The Anti-Capitalists in the Gulch
The traditional story is that farming is everyone's bread and butter. Bankers and speculators produce nothing, but skim their profits from the suffering of others. The Garden of Eden is populated only by a mythical middle class of retail grocers, doctors, lawyers, and plumbers ("engineers"). No one is poor; and no one is rich.
And no one has friends in city hall or Congress - though the streets are, indeed, cleared of snow; and anyone who destroys a skyscraper eventually meets a Navy SEAL team.
The claim is made that in our glory days, the middle class produced the most wealth, but now in our evil times, the middle class is being crushed between the rich and poor. We like that narrative. We never question it. We never define the terms, never identify the individuals in aggregate.
The fact is that the richest 1% produce about 30% of the "wealth" if we measure that only by income. If we understand "wealth" to be capital, then the picture is much different.
"Eighty-seven percent of upper-income Americans -- those making $75,000 or more annually -- own stocks, as do 83% of postgraduates and 73% of college graduates. Sixty-four percent of Republicans hold stocks, compared with half of Democrats and independents. Men are more likely than women to be stock owners. Those aged 50 to 64 are the most likely of any age group to say they have money invested in the stock market." -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/Sto... (And the poll shows that this is these are lowest numbers in in 15 years.)
Now, we can decry the recession. Indeed, I do. But I also know from US economic history - the stuff of numismatics, which is the touchstone of economics - that the so-called "Great Recession" (1873-1896) was a time of great growth, expanding opportunities, new inventions and new technologies: the 1890 census was completed because of punched card tabulators, i.e., the root and rock of computing machinery.
Everyone loves silver dollars, especially those fat-faced Roman ladies from George Morgan. But the Morgan Dollar was inflation money. And it was, indeed, good for gold - if you wanted... which, apparently no one did, in gross violation of Gresham's Wild Conjecture. (http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...) The fact is that, like now, the US economy continued to "contract" even as more money was pumped into it. But life got better for everyone. The world of 1896 was 23 years cleaner, safer, better fed, better housed, more educated, and entertained. Just like now.
How was that possible?
The fact is that back then, just like now, the richest 1% were just barely capably of making the smallest incremental improvements in financial management and creative investment. Using their influences with governments, they cut their own taxes, creating foundations that funded huge astronomical instruments, and even rockets for exploring the upper atmosphere... as well as hospitals, universities, and libraries...
They did not have to do that. They could have held it all in cash and swum around in it. Henry Ford wanted to. He was incensed to discover that he could not go to a bank and withdraw "his" money ($3 million at that point) in small bills and coins right from the vault. The bank did not have it. They had stocks, bonds, real estate, insurance policies,... Including stock in his firm and those of his competitors, because the market is inscrutable, even for those who like to think they can control it. They know that. So, they hedge their bets.
The commodities markets are driven by producers. Co-operatives of farmers buy and sell long and short futures contracts on the very products they bring to market. It is how they even things out over the calendar year. Meanwhile, about 90% of other investors buy on enthusiasm and sell into their misery. And they do that voluntarily.
Very few of us billions of others actually do that. We do play sports for fun. So, we know why athletes earn what they do. Most of us would rather be in a room full of spiders than to be on an stage in front of an audience. So, we know why movie stars are millionaires. But very few of us actually buy and sell anything, except our own labor -- and most people want to sell it once for life.
Therefore, they call bankers gangsters, and denounce "crony" capitalists for the friends they themselves do not have - even though city hall and the halls of Congress are wide open to any and all.
If you do not want to go yourself, you could hire someone. In this market, you can find any kind of a lobbyist for about $100 per hour, and a good one for about twice that. You can collect that kind of money from a living room full of football fans. But it is easier to condemn the rich.
And no one has friends in city hall or Congress - though the streets are, indeed, cleared of snow; and anyone who destroys a skyscraper eventually meets a Navy SEAL team.
The claim is made that in our glory days, the middle class produced the most wealth, but now in our evil times, the middle class is being crushed between the rich and poor. We like that narrative. We never question it. We never define the terms, never identify the individuals in aggregate.
The fact is that the richest 1% produce about 30% of the "wealth" if we measure that only by income. If we understand "wealth" to be capital, then the picture is much different.
"Eighty-seven percent of upper-income Americans -- those making $75,000 or more annually -- own stocks, as do 83% of postgraduates and 73% of college graduates. Sixty-four percent of Republicans hold stocks, compared with half of Democrats and independents. Men are more likely than women to be stock owners. Those aged 50 to 64 are the most likely of any age group to say they have money invested in the stock market." -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/Sto... (And the poll shows that this is these are lowest numbers in in 15 years.)
