FREE TRADE

Click to go directly to essay.

CRITICAL UPDATE: JULY 18, 2016:

Billy Lee returned from vacation today to find his offices in shambles. It might take a few days to get our high-tech equipment working and to clean-up broken beer bottles in the offices and parking lot.

Apparently, Junior and Fannie Jean seized control of our web-site, fired our staff in absentia, and started publishing rogue articles, while we vacationed unawares at the abandoned Trump Casino in Atlantic City.

Billy Lee FaceTimed Junior on his cell-phone — just to see how he was doing (he was missing him, he said) — only to discover that Junior and his slut-girlfriend were drunk and partying with friends in our offices; celebrating what they thought was their successful takeover of everything Billy Lee has worked so hard to build during the past two years.

Junior seemed unsteady and agitated during the call, according to Billy Lee; he waved his iPhone round and round; he slurred his words; Billy Lee thought he might be seeing in the background an orgy going on; he demanded that Junior cease and desist; that he take his friends and leave the premises.

Junior and his Fannie threw a hissy-fit. Their feral friends trashed pretty much everything, including furniture; they even plugged the toilets.

Billy Lee does not know where Junior and his pals are right now, but he ordered us, his Editorial Board, to find Junior, somehow, and make him understand that he forgives him; that he wants him back — parking cars and emptying trash cans, just like old times. (Billy Lee actually broke-down crying, he misses his Junior that much.)

So, Junior, if you’re reading this, pay attention. The important thing — the most important thing — is that we, theBillyLeePontificator Editorial Board, are back. And we are staying. We’re not going anywhere. 

Junior, you can rot right now, wherever you are, for all we care. We don’t share the Pontificator’s misplaced confidence in your non-existent future. Our offices are an esteemed citadel of erudition and edification, not a sanctuary for your neurotic drive for drama and discord. You are a bozo-head. We hate you.

Yes, it’s true. Billy Lee told us not to delete your essay; and to leave Fannie Jean’s intro in place. We didn’t believe it at first; we didn’t want to — you shamed us, Junior; can’t you see that?  You and your putain malodorante humiliated us; you discredited the family; our organization; our equipe de freres-–yet Billy Lee summoned the grace to say he liked your styles.

That’s what he said. He liked your styles. Everyone knows you type with one finger and can’t spell your own name. If it wasn’t for your Fannie, you’d be useless. At least she can spell and type.

So how about this idea, Junior?

We’re leaving you and your girlfriend’s know-it-all, trash-talking essays in place. Billy Lee said so and unlike you, we do what he says because we’re loyal; we’re professionals; we’re team-players with skills and standards and values and born-in-the-USA work-ethic.

We type with all fingers. We understand spell-check. The mysteries of punctuation don’t intimidate us.

No, Junior, we aren’t going to kill you.

Your punishment is knowing that your essays will never be deleted; your essays are going to stand as permanent, unread, embarrassing reminders to every wanna-be; to every bonehead who lusts like you and your Fannie to control a famous blog-site.

Plots really do go awry; especially those directed against hyper-alert pontificators like Billy Lee.

The Editorial Board


My Very First Official Notification: (June 28, 2016)

Actually, Billy Lee — his writers and editors — are all on vacation right now until July 15. They left Junior in charge. He’s never been in charge of anything. He parks cars most mornings and empties waste baskets afternoons.

I’m Fannie Jean. My girlfriend and me hang with Junior, because we’re both hoping to get jobs at the Pontificator. Junior knows Billy Lee pretty good.

Yesterday, Junior asked me to kiss him for good luck and spell-check his stuff; he wants me to be his editor, sort of, because he trusts me, he says. Billy Lee never lets him write anything. He can’t spell, for one thing, but I respect him because he always tells the truth most of the time — at least to me and sometimes to my girlfriend.

With Billy Lee and the staff gone on vacation, Junior decided to publish something. Why not?  What’s the worst that can happen?  Get fired?  He already makes exactly $0 per hour so it isn’t like he’ll starve or anything. He lives free in Billy Lee’s basement and eats his food all the time so no worries. No worries at all.

