Much as we wold like to think otherwise, we haven’t progressed all that far from the caves we originally inhabited.
But we have to go back that far to figure out how we got to where we are today. We indisputably live in a country where the most of the wealth of the country now resides in a very small portion of the population.
I read a blog post by Robert Reich yesterday, and it got me to thinking. Reich says that we are at a defining point: we must determine what we think government is for. I tend to agree with him, mostly because I think we have long forgot its original intent.
Thomas Hobbes taught that primitive man was both brutish and short-lived. He lived in a world of chaos, with danger ever at his door, and hunger never far from his mind. Each day was an exercise in simple survival.
I tend to agree with that. For whatever reason, pure evolution or something more transcendent, we are bred for community. We learned that banding together helped ensure greater safety and we were more able to secure enough food.
As time goes on, and communities enlarge, we build on the past. Like a very few other evolved animals, we are able to transfer lessons learned. So we begin to herd animals, and we begin to farm. We in essence begin to settle in place at least for parts of the year. And with that come a host of new problems.
Problems that need to be addressed communally. Who is to farm, who is to hunt, who provides security. Who makes weapons, and bowls, and clothing. And how to trade ones services for the necessities of shelter and food? All these are discussed, and agreements are made.
Over time, this develops into a form of government. A class of citizens are allowed to build roads, provide security, teach youngsters, provide healing and so forth. And we do this by freely giving up some of our autonomy as individuals. We give of our assets (taxes) to provide for our common good.
And such things work fairly well, especially when everyone has an equal vote, and those that are in the minority are not severely burdened with the results, at least no more so than the majority.
But we as humans are by nature not equal. We are individuals, and therefore, some are naturally brighter than others, some are more ambitious, and frankly some are just luckier at crucial points. And thus, over time, some become “wealthier” than their neighbors.
Now, that is not important in and of itself, since what one does with wealth is not universal. Some will turn it over to the community to build a new dam, or build new canoes. But others will use it to hire help to do their share of work while they go off to other pursuits. Some will enjoy the accumulation for its own sake. Some will see the possibilities of “getting their way” with the power of their money. The offer of a dam can be used to extract some desire.
We have, over several hundred years, concluded that a free enterprise or free market system is the fairest method of engaging in wealth building and the distribution of services. We all grew up with learning about the laws of supply and demand. People won’t buy what they don’t want, but they will what they do. Those who build what people want, will succeed, and so will their workers, who will get higher wages, and thus buy more themselves.
Everybody is happy.
But then, the world greatly enlarges, and we aren’t just competing locally for the dollar of the consumer. Other countries with their goods and services make offers. And they may, in order to get the business, offer lower prices, and better services. And so a free market is jeopardized. Today, our government subsidies farming, energy, drugs, and a host of industries, all to “level the field” in some way, or to keep things running smoothly.
I am no economist. I just know what I see. And our “free markets” largely unregulated, has led to a place where government seems to work only for the rich, enhancing and growing their wealth at an alarming rate, while the middle class has nearly gone extinct, and the lower class and poor grows exponentially.
I read yesterday where a Russian just paid 88 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A CONDO IN MANHATTAN. This is simply insane.
Republicans think the answer is to free the markets even more.
Democrats think that the rich need to be taxed of their excess.
Neither side may be right. Perhaps, we must accept the fact that the free market model is no longer appropriate to the global world we live in.
If this model were set out before us, as we sat about the fire in the community cave, would we agree to it?
I rather doubt it. This is not the government any of us 99%’s would think was fair.
Some folks are more capable than others, and apparently over time, they will take over the system. They are like card counters in a game of Blackjack. The game is rigged. There are no bootstraps to pull up. There is not amount of “hard work” that will or can make a difference any more to average people.
It’s time to redesign our economic system to account for the world as it is today. We need to compact for a form a government that works for all of us, not just some. What might that be? Don’t ask me.
I seldom have answers, I just have the questions. Do you have any ideas?