Now, we can decry the recession. Indeed, I do. But I also know from US economic history - the stuff of numismatics, which is the touchstone of economics - that the so-called "Great Recession" (1873-1896) was a time of great growth, expanding opportunities, new inventions and new technologies: the 1890 census was completed because of punched card tabulators, i.e., the root and rock of computing machinery.
Everyone loves silver dollars, especially those fat-faced Roman ladies from George Morgan. But the Morgan Dollar was inflation money. And it was, indeed, good for gold - if you wanted... which, apparently no one did, in gross violation of Gresham's Wild Conjecture. (http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...) The fact is that, like now, the US economy continued to "contract" even as more money was pumped into it. But life got better for everyone. The world of 1896 was 23 years cleaner, safer, better fed, better housed, more educated, and entertained. Just like now.
How was that possible?
The fact is that back then, just like now, the richest 1% were just barely capably of making the smallest incremental improvements in financial management and creative investment. Using their influences with governments, they cut their own taxes, creating foundations that funded huge astronomical instruments, and even rockets for exploring the upper atmosphere... as well as hospitals, universities, and libraries...
They did not have to do that. They could have held it all in cash and swum around in it. Henry Ford wanted to. He was incensed to discover that he could not go to a bank and withdraw "his" money ($3 million at that point) in small bills and coins right from the vault. The bank did not have it. They had stocks, bonds, real estate, insurance policies,... Including stock in his firm and those of his competitors, because the market is inscrutable, even for those who like to think they can control it. They know that. So, they hedge their bets.
The commodities markets are driven by producers. Co-operatives of farmers buy and sell long and short futures contracts on the very products they bring to market. It is how they even things out over the calendar year. Meanwhile, about 90% of other investors buy on enthusiasm and sell into their misery. And they do that voluntarily.
Very few of us billions of others actually do that. We do play sports for fun. So, we know why athletes earn what they do. Most of us would rather be in a room full of spiders than to be on an stage in front of an audience. So, we know why movie stars are millionaires. But very few of us actually buy and sell anything, except our own labor -- and most people want to sell it once for life.
Therefore, they call bankers gangsters, and denounce "crony" capitalists for the friends they themselves do not have - even though city hall and the halls of Congress are wide open to any and all.
If you do not want to go yourself, you could hire someone. In this market, you can find any kind of a lobbyist for about $100 per hour, and a good one for about twice that. You can collect that kind of money from a living room full of football fans. But it is easier to condemn the rich.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
That is the specific problem with the topic you posted, Mike.
First, you are lumping together people that loot from producers with the real producers.
Then you lump together people who hate capitalist producers (e.g., Bill Clinton hates Hank Rearden) with people who love producers, but hate people who manipulate government to loot from producers, (e.g., banksters like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Chase, et al.)
The distinction is perfectly clear, but you don't acknowledge it. There is no reason in your argument. Cui Bono?
Who are really the richest 1%? They are those who's labor capital (sometimes represented by dollars) is the greatest. This will always be those whose ideas can spur industry and encourage the labor of others to work in parallel. It enables the entire system to grow. These are the elite among the producers.
There are actually two fundamental problems with government getting involved in the market. #1 is that the government must remove from the economy (taxation) what it puts back in, and there will always be inefficiency in that removal process that does not exist in a free market. #2 is that all the government is really doing is picking winners and losers. For every winner they pick for a government project, there is a loser as per opportunity costs.
Read the book Creature from Jekyll Island.
Either you do not understand this topic or you have a financial interest in defending the looters.
I favor free markets over statist created cartels, specifically the banking cartel created in 1913 by government agents corrupted by bankers.
If you bothered to read and understand the work published on the topic (other than banking cartel propaganda), you wouldn't ask such irrational questions.
So what is your financial interest in defending the banker cartel?
Didn't do much for wealth re-distribution when the wealth was 2/3rds value and immediately went for higher priced necessities. Looks like everyone got forked on that deal and it isn't over yet? What's the debt service on 19 trillion? What's that same figure subtracted from GDP to find NDP?
If you find someone picking your pocket it's either a hand marked I'm from the Government We're hear to help you or it's from some very very large banks, BA leading the pack, marked I was sent by the government to help you.
Still want to vote them back into office?
Whose paying the invevitable freight on this one? Grandpa and Grandma up front followed close by what WAS your retirement account. TANSTAAFL and their going for another round. You might start collecting hot dog recipes.
An intelligent lobbyist will not waste his or her money or influence trying to convince a legislator to do something that will get him or her unelected. But that lobbyist’s influence and campaign contributions can wield enormous influence on issues where the legislator’s constituents either don’t care that much or are evenly split. A huge majority of a legislator’s agenda is taken up with such relatively mundane issues, and it is on these issues that legislators are most susceptible to the money and influence of lobbyists.
