So the rich are getting richer and the middle class is drifting ever more into poverty. Public policy seems to more and more favor the haves over the have-nots (or at the expense of the have-nots). The libertarian view seems to be very much slanted towards survival of the fittest. "I got mine on my own, you go get yours. If you don't have as much as me then that means that you did not try hard enough or were not deserving." If hard work were the criteria for financial gain, then the Mexican day laborers should be millionaires, because they work as hard as anyone in this country.
And when you talk about taxing the haves to give to the have-nots, the response is "why should you take away what I have earned all on my own and give to those who did nothing" As though anyone actually earns his or her fortune independent of everyone else. Sure, Bill Gates developed the software, but who's phone lines and communication outlets did he use to advertise them? Who built the roads upon which they were shipped? Who made those trucks? Who ran the stores and checkout lines? Who managed the banking system? Who collected the trash, supplied the water, paper, electricity, food, etc? And who actually gave him the money? Consumers. Where did they get their money? From other employers. So Bill Gates is a great benefactor of all the work that OTHERS have done.
No one makes their living without depending on the rest of society. So I think it is fair that, when one benefits more from the work of others, that they can contribute a little more to others. I think it's bullshit to give yourself all the credit for your success; and it's selfish to want to keep it all.
So Bill Gates got his (and I don't mean to pick on him because he is actually doing a good job of sharing his wealth). But if the middle class disappears, who will feed the corporate coffers? People can't afford computers working on minimum wage (hear that Comcast?). People can't buy cars when they are unemployed (hear that Exxon and BP?). Destroying the middle class is so short sighted. We need a sustainable economy, and crafting policy to take more and more from the middle class to give to the uber-rich will not be sustainable.
And I am not suggesting that we pay people for doing nothing. That is another Libertarian defense -"If you help people then they won't contribute. People are inherently lazy and they need to be starved in order to motivate them." I think this is an extreme position. Most of the people who are out of work WANT to work. The folks who have been out of work for 99 weeks and are running out of unemployment- most of them have been looking for work for 99 weeks and have applied for hundreds of jobs. There is not enough opportunity because the corporate overlords have decided that a 100 million dollars is not sufficient- they can make 200 million if they outsource. And it's because the banking overlords have decided that no one without a lot of money can get any to start a business. This is killing our economy, our middle class, and our innovation. With the outsourcing, closing of factories, and inhibition of innovation there are simply not enough jobs.
And you know, a lot of people say that Obama is anti-business. They claim that the big corporations funneled money to the Republicans in the last election because the Republicans are more favorable to big business. But big business is doing better than ever before under Obama. Why would they want to change? I think that it does not matter who is in charge, they are the ones really running the show. They allow the appearance of a two-party struggle to keep the focus off of them. Whether its a Republican or Democrat in charge, their profits, market share, and influence continue to rise.
We need a revolution. When enough people get desperate enough, even the uberrich won't be safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment