk.
It is this sense of absolute entitlement regardless of the cost to others or society, that if it runs rampant will destroy real capitalism. As James says (p. 161-2)
One comes to own those benefits as one's own in an absolutist sense, quite aside from what fairness requires in the system of cooperation through which those benefits are created. It is this that gives entitlement capitalism an especially strong tendency to undo itself. Society becomes awash with people who are defensively unwilling to accept the burdens of cooperative life, out of a righteous sense that they deserve ever more.
James argues that capitalism can only fulfill its intended purposes (freedom, opportunity and general prosperity) if enough people "do enough to uphold the set of practices or institutions, at some cost to themselves" (p. 162) that support capitalism and hold asshole capitalism at bay.
In the United States asshole capitalism has taken hold. Unfortunately, there is no clear path forward to push back at it. We need many more people willing to fight against asshole capitalism and for a cooperative world that provides fairness and justice. After reading James' chapter on how to proceed, I am very concerned. James quotes Kant (p. 176) as saying "If justice goes, there is no longer any value in human beings' living on the earth." Fortunately, James does not leave it there but goes on to paraphrase Rawls (p. 178)
we can be reconciled to our condition, despite its evils, callousness, and unfairness, as long as we can credibly see the possibility of achieving a reasonably just social order.
James ends his book with a clear message about how to proceed (p. 185)
The extent to which assholes pervade and undermine social life is to a large extent up to us. Assholes are produced by society, but society is ours to make and remake...We can together reject asshole capitalism and firmly resolve to move toward a more stable, more decent, and more just capitalist order, on a national and global scale.I leave you with the last sentence of James' book and his call to arms. (p. 187 bold and capitalizations are mine)
"SOCIAL LIFE CAN BE FAIRER AND LESS FOUL, IF, BUT ONLY IF, COOPERATORS OF THE WORLD UNITE."
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
