than you or me. This statement, attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald, has been bandied about quite a bit lately. I've seen it at least a half dozen times in the last couple of weeks, mostly to affirm its truth. At one point in my life, I have associated with the rich (and those who wanted others to believe they were rich) and I can attest to its truth, at least from a limited, anecdotal perspective. There are also studies that tend to confirm what I would report anecdotally, perhaps the most comprehensive that I know of (and my knowledge is limited) comes from Page, Bartels, and Seawright. You can find it here: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf.
Not surprisingly, they find that the wealthy, those in the top fifth of the income distribute, are "socially more liberal, but economically more conservative." One shouldn't, then, be surprised at the corporate outcry about the so-called "religious freedom" laws that are popping up throughout the bible belt. Those in control of corporate America tend to fit the profile of the more liberal -- that is to say, they are better educated, technically sophisticated, and urban. What has been called the "southern strategy" and what I have called the "unholy alliance" between big money and evangelical religious attitudes was, one suspects, merely a matter of "politics." Do you suppose, as someone has suggested, that the daughter of a very wealthy man, who simply wanted an abortion, would have difficulty procuring one? Do you suppose, as I might suggest, that the very wealthy would have a break bread with the likes of a David Duke? They're much more likely to break bread with Ibn Saud.
There is probably one way in which the wealthy are less than socially liberal, and it's probably a human failing. They tend to see their "success," particularly their financial success, coming as a result of their own hard work, intelligence or insight, persistence, et cetera -- you know, all those things that lead to the so-called "american dream." Luck and the head start (not the child care program, but the 200 million inheritance) played no role. I knew a business man, let's call him Hector. I was encouraged to help him write a memoir. The encouragement is a matter for another day, but he was a potential donor to the college where I worked, and I was the proverbial "English major" who had a reputation for stringing together words. Hector was hispanic, and indeed, for the most part, a self-made man, who exhibited all the "right" attributes and an over-weening enthusiasm for the money he was making. He wanted to tell others that the "secret" to his success was -- you guessed it -- hard work, using his native intelligence, persistence against the right goals, et cetera. Never mind that he married into money, and into the business he continued to build, it was all a matter of good character brimming over with optimism, all a matter of eschewing what he called "stinkin' thinkin.'"
Conversely though, one shouldn't be surprised when they are not sympathetic to the "unlucky" and the social welfare programs that subsidize them. One makes one's own luck, and their crappy circumstances stem from -- you guessed it, laziness, stupidity, giving up, et cetera. These sentiments are not necessarily racist, or for that matter, ethnocentric. With the possible exception of Trump, who seems to depend upon them for their political support, I suspect they would be equally denigrative of the poor whites. It's not a matter of race or ethnicity, either here or abroad, but a matter of wealth and attitude, and of course, wealth shapes attitudes. Unfortunately, though, such thinking nevertheless has a racial component, insofar as blacks and hispanics, the latter also tarred with the unfortunate implications of "illegals," are disproportionate users of those social welfare programs -- disproportionately mired in "stinkin' thinking.'" Hector was fond of the Kennedy quotation, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," and his contribution was to be in the "reform" of education. He had a sneaking suspicion that the "faculty," even at our community college, was excessively liberal, and altogether too sympathetic to the "poor me" narrative, the displacement of responsibility for one's own condition, that was at the core of most "stinkin' thinking.'" He petitioned the governor of the state, who was altogether too eager to appoint an hispanic, who shared conservative economic attitudes, to our board.
So again, one shouldn't be surprised when the wealthy have what the surveyors called "distinctive priorities." It turns out that "fully 87 percent of [the] wealthy respondents said deficits are a 'very important' problems facing the country. Only 10 percent said 'somewhat important' and a bare 4 percent said 'not very important at all." The biggest problem is not abortion, not the preservation of gun rights, and certainly not the implementation of biblical law, but rather "government overspending." The surveyors goes on to point out that "nearly as many of our respondents (84 and 79 percent, respectively, called unemployment and education 'very important' problems. However, each of these problems was mentioned as the most important problem by only 11 percent, indicated that they ranked a distant second and third to budget deficits among the concerns of the wealthy Americans." Anything that contributes to the budget deficit, with the possible exceptions of military and police spending, are consequently deeply suspect. The military, of course, is necessary to "world order" and the protection of interests abroad. Likewise, the police are necessary to "social order" and the protection of interests at home.
