I'd like to debate your statement that economic inequality is a function of capitalism. I'm more inclined to say it is a function of human nature. When we speak of forms of government, I don't believe there has ever been a form of government in which there was not economic inequality.
There is nothing wrong with economic inequality. The only problems are the extremes and abuses. Most of us would agree slavery is not acceptable today. As you state, we can have "social policies" that help with the problems of economic inequality.
Thanks, John! I'm always open for debate. Sometimes it's just a matter of getting the nuance into the picture to clarify points of view. You make some excellent points.
I agree that economic inequality is part of the human experience and happens under all forms of government. I also agree that the issue is about extremes and abuses. I'm also not stating a preference for socialism or communism, etc. Capitalism is highly useful and has its defects.
In making my statement that economic inequality is a function of capitalism, I'm taking a point of view that ties private money creation (fractional reserve banking) in the form of debt (usually loaned against income or assets) as the systemic force that leads toward extreme and abusive outcomes. Common Sense Paper No. 17 adds this point, "Debt growth brings greater economic inequality—ouch! Rising inequality is inevitable based on the current structure and rules of the system."
We could find ways to allow capitalism to operate with less extremes and abuses. So let me restate my phrase, "economic inequality in our current system of capitalism is heavily driven by our monetary system and the rules governing fractional reserve banking." The rules around taxation and inheritance also play a role over time and across generations.
My concern is that in the rush of life (which all of us are afflicted with) there is a lot of pure "Capitalism vs Socialism" points of view without considering the nuances and details. You do a fantastic job of delving into those nuances.
Our current system (in the USA) places a lot of barriers to the common person becoming "wealthy". In that regard it's easy to be opposed to capitalism. Also we have a long history of the capitalist "titans" abusing the power their wealth has given them.
So in our hatred of capitalism, socialism is pushed without consideration that great wealth inequality (and abuses) also exist!
For those horrified by how huge our government has grown and how socialist the USA has become, capitalism is held up as the great shining light of success that has made the USA. However we forget our humanity and social responsibility.
Like "Democrat vs Republican", we can't just take "Capitalism vs Socialism" as the only extremes to be considered. We must look into the nuances and the reasons for each approach.
Yes, innovating beyond the two-party system is critical for establishing some democracy. And of course, the problems we all have with the two-party system are all in place by design. It is no accident, an idea that reminds me of those who said the British Empire was created absentmindedly. LOL
We know the problem; it is a global monetary system that concentrates wealth and power to the wealthiest few who then use that power to influence public policy for maximizing their profits. They are not interested in fixing things; their only interest is in maximizing profits and control. The two parties serve the same masters with different PR to maintain the theater that they are representing their bases. However, it is a fraud, we are ruled by an unelected government that owns our national sovereignty. We need to elect a new government that will take our national sovereignty back.
Fadhel Kaboub along with Joe Firestone were enlisted in 2018 to defend the MMT proposals to change the Green Party Platform but he never showed. Perhaps he didn't want to defend MMT, I don’t blame him. Anyway, since we hadn't heard from him, I thought I would listen to this talk of his on YouTube and was very pleasantly surprised. Still, as with all academics like Christine Desan, Saule Omarova, etc. they must be careful what they say to maintain their positions. Here Kaboub lays out how the extreme economic injustice by design in Africa works.
Restructuring the Global Economic architecture, which is extractive and thus destructive, will require a just monetary transition to monetary sovereignty for all nations. Without that I think food and energy sovereignty cannot be achieved.
"These authors find that a crisis of democracy typically occurs in one of four settings: 1) political polarization, 2) racism and nativism, 3) economic inequality, and 4) excessive executive power.1 The unique challenge of our times is the simultaneous burden of all four factors impacting American political life."
All four factors are driven by those who control the system that creates and allocates the money.
I like to point out to people that the industrial bankers began influencing universities in the late 19th century to gain academic support for their central bank proposal, meaning central control of money creation by the biggest banks. They funded the creation of Economics departments and Political Science departments again by design to suppress the study of Political Economy. You see, they made Economics be the study of wealth while ignoring power (money) and Political Science the study of power while ignoring wealth (money). Political Economy is the study of the relationship between power and wealth. The political, environmental, and social mess we are in is all by design. A structurally flawed design that has been concentrating wealth to the top of over 400 years. And because all the money is created as interest-bearing debt the problems will continue to get worse and worse until we change the system.
