Hot Air was pretty close to agreement on that point last week.
Ocasio-Cortez is basically stating a premise that most Christians would hear in church — that the gross hoarding of wealth violates the self-sacrificing love that should exist among God’s children in terms of overall distribution of Creation’s bounty intended for all. Calling the system “immoral” might be a bit hyperbolic, but many people would at least agree that recent outcomes of our economic system have become imbalanced, if not warped. The problem isn’t capitalism itself but in our lack of effort to enforce anti-trust laws to keep wealth — and therefore political power — accruing into fewer and fewer hands. That trend has accelerated the rise of populism on both sides of the ideological divide and corroded confidence in our public institutions....
25 comments:
Doubt they are actually concerned about the morality of wealth. What they're looking to implement is something observed many times on Instapundit -
“Under capitalism, the rich grow powerful. Under socialism, the powerful grow rich — and everyone else grows poor.”
And yet before Ocasio-Cortez began, as a Progressive-Democrat, living vampirishly off people's fears, she made a vampire's living feeding off people's desire, if not need, for alcohol.
Hmm....
Eric Hines
I don't disagree with the point Ed Morrissey is making at HotAir in terms of what he sees as the problems and solutions. However, I'm not okay with using the Christian self-sacrificing love ideal as a reason to implement his solutions. As Libertarian Jesus reminds us, being self-sacrificing is about sacrificing one’s self, not about sacrificing others.
I would argue that the moral reason for a better anti-trust policy and a better tax code is about a level (in terms of government action) playing field - justice, if you will. The practical reason is as Morrissey discusses: not enraging the large numbers of people who are pretty sure the current system is the handmaiden of the rich and powerful.
I will, say, though that Ms. McEwan wins the imagery war - who doesn't immediately think of Smaug? Of course, her phrasing means that anyone with more than $10 million falls into the same category (1 billion divided by 100 lifetimes = more than anyone can use in 1 lifetime). Personally, I’d set the upper limit at $5,650,000 - surely 75 adult years times $75,000 per year is all anyone could ever need.
...a vampire's living feeding off people's desire, if not need, for alcohol.
I'm of the opinion that bartending is a perfectly decent profession. They live off tips, mostly, which are freely given in appreciation for good service.
As for the alcohol, I'm of the opinion -- sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin -- that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Of course it is. But Ocasio-Cortez is no ordinary bartender. And she was whom I was talking about, not bartenders in general.
Eric Hines
You don't get to be a billionaire by hoarding wealth. These people are economic and financial idiots.
Also routinely forgotten is that, from what I've seen, the vast majority of a billionaire's wealth (or even a millionaire's wealth) is invested in the assets that made them wealthy in the first place -- often a business they started or radically expanded, plus whatever other side opportunities they've encountered along the way, not piled up somewhere like Scrooge McDuck's money bin, or even as accounts in a bank. I'm not even sure how you would redistribute that even if you wanted to in a form that makes it useful to the average low-income individual on the street.
I'll believe they are interested in the morality of wealth when they start questioning how people like Harry Reid, Barak Obama, and Bill Clinton become multi-millionaires earning government salaries all their lives.
I could call it an intellectual sin merely - they do not understand that this wealth is not taken from others*, but is produced new. Yet I don't think that covers the territory, as they have easy opportunity to learn this but choose not to. They see the problem as that the wrong people have gotten rich. Obama and Clinton getting rich is not a problem, because it is essentially tribute from grateful subjects. Other billionaires have extracted their wealth from the poor or from the earth, however, and that is unholy.
*Some of the rich have extracted their wealth from others, not created it. I don't know if the government should forbid that, but neither do I morally excuse it. The difference is, it's not all of the rich, nor even most of them.
I'm not even sure how you would redistribute that even if you wanted to in a form that makes it useful to the average low-income individual on the street.
Why, guaranteed income, of course.
Eric Hines
I'm with Tom.
Moreover, whether it would be spiritually healthy for wealthy people to give away more of their wealth has very little do with whether confiscatory wealth redistribution is either morally permissible or economically advantageous for society. The benefits in loving relationship among neighbors resulting from voluntary sharing can't be reproduced by our redistributing wealth by force. And none of this has anything much to do with using antitrust laws to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth, which isn't even what antitrust laws are designed to do. They are designed to foster competition.