We both have high school diplomas by the way but I used to crush Junior in spelling bees when we were in grade school together. Also, I twirled baton in high school marching band. So I’m completely qualified. So is Junior. He told me to spell-check his post so I did. It was pretty simple. I think he liked it. I’m an Editor now, he told me. It’s a dream come true.

Junior is a swell guy. He’s bona-fide. It don’t matter that he’s ugly and everybody hates him. My girlfriend is hoping to have the honor of working under him too some day if he’ll have her. Maybe, someday, he will.

We didn’t put any pictures in. No one trained us on how to do that. Junior’s dumb when it comes to hi-tech stuff. Anyhow, we published Junior’s very first essay with no one’s help below this note. Amazing, agreed? Junior said to warn readers that any spelling mistakes are totally my fault.

Fannie Jean


FREE TRADE

People wonder why Republicans control so much of the government when the majority of folks seem to dislike them. The most recent New Yorker Magazine contains an article, Drawing the Line, which explains how the process works.

The essay reminds us: in 2012 Republicans carried 3/4 of the congressional districts in Pennsylvania — though Obama carried the state by 300,000 votes and the Democratic congressional candidates garnered 100,000 more votes than the GOP.

During that same election cycle the Democratic candidate for senator in Michigan won his statewide race by more than 20 percentage points — Obama won by 10 points — but brazen redistricting by GOP Governor Snyder (famous for poisoning Flint City water) enabled GOP congressmen to win 2/3 of the state’s congressional seats.

Governor Dick Snyder put his newly acquired political clout to work by seizing control of nine cities — all having by some crazy coincidence black-majority populations; he in fact disenfranchised a million black voters. He then switched the source of drinking water for Flint city without voter consent and lead-poisoned thousands of residents, many of them children. But that’s another story for another time.

Violating basic constitutional rights of citizens never ends well. Throwing elections, like the Republicans did in Florida to deny Al Gore the presidency in 2000, or what they did in Michigan to redistrict voters and seize city governments that favored Democrats — pranks like these aren’t good for democracy. The melt-down of the Middle-East and the poisoning of infants are two concrete examples out of many where paranoia and disrespect for democracy and freedom ended in disaster for ordinary folks.

This un-democratic pattern is firmly imprinted into the majority of our state election protocols — almost always, it seems to me, by the GOP.

In the 2012 general election for seats in the House of Representatives, Democrats received nearly two-million more votes than Republicans, but the House Republicans secured a 33 vote majority anyway.

Imagine how big their majority would have been had the GOP received a two-million vote lead instead of the Dems. The Democratic Party might not have survived. Our two party system could have become one of the world’s biggest political jokes.

What does our un-democratic election process — some argue it is a corrupt process — have to do with free trade?  Here’s a question to ponder: Is anyone out there who thinks it is kind of strange that the party that advocates most vociferously for free trade and strict adherence to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is now promoting a presumptive-nominee who advocates none-of-the-above?

The Republican nominee is an advocate of trade policies that are the exact opposite of free trade. Just a few hours ago (as I construct this essay) he read the seven parts of his trade policy from a teleprompter on CNN. He called it “smart trade.”

Anyone who has taken even a single college level course in macroeconomics knows that “smart trade” is a euphemism for “dumb trade.”  Smart trade works really, really well for business owners and oligarchs in the countries who practice it, while it degrades the wages and purchasing power of the vast majority of citizens who don’t own businesses.

It’s important for ordinary people to understand that during this election a fox is running for president of the hen house. We are the hens; the fox is the Donald. He is, he says, a billionaire who promised today in his carefully prepared policy-paper to renege on a number of trade agreements, which have enabled Americans over the last several years to buy inexpensive products built in third-world countries where wages are low.

What Trump plans to do (according to the transcript of his speech) is make it possible for his American billionaire pals to make more money by closing our borders to less-expensive products now being sold to us by overseas competitors. He seems to have forgotten one thing: we don’t have the labor force to make all the replacement products he intends to produce here.

It’s why he is building the wall. Yes it’s counter-intuitive. Readers who don’t understand should now squint their eyes and think really, really hard, until they get it. Trump hasn’t forgotten anything. He intends to use the wall to control the flow of South American labor — lots of it — into and out of the United States. The wall will enable him to keep the flow from getting out of hand; out of his control.

