Saturday, October 4, 2008

More on Politics

How about a quick review of historical patterns of economic growth and depression in the US?

1820s – 1830s economic growth stemmed from the market revolution (expanding production & proto-consumerism); John Quincy Adams’ pro-growth “American System” sparked economic growth by dumping state and federal dollars into internal improvements, heavily taxing imports, and highly regulating economic policy. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.

1837 – 1842 economic depression stemmed from Jacksonian era deregulation and speculative banking practices. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

1840s-1880s economic growth and polarization of social classes stemmed from (1) government subsidized industrialization (ex. US gov paid for transcendental railroad with land grant and massive loans to big business) and (2) government's alliance with moneyed interests to put down labor organizations. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.

1865-1890s economic stagnation in the South occurred as millions of dollars in property (slaves) disappeared and the region resisted the market revolution that transformed the north forty years previous. In this case, government involvement technically led to economic depression but only because it was government who freed the slaves.

1929-40 – depression followed ramped unregulated growth; Hoover’s hands off policy, even after the crash of 1929, demonstrated that LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

1945-70s – cold war growth as the US government dumped tons of cash into the military industrial complex. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.

2008 – Crash following thirty years of deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and banking. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

So, what is the pattern?

I’m so sick of empty rhetoric arguing that the economy does best when government stays out; it simply isn’t true. American history shows clearly that the economy does best when Congress and the President work to regulate and guide the economy, often dumping federal tax dollars into various sectors.

Conversely, “trickle-down economics” (the idea that lessening taxes on big business with strengthen the economy and trickle down to the middle and poor classes) doesn’t work.

The only time the non-rich get any help is when government uses social programs to give back to the working classes what big business has unfairly appropriated through unrestrained capitalism. No, I don’t advocate communism, but no matter how good you are at a job you don’t deserve to make tens of millions of dollars a year more than others. You’re not that good—nobody is. The wealthy don’t deserve to jump to the top of transplant lists, they don’t deserve to live longer than everyone else because they have better health insurance (paid for by money they appropriated from the working classes), and they don’t deserve to more money than they know how to spend. When we look at all the high paid CEOs and how they get paid ridiculous salaries (many as they drive companies into the ground) I can help but think (1) "do they really deserve those inflated salaries," and (2) “is this the best use of money?" The answer is no.

Monetary value isn’t created by speculators on Wall Street; at its most basic root it stems from labor and resources—labor put in by working class Americans. High prices and low salaries allow big business to appropriate the value of the working classes' labor; however, through systems like social security and a national health care plan that hard earned wealth can be returned to the people who created it and truly deserve it. That sounds not only fair, but economically wise when we consider how beneficial government involvement in the economy has proven.

Think about it.