And none of this has anything much to do with using antitrust laws to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth, which isn't even what antitrust laws are designed to do. They are designed to foster competition.
What I was taught about capitalism was that if Bob started making a great product and getting rich, Sam would jump into the market to make the same product so he could get rich, too. Then Charlie and Tom and Fred and ... So, no, antitrust laws aren't specifically designed to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth but the end result of competition is assumed to be lots of people wanting a piece of any big pie and thus spreading the wealth around.
So Americans look around and notice that there are behemoths bestriding industries; they notice that those behemoths seem to have cozy relationships with governments; they notice that those behemoths seem to be firing Americans and hiring non-Americans; they notice that the people who own those behemoths are very, very, very rich; and they notice that those very, very, very rich people appear to be paying less in taxes than their secretaries. All that noticing results in Americans thinking that perhaps this whole capitalism thing isn't exactly working and it results in Americans thinking that some enforced wealth distribution look like a good idea.
And it gives McEwan's imagery a lot of power. And if people on the Right discount that power and dismiss those who are feeling economically vulnerable (Left, Right, and Center) as "economic and financial idiots" then the vulnerable are unlikely to believe the Right has their best interests at heart and will simply vote for the people who are promising them money.
It's a very dangerous turn of thought, too. You can start with the idea that everyone should be free to compete; the game shouldn't be rigged to shut people out. Antitrust is a fine tool for that objective. If you progress to the idea that everyone should succeed and anyone who doesn't can criticize anyone who does, and can accuse all the successful people of ipso facto having rigged the game, you start wanting to use antirust laws (and tax policy, etc.) to address that kind of inequity. Then you get a lot of what we're looking at in, say, Venezuela.
I'm of the opinion that bartending is a perfectly decent profession.
In my childhood, I was a passenger in a car that was involved in a fatal accident. A drunk plowed into us head-on. The driver had recently left a bar. I therefore have a less benign opinion of bars.
At the time, bars were not liable, and laws against drunk drivers were not as draconian as they are today.
As you note, the laws have changed substantially. But AOC was a bartender in Brooklyn; probably most of her clients walked home.
What Elise said. The problem with the corporatocracy we have now is that aforementioned cozy relationship between government and huge corporate interests. It perverts the system, and the greatest danger of that is that, again, as Elise mentions, it poisons the well, and a not insignificant number of people start believing the leftist lies about capitalism proper. We need to get government out of the business of picking winners and losers, but I'm not sure how we do that given the money/connections/power nexus in Washington.
Well, if Ms. McEwan had expressed any of those concerns, I would have taken them seriously. I have some of those concerns myself, and I agree that Elise describes concerns many Americans have.
However, McEwan didn't express those concerns, nor did she inquire about possible solutions for those problems, nor did she attempt to engage in constructive dialog. She is just looking for a scapegoat, and landed on a typical socialist one.
"Wreckers and hoarders," "enemies of the people," dehumanization (they're dragons!) -- the sorts of things Communists said of Kulaks, or Nazis of Jews. They already have their Brownshirts in Antifa and other groups. Public demonization identifies the targets. What's next?
So why should I treat her as anything other than that? Does she really represent the average citizen who has concerns that government and some powerful corporations are too cozy? If so, where is the critique of government or the call for laws to dissociate the two? Why the focus on billionaires and not representatives?
If she is concerned about corporations firing Americans and hiring foreigners, why not call for changes in legislation? All of that is covered by immigration law, after all. Why focus on billionaires and not lawmakers?
If she is concerned about unfair taxation, why focus on billionaires and not representation?
No, McEwan is not an honest representative of the people or their legitimate concerns. If she were, her target would be Congress, not billionaires.
"Wreckers and hoarders," "enemies of the people," dehumanization (they're dragons!) --
Yes, exactly what caught my eye. What does one do with a dragon on a pile of gold? What ought one to do, if one is heroic and bold?
As to what one person can use in a lifetime, billionaires are in fact using most of their wealth every day. Using wealth, not hoarding it, is generally how one becomes a billionaire in the first place.
Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse (or dragon) but one doesn't rally people by making sensible proposals; one rallies people by making visceral appeals. (See, e.g., AOC.) McEwan is battle-space preparation (if I understand the term correctly): She gets people riled up so they will accept the proposals that address the problem as *she* has defined it. Further up in Grim's blog today is a post with the title, "Eat the Rich, Eat Your Zoo Animals." That's pushback on the McEwan method of attack: Venezuela thought the dragons were the problem and now Venezuelans are eating penguins to survive. (I'm not the go-to person for catchy rejoinders but you get the idea.)
There's also the issue of simplicity and do-ability. Tax policy, immigration policy - that's hard and difficult to change. Targeting billionaires is easy. That's why, for example, "we should be able to file our taxes on a postcard" is a powerful rallying cry while "let's revise the part of the tax code that deals with capital gains" is a snoozer.
There's also the issue of "hurt him, not me". Targeting billionaires is hurting him; getting rid of tax deductions for mortgages and for State and local taxes is hurting me. (You should hear even my conservative friends in NJ on the loss of SALT deductions. Mama mia!)
If we want to talk policy, no, McEwan is not a good starting place. But dismissing her argument as nonsense or as dishonest is a mistake. Her attack resonates; it sums up; it makes the solution sound simple. If the Right wants their policy prescriptions to win out then attacks like hers need to be countered not flicked away as idiotic. People embrace lots of idiotic ideas especially if the people are scared and angry, and the proposals seem powerful, simple, do-able, and pain-free.
(And, yeah, the end result of her argument is not confiscation but murder. Point that out to people who support her and dollars will get you donuts that those people will move pretty quickly from, "Nonsense, that will never happen" to, "Yeah, so?" or, more elegantly, "Perhaps that's what such monsters deserve.")
Very true, and the source of Pres. Trump's popularity: he cares more about an arresting image that catches people's fancy than about intellectual argument. And a good thing, too, when he's after results I favor, as he most often is. He at least knows how to skewer some of the most dangerous nonsense being fed to voters.
Property is hard, because envy is strong. Property is a high-level civilization achievement that requires forethought and careful attention to what motivates people to do their best. Envy is always lurking in the wings to tell people that they could have all the good stuff without working for it if only the system weren't unfair.
Well, as right as you are, Elise, I wasn't trying to rally anyone. You do know this is the comments section to a fairly obscure blog, right? ;-)
You do know this is the comments section to a fairly obscure blog, right? ;-)
1) Not intended directly for you although I see my "if you want to talk policy" certainly looks that way. More general worry that the Right (shorthand for people who believe more like I do) is laughing at stupid rhetoric while not seeing the power of it- and answering in kind. I mean, however wrong-headed McEwan's tweet is, she got a mention here.
2) Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.
3) Not obscure: exclusive. :+)
Well, and you began your criticism by quoting my "economic and financial idiots" line.
I completely agree with you about the rhetoric. It is vastly more important than many on the right seem to think.
I have come to the conclusion that the long-term solution is simple. We just have to do what the left did to us. Fly under the radar and make our counter-march through the institutions, retake the universities, the MSM, whatever bureaucracy we can't reduce, etc. Maybe our grand-kids will see our victory.
Politics in the meantime is important, but our power to get things done will naturally wax and wane until the society itself is changed.
Pres. Trump's popularity: he cares more about an arresting image that catches people's fancy than about intellectual argument.
Well put. "Build the wall" won't fix all our immigration problems but it's simple, clear shorthand.
Well, and you began your criticism by quoting my "economic and financial idiots" line.
Yes, I did, didn't I? Well, at least you know I read every word you write. :+)
I don't know that I'm a "fly under the radar" proponent - and I'm not entirely sure that's what the Left did. To me, they were open about what they were doing at any given moment which was usually not all *that* much. Perhaps there were Leftists who had a grand design but the bulk of the people who were changing the institutions didn't look down the road and see, for example, "legal abortion after dilation." They just did something a little more Left-y, then a little more Left-y still, then ...
And perhaps that lines up with your idea about the power to get things done waxing and waning.
Post a Comment