The wall will enable Trump to turn the flow of cheap labor on or off like a water-faucet to keep wages down while preventing our streets from being clogged with undocumented beggars who might otherwise end up stranded with no way home that doesn’t carry the risk of arrest.

Every worker who enters through the wall will have their picture taken and their fingerprints recorded with smart-phone-like ID apps. A swab under the tongue with a sterile Q-tip, and a DNA profile will complete the entry process. The word “undocumented” will disappear from our lexicon.

Trump is counting on what he believes in his heart is a truth about America. Most Americans are uninformed and easily manipulated, he believes. He actually said that Republican voters were stupid a few years back, when he wasn’t running for president.

If Trump tells voters that free trade is taking their jobs — if he tells this lie over and over — he knows that a lot of people might believe it; he might actually win the election. His family immigrated from Germany, where Adolf Hitler perfected the Big Lie technique to seize power. Hitler’s delusional thinking led to Germany’s destruction. Tens-of-millions of people in dozens of countries lost their lives.

It’s never good to be led by delusional liars, no matter how well-intentioned they insist they might be. It’s even worse to believe lies, especially lies that are used to manipulate people by playing on their fear of people who aren’t “us.”

The current trade agreements work very well for the United States, even when other countries cheat to make their products and currencies cheaper, because we can buy things for less. Under Trump’s policies, which he explained today, the cost of products is going to go up; American billionaires are going to become much more powerful than they currently are, because they are going to be better able to direct purchasers to their own (more expensive) products.

Average workers are going to get nothing except a lot of propaganda designed to make them feel better about a bad situation. (That’s where people like Rush Limbaugh come in — they agitate the hens to desperation when the fox is away; once he’s back, when he’s stalking the hen house for a meal, they help create a climate of optimism.)

The chorus of optimism could get loud, because all media outlets are led by people who have a lot in common with the Donald. Money and power make them happy; happiness can be contagious; especially for clucking hens, who have no clue how dangerous a fox can be. Most hens never see the fox that eats them.

Free trade works, both in theory and practice. It’s the first thing college economics courses teach. A typical course goes to great lengths to prove it to any student who is skeptical.

Free trade works even better when the other side cheats to “game” the system. That’s the beauty of it. We actually do better as a country, when competitors in other countries do the stupid and dishonest things they sometimes do to secure advantages for their elites, while they throw their working-poor under the bus. Our side gets to buy a huge array of inexpensive goods we couldn’t possibly produce on our own with our relatively small working population. Math, experience, and common sense prove it’s true.

Trump is advocating “smart trade” which is just another name for a system of tariffs and taxes, which work for individuals who own businesses in the countries where these tactics are used. They don’t work for average people, who must buy the more expensive products that these business-owners will offer under the protections of tariffs and rigged tax policies.

I hope people are smart enough to figure it out. The British are not going to do well in the coming years, and neither will we if we shoot ourselves in both feet like the British just did. Our billionaires will do well, but they always do well (don’t they?) and besides, they don’t live in the world where we live. If they did, we could visit a few of them, which we never will.

The walls that our billionaires live beyond are the very best high-tech-wonders money can buy. While we remain free (sort of), we should make a few tax-policy adjustments. Otherwise we will continue our drift into a world that is beginning to resemble ancient Rome.

It didn’t end well for Rome; it didn’t end well for anyone. Rome was a slave state, like the United States. It provided its common people just enough “bread and circuses” to prevent riots. The common people came to hate their country so much, they refused to defend it. Unwashed barbarians walked into Rome one day, and the world changed.

It took a thousand years to recover from that classical melt-down. The United States (and other industrial countries) have already exhausted Earth’s resources to the point that a quick recovery from a tsunami of military defeats that always follow economic collapse might not be possible; it might take thousands of years to get back to where we once were, if ever.

There is no such thing as a bad trade deal when those deals lead to trust, cooperation, and goodwill among the nations; when they improve the lives of hundreds of millions of suffering people; when they lead toward peace and away from war; when they bring love between peoples and turn aside the destructive burdens of hate.

Billy Lee Juniur

CIVILIZATION AND INEQUALITY


divestiture 3


If the United States divested the wealth of the 100,000 wealthiest Americans but allowed divested persons to keep one million dollars to sustain themselves, what could it do with the money?