[Comment: I don’t think the authors of the Federalist Papers felt the common men were capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice, rather that it should be left to their betters. ]
Political polarization
I think our society over time has been taught and encouraged that political discrimination is fair game for civil society. We should listen to what George Lakey says about polarization. “Political scientists have discovered that economic inequality drives political polarization. The economic driver of inequality is far more powerful than civil discourse can manage.”
You mention choice and reflection, I think it is very good to reflect on our choices. Lakey points out that “the polarization in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and ’30s did not facilitate progress; the outcomes were totalitarian regimes.” Indeed, the left and right had street brawls in Germany and Italy while in the Nordic countries the left and right united to challenge the power elite, those at the top of the economic ladder able to influence public policy. So we need to get people to see left/right as a construct to keep us fighting one another so we won’t challenge those at the top. The problem is not left/right, it is top/bottom. It was a choice based on reflection.
Yes, “Our inability to break the power struggle in the two-party system at the national level is crushing our ability to govern with reflection and choice.” This is because their money donors are making the public policy, it is their choice not ours. We need a government that has the sovereign power to serve us instead. To change the system will require legislation and the legislation is already written that would return the money creation power to the elected government.
As a Green I have often pointed out that when two parties are at each other’s throat they are dysfunctional and require a third party to help them resolve their differences. 😊
There are a lot of multi-party parliamentary systems in the OECD and they all seem to be suffering from similar issues. I don't think the two party system is the main driver here.
Solutions are either:
1) Unpopular with a strong enough majority of the populace
2) Unpopular with the ruling elite even if a majority of the populace supports it
Fiddling with electoral systems won't change those problems.
A 'responsible' revolution to reform our political system is what we are working towards...together.
Your writings are very clear and reflect a great deal of wisdom.
Excellent article!
I'd like to debate your statement that economic inequality is a function of capitalism. I'm more inclined to say it is a function of human nature. When we speak of forms of government, I don't believe there has ever been a form of government in which there was not economic inequality.
There is nothing wrong with economic inequality. The only problems are the extremes and abuses. Most of us would agree slavery is not acceptable today. As you state, we can have "social policies" that help with the problems of economic inequality.
Thanks, John! I'm always open for debate. Sometimes it's just a matter of getting the nuance into the picture to clarify points of view. You make some excellent points.
I agree that economic inequality is part of the human experience and happens under all forms of government. I also agree that the issue is about extremes and abuses. I'm also not stating a preference for socialism or communism, etc. Capitalism is highly useful and has its defects.
In making my statement that economic inequality is a function of capitalism, I'm taking a point of view that ties private money creation (fractional reserve banking) in the form of debt (usually loaned against income or assets) as the systemic force that leads toward extreme and abusive outcomes. Common Sense Paper No. 17 adds this point, "Debt growth brings greater economic inequality—ouch! Rising inequality is inevitable based on the current structure and rules of the system."
We could find ways to allow capitalism to operate with less extremes and abuses. So let me restate my phrase, "economic inequality in our current system of capitalism is heavily driven by our monetary system and the rules governing fractional reserve banking." The rules around taxation and inheritance also play a role over time and across generations.
Excellent clarification!
My concern is that in the rush of life (which all of us are afflicted with) there is a lot of pure "Capitalism vs Socialism" points of view without considering the nuances and details. You do a fantastic job of delving into those nuances.
Our current system (in the USA) places a lot of barriers to the common person becoming "wealthy". In that regard it's easy to be opposed to capitalism. Also we have a long history of the capitalist "titans" abusing the power their wealth has given them.
So in our hatred of capitalism, socialism is pushed without consideration that great wealth inequality (and abuses) also exist!
For those horrified by how huge our government has grown and how socialist the USA has become, capitalism is held up as the great shining light of success that has made the USA. However we forget our humanity and social responsibility.