Still there is another side to this. Objectivism does not target the poor or the rich, rather it targets those who collect more reward than value they create. This certainly can be a person working for $12/hour and putting in a $5/hour job. It can also be a banker who figures out a way to sell poor value real estate holdings as high value investments. In either case I am concerned because the person who creates wealth (money) without creating a commensurate value is picking my pocket. One of the chief drivers of inflation is the expansion of the money within a society without a corresponding increase in value. Inflation means to me that the money I have, and the money I make has less value. Ergo when someone collects more money than value they are creating, it is paid for by everyone else in society.
Here in Connecticut we have a dairy co-op called The Farmer's Cow. They appeared probably 20+ years ago and made a big splash because their milk cartons were so darned cute with illustrations of Holstein cows. Then I read a feature article about how they came to be.
- A bunch of independent CT dairy farmers wanted to create a co-op to maximize efficiency for marketing and milk processing. Fair enough, sounds like a good idea. They determined that CT had a burning need for local dairy. Hogwash, we're loaded with local dairy, successful companies such as Garelick, Moser farms, Mountain Dairy and Guida. All companies that had made it on their own over the last 150 years.
- Co-op applies for grants to develop a marketing campaign, which results in some effing cute milk cartons that people really love. They hype the local dairy story like they're the only ones and thank Zeus that the CT dairy farm won't go extinct. It was a lengthy, sickening article describing how a bunch of farmers forced CT taxpayers to create subsidized competition with existing local dairy farms! Nobody seemed to notice that state government was playing favorites while touting the creation of something that was already abundant (local dairy farms). And not only did they create their marketing materials and collective identity by taxing the citizenry (and their competitors) but they won awards for their brilliant campaign!
- The initial grant wasn't the only one but I can't remember any more details.
I was so mad I swore never to buy a single Farmer's Cow product, and I haven't, and every time I get the opportunity I spread the sickening story out in front of all who will listen.
My cynicism remains!
So why are we thinking of re-electing them? Do we really prefer living without a the Bill of Rights or arrest by mere suspicion instead of probable cause? (Now enlarged to add suspicion of support of....)
Fair boggles the mind. 85% voted for it. Of the elected officials.
Everyone thinks that lobbyists can buy votes with money. Money is good stuff. No one refuses it. But once I take your money, if what do with it gets me unelected, then we are both out of business.
In 1992, I ran for Congress as a Libertarian. The incumbent sat on the House Transportation Committee. He brought lots of highway construction contracts to the district. Detroit is the motor city. Michigan has great roads. Our county certainly did thanks to him. Also appreciative were the construction companies, and their employees, and the families of those people. He got re-elected, of course. Do you want to do without good roads?
I mean, sure, I want them all privatized. I think that without the government roads, we would have personal airships ... maybe even teleporters by now. But the system works the way it does for many reasons. Among those are the common sense advice based on fact offered by lobbyists to elected representatives who seek to improve their status by improving their districts.
You can rail against the system. Can you write a Constitution to prevent it?
See my two essays on Unlimited Constitutional Government.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
and
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
The reason that looting the Americas made Spain poor was that it took more resources to get the gold and silver than they bought on the markets in Europe. In fact, Europe experienced precious metal inflation, which compounded the problem. While "thaler" coins were known from European mines in the 1500s, before the Spanish Dollar, the common coin was a "groat" of 4 or 6 pennyweights, usually debased. Silver was hard to come by. Small change was a problem. Thus silver pennies were cut on the crosses to make farthings. Then came all that stuff from America. It was no different than Weimar paper, really.
What gave it value - the silver more than the gold - was that Chinese merchants wanted it, and for it, would sell tea, rice, silk, and all the rest to Europeans.
What made Britain successful was the small size of its government. They beheaded two kings. Parliament hired the new ones - I guess they sent their "headhunters" looking for a new CEO!
The Bill of Rights of 1689 let people own firearms, and otherwise limited the government (the king, actually; not so much Parliament).
Although the Church of England was the lawful church, they stopped burning people at the stake over religion. That created or allowed an intellectual diversity.
But in a few decades, England's coinage was again in disarray, despite Newton's 30-year tenure at the Mint. The wars did it, the colonial wars, the Napoleonic Wars. Losing our Revolution. It all bankrupted their nation. When they got back on their feet, they went to a gold standard.
BTW - in the meantime, merchants created a splendid array of tokens. The story of the Birmingham Button Makers is told by free market economist George Selgin.
Load more comments...