The question deserves an answer.

The answer may surprise people. Some say the United States could completely pay off the national debt of 17.4 trillion dollars and run the government at current spending levels (5.6 trillion dollars per year) for the next five years.  Taxes on everyone, including the wealthy could be completely eliminated for half a decade — until 2020.


divestiture 1
Tools of a typical tax accountant: calculator; complicated forms; toy blocks.

As a practical matter, the United States can’t divest 100,000 of its wealthiest citizens — not without crashing the economy. And, sadly, information about wealth and its distribution is frustratingly opaque. Economists can’t trust what they think they know.

Nevertheless, the United States can put in place tax policies that lift the burdens of filing and paying taxes from the backs of the vast majority of citizens. It can easily pay for things like education, health care, research, and retirement while stimulating economic investment and growth. And it can protect our freedoms and egalitarian way of life from individuals who have sequestered an unreasonable share of our resources. (Read Capitalism and Income Inequality elsewhere on this site.)


invisible hand
This is the visible hand.

The wealthy, and those who support them, tell us that the closer a civilization resembles the natural order of things — that is, a state with the least amount of government possible — the better off that civilization will be. The invisible hand of free markets will enhance the destinies of all. Free markets, fewer taxes, fewer regulations — policies like these take the brakes off the economy and improve everyone’s lives.

Since we all plan to be wealthy someday, what could possibly be wrong with reasoning like that?


bullying 2
Bullies rule on unregulated playgrounds.

Well, for one thing, it ignores why folks create civilizations in the first place. In the eons before civilization, humans made little progress. Think of an unregulated school yard or imagine a jungle with no rules. What always happens? Bullies and predators end up running everything. The meek and the fragile have to hide or be eaten. Whatever ideas or contributions they might make to enhance the quality of life get lost.

It’s been like this in jungles and on playgrounds for as long as jungles and playgrounds have existed. It’s never going to change. It’s why folks need playground teachers and yes, civilization. With civilization we can organize ourselves. We can make rules to protect the weak and improve the lives of both predators and prey.


Civilization 1
For Genghis Khan, civilization was all about him.

We know from history, it’s the powerful who create civilizations to protect their advantages. For thousands of years bullies in expensive garb have run the show on every continent on Earth.


constitution
Our nation’s founders said that all people were created equal before God.

Two-hundred-and-forty years ago something new came along. Our ancestors won a revolution. They organized a civilization that would eventually empower the powerless and give voice to the weak.

Yes, they codified slavery, because what else could they do? Africans had been slaves in America for a hundred years already. For a hundred-and-fifty years two-thirds of whites had come to America as indentured servants, a temporary form of slavery that ended, typically, after seven years of servitude.

The habits of history weighed heavily on our founders, and being unsure of their steps, they gave-in to the pressures of greed to better form the consensus that would permit the birth of something new in the world. And guess what? Our new-born civilization grew up, matured and ninety years later ended slavery in the United States of America.

Earth needed a new way — a way based on the dignity of people, their rights before God, their need to be free from humiliation by others more powerful and crafty than themselves. They needed a new kind of civilization, and our founders found a way to build it, blemished and imperfect as it was.

It took time; it didn’t happen overnight. I was twenty years old before black folks got the right to shop freely; to buy a soda in a drugstore; to buy a house; to get a loan. Maybe two-hundred years seems like a long time for a constitutional republic to get serious about freedom for individuals and families. It is a long time. We might as well admit it.


American flag
The flag should stand for what is right, just, and fair. It is the symbol of our civilization.

Today, as the civilization we built slides into the shadows of an unregulated jungle, people need to stand up and shout, No! This can’t be right.  In a civilization built by hundreds of millions, we can’t let a few thousand of the most clever humans sequester twenty-five percent of the wealth. It’s an unreasonable reward for cleverness, and it’s unfair.

Why did our ancestors build the civilization we call America? Why did they take hundreds of years to shape and change our way of governance?

It’s because they intended to make America succeed for everybody. I’d like to believe that they didn’t want it looted and plundered by the powerful. They didn’t intend for average people to be “gated” out of the desirable places to live, or for the disadvantaged poor to be locked away to rot deep inside our inner cities.