Like "Democrat vs Republican", we can't just take "Capitalism vs Socialism" as the only extremes to be considered. We must look into the nuances and the reasons for each approach.
Some great musings here. While the majority of Americans are level-headed, the current political system amplifies the extremists on both ends.
The two-party system needs to end as it has locked the country into a zero-sum vetocracy.
Hi Joe,
Yes, innovating beyond the two-party system is critical for establishing some democracy. And of course, the problems we all have with the two-party system are all in place by design. It is no accident, an idea that reminds me of those who said the British Empire was created absentmindedly. LOL
We know the problem; it is a global monetary system that concentrates wealth and power to the wealthiest few who then use that power to influence public policy for maximizing their profits. They are not interested in fixing things; their only interest is in maximizing profits and control. The two parties serve the same masters with different PR to maintain the theater that they are representing their bases. However, it is a fraud, we are ruled by an unelected government that owns our national sovereignty. We need to elect a new government that will take our national sovereignty back.
Fadhel Kaboub along with Joe Firestone were enlisted in 2018 to defend the MMT proposals to change the Green Party Platform but he never showed. Perhaps he didn't want to defend MMT, I don’t blame him. Anyway, since we hadn't heard from him, I thought I would listen to this talk of his on YouTube and was very pleasantly surprised. Still, as with all academics like Christine Desan, Saule Omarova, etc. they must be careful what they say to maintain their positions. Here Kaboub lays out how the extreme economic injustice by design in Africa works.
Restructuring the Global Economic architecture, which is extractive and thus destructive, will require a just monetary transition to monetary sovereignty for all nations. Without that I think food and energy sovereignty cannot be achieved.
"These authors find that a crisis of democracy typically occurs in one of four settings: 1) political polarization, 2) racism and nativism, 3) economic inequality, and 4) excessive executive power.1 The unique challenge of our times is the simultaneous burden of all four factors impacting American political life."
All four factors are driven by those who control the system that creates and allocates the money.
I like to point out to people that the industrial bankers began influencing universities in the late 19th century to gain academic support for their central bank proposal, meaning central control of money creation by the biggest banks. They funded the creation of Economics departments and Political Science departments again by design to suppress the study of Political Economy. You see, they made Economics be the study of wealth while ignoring power (money) and Political Science the study of power while ignoring wealth (money). Political Economy is the study of the relationship between power and wealth. The political, environmental, and social mess we are in is all by design. A structurally flawed design that has been concentrating wealth to the top of over 400 years. And because all the money is created as interest-bearing debt the problems will continue to get worse and worse until we change the system.
[Comment: I don’t think the authors of the Federalist Papers felt the common men were capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice, rather that it should be left to their betters. ]
Political polarization
I think our society over time has been taught and encouraged that political discrimination is fair game for civil society. We should listen to what George Lakey says about polarization. “Political scientists have discovered that economic inequality drives political polarization. The economic driver of inequality is far more powerful than civil discourse can manage.”
You mention choice and reflection, I think it is very good to reflect on our choices. Lakey points out that “the polarization in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and ’30s did not facilitate progress; the outcomes were totalitarian regimes.” Indeed, the left and right had street brawls in Germany and Italy while in the Nordic countries the left and right united to challenge the power elite, those at the top of the economic ladder able to influence public policy. So we need to get people to see left/right as a construct to keep us fighting one another so we won’t challenge those at the top. The problem is not left/right, it is top/bottom. It was a choice based on reflection.
Yes, “Our inability to break the power struggle in the two-party system at the national level is crushing our ability to govern with reflection and choice.” This is because their money donors are making the public policy, it is their choice not ours. We need a government that has the sovereign power to serve us instead. To change the system will require legislation and the legislation is already written that would return the money creation power to the elected government.
As a Green I have often pointed out that when two parties are at each other’s throat they are dysfunctional and require a third party to help them resolve their differences. 😊
There are a lot of multi-party parliamentary systems in the OECD and they all seem to be suffering from similar issues. I don't think the two party system is the main driver here.
Solutions are either:
1) Unpopular with a strong enough majority of the populace
2) Unpopular with the ruling elite even if a majority of the populace supports it
Fiddling with electoral systems won't change those problems.