Related articles
- Ian Fletcher: Why Free-market Economics Is a Fraud (huffingtonpost.com)
- The “Free Market Game” Explained (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
I profoundly agree with your conclusion that our peculiar species of great ape has survived and flourished largely through cooperative living. As the primatologist Alison Jolly once pointed out, there is no other mammal, with the possible exception of the meerkat, that has evolved to cooperate with each other to the degree we do. And there is even fascinating evidence that our large brains evolved their current size — not so much in order to fashion and use tools, as was once thought — but in order to allow us to live in larger and larger groups. If that last bit is true, it implies that our ability to form and maintain social groups was absolutely key to our survival.
We may well have read the same thing Paul. I too recently read that our brain size may have been in response to our need to figure out how to manage so many relationships and live in larger groups. Group living, and the difficulties it entails may well drive evolution in terms of sentience.
Boy&Howdy…. went to the market yesterday….. nothing was free….. but I did get a good deal on spuds!
//Do you have any ideas?//
Sure enough do, but most would gett me arrested!
Anarchist! hehe
Wealth-building is a matter of protecting and growing a savings or other investment, and I think the tax system would be a lot more fair if it wasn’t structured to scrape off and consume almost all of the surplus earned by the lower incomes.
The ‘standard deduction’ is the best means of protecting the bottom half from this rip-off of their surplus and it is criminal that it protects so little.
I say let both Bill Gates and myself have the first $30,000 of our earnings tax free and then raise the rates on amounts greater than 30K for everyone equally to the level that recoups the difference. Then everyone has a bit of ‘discretionary income’ and the ‘free market’ can compete for everyone’s surplus. We all know the rich don’t create any jobs other than those for housekeepers, gardeners, and hoteliers.
Exactly right John. People who are forced to just get by, never get ahead, and never give their kids a chance to either. It seemed to end with our parents generation. All of the sudden, the wall arose, and most everybody is just treading water. As an almost retiree, I can breathe a bit easier. We will actually improve our standard of living rather dramatically come next spring. But I suspect we will be the last generation to say that.
“I think the tax system would be a lot more fair if it wasn’t structured to scrape off and consume almost all of the surplus earned by the lower incomes.”
Oh this is so right on, John. And yet, the Republicans don’t get it. It doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s best interest to keep the disadvantaged scraping along and suffering more, yet, here we are in the U.S. not even able to pass the payroll tax cut.
Our economic system is a failure. The latest poverty figures are astoundingly disgraceful in a country that has so much abundance. Yet, we have so much greed that is simply ruining the U.S.
Yes, BD, how easy it is for the lords to sing to the working-class wannabes and watch them dance to their tune of ‘no more taxes’ – since most folks earning under 50K per year are indeed oppressed by taxation and do indeed send almost all of their extra money to federal, state, and county treasuries.
What the wage-earners don’t see is that the system is designed to clear away their little surplus. They are thereby constrained from wealth accumulation and easily brought in line to fight against taxes on behalf of those who have more surplus than they need.
John has a succinct way of getting to the heart of the problem, and with good ideas.
Dear, SDS, I mistakenly addressed you ‘BD’ because my poor brain was seeing the name of a local coffee roaster (Barking Dog) when it too quickly scanned your own delightful name (I have owned a hound so I know the sound).
No biggie, dear sir. I have two small Boston Terriers with snores that can rival those of a very large man. But honestly, I love the comforting sound of it at night when we’re all snuggled in the bed.
A semi-anarchic society would probably be the fairest – self-regulating, local control – you’d have to look further than me for details though!
I suspect certain models begin to break down with size. I’m not sure which work best. It is not reasonable for “representatives” to poll a couple million on every issue, but how do we elect? to do what they think best? That seems not to be working, since what they think best is doing what insures their job retention, which seems to be doing the will of corporate America. I have few answers. sigh….
A big part of the problem, I think, is that the “answers” have become so complex, that most normal folk can’t even begin to think about them – and so accept the existing system, the system they are used to, for not being able to conceive an alternative. Gaahh, what to do?!
Oh I so agree. The minute one starts thinking about change, a thousand threads start to unravel. I often think we would be better off with a parliamentary system since at least the party in power can actually put it’s agenda in practice for good or ill. But no doubt there is plenty of problems with that too. I am happy to say I don’t have to come up with the answers. lol