We still have work to do. The work falls on each generation to make the world a fairer, safer, more loving place for every person who lives and breathes.


Thomas Piketty
Thomas Piketty was an instructor of economics at MIT during the 1990s; he is the founder, Paris School of Economics; Director, Department of Social Sciences, Ecole Normale Supérieure; and Director of Studies, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.

Fortunately, America has allies around the world ready and able to help do what’s right, if we only listen. One is Thomas Piketty, the French economist.

In March, 2014 he published in America his critically acclaimed Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It is a sweeping account of the rising inequality in our world, according to New Yorker Magazine’s John Cassidy.

I’m excited about this book. Many reviewers say it’s important. It is the culmination of years of research by a brilliant scholar. It presents, I’m told, a paradigm shift in thinking about the problems economies have delivering fairness to average people.

If Piketty’s book strengthens the courage of economists in the United States to speak openly about the touchy subject of inequality, he will have done our country and its people an enormous favor.


image
Gold jewelry and coins held in an overseas bank.

The United States, though proud of its wealth, seems to go to great lengths to under-report it. It’s primary focus is to collect taxes, I guess.

Assets not subject to taxation hold little interest for government accountants. The Feds limit their count to households and tell us that our total wealth is 54 trillion dollars. Other economists say it is higher — maybe as much as 188 trillion; they include in their tally many assets not normally taxed.

The subject of how wealthy America really is — who holds the wealth and in what amounts — is murky at best. According to John Cassidy, Thomas Piketty’s call for households to declare their net worth and be taxed on it will provide the reliable statistics needed to un-muddy the waters and enable policy makers to fashion the sound and fair tax policies required to protect the benefits of civilization for everyone.

Billy Lee

Post Script: Billy Lee advocates for a standard of maximum personal-incomes and estate-sizes established by the United Nations as ratios pegged to each country’s minimum wage. Violations would be treated as felonies by international courts.

Billy Lee’s proposal and some of its economic and moral advantages are described in the article, Capitalism and Income Inequality.
The Editorial Board

CAPITALISM AND INCOME INEQUALITY


Pele’ with Bobby Kennedy in Rio, 1965. Pele’ died 29 Dec 2022 of complications from colon cancer. He was 82. 

Our gross national product…counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear away…carnage. It counts…locks…and jails…. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets….

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials…. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. 

Bobby Kennedy 1968


Capitalism is a system of wealth creation characterized by private ownership of the means of production (land, buildings, factories, labor, patents, intellectual property, etc.), where products are made and sold in unregulated markets to generate the revenues that sustain production and provide profits for the owners to use as they see fit.


capitalism


Capitalism works best in a stable legal environment, where laws protect owners sufficiently that their ability to produce products is unimpeded.

Under this definition, Capitalism differs little from Slavery until the legal environment secures certain rights to labor.

In the USA, the legal environment takes the form of a constitutional republic undergirded by a bill of rights. The bill-of-rights secures certain safeguards to labor in the arenas of religion, speech, arms, assembly, petitions and so on. The constitutional republic secures representative government, which enables labor to choose its political leaders.

The owners of businesses make up a small percentage of the population and would be insignificant players in the parts of the legal environment where voting majorities determine the operation of government if they were not protected by privileges which, as a practical matter, are not enjoyed by labor.

In the United States the powers of government are divided into the three branches to provide checks on usurpation of powers. Further checks on government power are provided by business owners—specifically those individuals who own media and entertainment; individuals who direct cartels in certain industries like defense, medicine, agriculture, transportation, information technology, and pharmaceuticals; and those individuals who own and operate private militias.


Cartel money


It is understood and admitted by independent economists and historians (those who don’t work for the cartels) that without intervention by government, Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of business owners—even in those rare circumstances when owners show little interest in manipulating the system to maximize their advantages.

The inability of Capitalism to generate a vigorous and sustainable middle class creates problems of poverty and is one reason why economists tend to advocate for government programs to redistribute wealth to the lower-earning labor sector.


tank production world war II


An important historical example followed the aftermath of World War Two. Millions of GIs returned home to the United States after defeating Germany and Japan. Business owners tied to the war profited well and wanted to give something extra to the families of soldiers who fought to protect them. 


woman stacking artillery shell world war II


Because the tax code at that time limited how much revenue owners could keep, they looked for ways to dump windfalls into worthy causes. They worked with government to fashion programs for low-cost education, home loans, and other perks for returning GIs. Windfalls permitted the USA to build highway systems and inexpensive cars for ordinary people to enjoy. Within a few years of the start of these initiatives America built a middle class.  

So, what eventually happened?

In the years after 1980 a new generation of business-owners took power and convinced Congress and the president that taxes on large incomes should be reduced from 92% to 28%. These capitalists were sons and grandsons, for the most part, of the same men who helped build the middle class in the first place.

What is the effect of these tax rate changes? What do tax changes mean for society and labor, where most Americans live?

And let’s be clear. The 92% tax rate on earnings above $250,000 during the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Nixon-Carter years was a de-facto cap on high-incomes. Workarounds did exist for those lucky few who had access to stockbrokers — men mostly who opened doors to low tax rates for privileged elites — but all non-stock market income was capped.

One good example is the medical profession. After 1980 the dramatic reduction of top tax-rates eliminated what had been a practical limit on incomes. Doctors — many operated as business owners — learned that income limits were gone; minus a small tax fee, they could keep as much money as they could collect. 

What happened?

Doctors increased fees at a frenetic pace.


Medical Professioin


Medical care costs became prohibitive for the majority of workers. As a result, some migrated into programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Others found themselves locked into jobs they disliked because quitting meant losing insurance.  Today medical care is so expensive that Congress felt compelled to pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to avert systemic collapse of public access to healthcare.

With limits on incomes now gone, doctors, some of them, seem to be overcharging government healthcare programs for services; a few have been arrested for committing crimes to maximize their incomes. The temptations of unlimited Benjamins have ignited a frenzy for dollars that shows no signs of abating.

In the USA, chasing after unlimited wealth seems to have overtaken every profession and institution. Businesses and public institutions are being looted by the professionals who run them.

Owners drive down wages because they can keep the difference for themselves. Operators drive businesses nearly into bankruptcy to skim as much money as they can in as short a time as possible—so they can retire to a private island, perhaps. Who knows?


bankers looting


Concentration of wealth can be a bad thing because it influences what society produces to the disadvantage of labor and the poor. Expensive luxury items (like $500M homes) are built to satisfy the appetites of the wealthy while products and services like schools, clean water, and nutritious food needed by labor are neglected.

These trends (and anyone could list dozens more) are not new. Every civilization that has allowed unreasonable concentrations of wealth has come to a bad end. Ordinary citizens are demoralized, excesses are committed, cynicism and cruelty increase.


gated community


An example is gated neighborhoods. It is humiliating to be ostracized by the privileged. Humiliation of citizens without redress breeds despair, which leads to pathologies destructive to society.


segregation forever


Segregation is an impulse strongly felt by a slave state with a long history of income inequality. It behooves those of us who live in the USA—a country with the reputation for promoting the cruelest form of slavery—to guard against trends (like gated-living) that reek of segregation and slavery.

Another problem with unlimited wealth is that it tempts those who have it to buy hi-tech weapons. Many wealthy individuals have created militias to enhance their power.

Everyone knows about the Mafia but respected individuals with good public relations have established private militias as well. A family in Michigan owns an air force and drones plus soldiers who work under contract with the US military to fill in gaps overseas.


militia


A concentration of wealth combined with military power in the hands of an entitled few can become a clear and present danger to the liberty and way of life of ordinary citizens.

Now… a few sentences about Ayn Rand who, more than any other public figure I know, provided the moral justification for the rapid sequestration of wealth by our elites.

I met this squat, chain-smoking, thick-accented Russian woman 50 years ago after having read every book and newsletter she had published at the time. She wrote with seductive logic that appealed to me and I suppose other average people and probably a lot of billionaires as well. The utopian vision described in her book The Virtue of Selfishness undergirds extremist groups like the Tea Party and their spin-offs. 


virtue of selfishness cartoon


Like most utopian thinkers, her logic was flawless yet led to ridiculous conclusions false on their face. As fantasy her fiction has a certain appeal but to advocate for turning a country over to its richest citizens to do as they please is folly and counter to every form of democracy and free society.