It probably wouldn't surprise anyone to hear that budget deficits were not a particular concern among the less than wealthy Americans. The vast majority of Americans live with debt, and I suspect that most Americans have debt in excess of their assets -- that is to say, negative wealth. For the wealthy, debt is strategic, for the vast majority of Americans debt is more complicated. On the one hand, it clearly scratches the consumer itch, and it is this debt that gets people in "financial trouble," but it also helps fuel the economy with demand. On the other, it is also a matter of survival -- the lease or the mortgage, for example, provide the necessity of shelter. I could go on, but the vast majority of Americans live, day in and day out, with debt. Both those who extend credit, and those who use credit, are fine with the arrangement, so long as the debt is "serviced" -- that is to say, so long as one can make the monthly payments. Of course, one's ability to "service" one's debt is dependent upon income, and hence "unemployment" is perceived as a problem by the wealthy. The interest on debt contributes directly to the wealth of the wealthy, and so they DO want people to be productively employed -- the key word being "productively" -- in a way that ALSO contributes to their wealth. Consequently, when faced with unemployment, the wealthy tend NOT to favor public works projects -- the Rooseveltian/Kensyian investment in infrastructure proposed by Sanders -- but policy that improves private employment that contributes directly to their wealth.
And there's the rub. I have yet to see a policy that directly improves private employment. I have seems public works projects that indirectly improve private employment. It's an oversimplification, but we emerged from the great depression, not because we reduced taxes on the rich to create more "investment," but because we incurred a massive "public works" project -- WWII. The fifties subsequent to WWII were golden because the overwhelming destruction created enormous demand associated with rebuilding Europe and Asia, and at the same time we took on yet another massive "public works" project -- the cold war. We have tried to recreate the cold war with the so-called war on terrorism, but let's be honest. The war on terror is significant, but it doesn't create the demand for bombers and missile silos that the cold war created. Again, an over-simplification, but I think the general outline is correct.
Demand creates private employment. Anyone who has ever been in business can tell you -- I can tell you, a lesson learned from failure -- that having a great supply, shelves brimming over with bright and sparkling goods, means absolutely nothing if there is no customer demand for the products on those shelves. The supply will gather dust, and essentially that is what is currently happening with the economy, though perhaps at one remove. Cutting taxes to the wealthy has, in fact, increased their wealth, which DOES give them greater ability to invest in the sorts of things that might potentially create private jobs. Cutting taxes even more will increase their wealth even more, but having an even greater ABILITY to invest does NOT necessarily mean that they will ACTUALLY invest that money, which right now, for the most part, seems to be gathering dust in off-shore bank accounts. Cutting taxes could create demand, but you must cut the taxes of those who will actually spend the money, meaning middle and low income people, but even so the effects are marginal. The characterization might not be entirely fair, but again I think the general outline is correct.
Cutting regulations did create demand, or rather tapped into an existing demand. The whole story is inordinately complex. Like quantum physics, it is beyond the comprehension of even those engaged in the story, but "deregulating" the financial sector allowed for the extension of mortgages to people who could not, realistically, afford them. I say "allowed for" insofar as those mortgages were, apparently, though only apparently, protected against default by derivatives and other suspect financial instruments, but the "deregulated" mortgages did tap into the existing demand for housing helped fuel a housing bubble. When it turned out that people really couldn't afford the mortgages -- that is to say, when they could no longer service their debt -- the whole house of cards collapsed. Who paid for the collapse? You and I did.
Likewise, I warn, beware of those who would "deregulate" the energy sector. Because I doubt that the second coming is anytime imminent, we must live on Earth, and anyone who has had to breath during an "inversion" in Salt Lake or LA, anyone who has had their homes flooded by "record" rainfalls, anyone who has experienced an earthquake in places where earthquakes were previously rare, might ought maybe be a little dubious of claims that green house gasses and the fracking that will help contribute to those green house gasses, are benign. In the words of Captain Starbuck, deregulation of the energy sector might well turn out to be the biggest "frack you" yet.
So, I am still waiting for policy that will directly create private jobs ...
No comments:
Post a Comment