Consider these questions. Who spies more—government or the companies we work for? Who looks at social media sites, credit ratings, where we live, or what our hobbies are—government or the companies we work for?

Who discourages us from speaking our minds? Who stops ordinary people from discussing religion and politics? Who intimidates folks from protesting social injustice? Who blacklists professionals when they “go-rogue” ? Who controls how much money anyone makes?

Clearly, private companies exercise these powers.

What about government? 

It collects taxes and arrests bad people who commit crimes.

Companies? They control our lives.

Think about it.

What are we? Slaves?

The answer is, yes, kind-a. 


team player


Under Capitalism business owners are an existential threat to people’s freedom. But we have a representative government, don’t we?

In theory at least, folks can use the government to their advantage—not only to limit the powers of business owners over their personal lives but to limit the incomes and estate sizes of private individuals through appropriate tax policies.

And they can forbid the acquisition of military-style powers by civilian elites. It’s important. Read the Second Amendment to convince yourself that it’s true. Outside of the limits of a well-regulated militia, gun-runners are anathema to freedom.  Limiting military powers to well regulated militias is the reasonable prerogative of free people in democratic republics like the United States. 

How do we preserve the best elements of Capitalism—a proven wealth generator—while eliminating threats it can impose on our liberties and, for most people, their standard of living?

My proposal is this: pass a maximum-income law. This law would set the maximum income from all sources as a multiple of the minimum wage.

Let’s say the multiple is set to 1,000. When the minimum wage is set to $20,000 per year, the maximum income from all sources would be pegged at 1,000 times that—$20 million.

In the same way, the maximum size of estates could be set at some multiple of the maximum income. The multiple might be set by Congress at 20, for example. Then the maximum size of an estate would be 20 times $20M—a $400M maximum. 

Now these multiples are simply one example. It might be that folks decide a multiple of 1,000 is too high or too low; they might decide to set the multiple at something lower—say 100 or 50—like it was during the 1950s and 60s. Then again, folks might agree that a figure of $400M isn’t enough for high achievers in the modern age and set maximums higher. 


image


What’s important is to set maximum incomes high enough to preserve incentives to create wealth while at the same time reducing the incentive to loot that unlimited incomes encourage. Unreasonable profits which might end up in owners’ pockets would then more likely be distributed inside companies to workers or to the existential needs of the companies themselves.

Wealth not distributed inside companies could be given to charity or society (e.g. through the mechanism of taxes) to be spent on programs beneficial to labor.

Of course, concentrations of wealth are necessary for economic development. This need for capital is where well-regulated public corporations and public banks come into play.

I hope to write an essay about the role of corporations in society sometime in the future. Hopefully, someone else will write the essay before I get around to it. For now let me suggest that the United States might be better off if corporations and financial institutions were made truly public and regulated like public utilities.

A challenge presented by this proposal is to apply these income and estate-size limits internationally to prevent individuals and cartels overseas from gaining advantages that would threaten our country and its citizens.


UN world a happy place


The United Nations International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court could be enlisted in this effort. The United States government has the influence and power within the international community to make it happen.

Another challenge worth mentioning is that although this proposal puts limits on only a few thousand, or perhaps a few tens-of-thousands of individuals and their families, these are the folks who actually control governments by the power of their concentrations of wealth.  It might be problematic, at least at first, to convince the truly wealthy to go along.



UN tank


But we should try. They are tens-of-thousands. We are billions. Think about it. The grandfathers of the current generation of the wealthy shared their wealth to benefit ordinary people. I don’t believe that any billionaire thinks that their sharing after World War II hurt any of them in any way that counts for anything.

Billy Lee

Click Watch on YouTube link below to view Michael Moore’s award winning movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. 



Postscript added 3 December 2022:
During the past two years of pandemic, oligarchs increased their wealth by five trillion dollars. The gap between wealthy and poor, in both resources and power, increased dramatically worldwide. The predicament of ordinary people changed. To help readers understand, the Editors agreed to include the following video, which we hope everyone will watch and absorb.