“You know, whenever you’re exposed to advertising in this country you realize all over again that America’s leading industry is the manufacture, distribution, packaging and marketing of bullshit. High quality bullshit, world class designer bullshit to be sure, hospital tested, clinically proven bullshit, but bullshit nevertheless.” – George Carlin
Economics is the key to our system in that, just as the autoexec file in a computer, it controls the operation of all the other systems within the sphere. Thus progress in education, health, scientific frontiers, government, foreign relations, etc. are basically dependent on economics; namely, the control and distribution of wealth in a society. Thus alterations must be made in that key area if we are to expect to effectively utilize the latter areas (which are wanting) in dealing with the impending dangers to our survival on Earth. These dangers include rising levels of alienation, overpopulation, increasing environmental destruction, and loss of control of the burgeoning technological revolution.
Here a generally accepted philosophy, as well as banks and systems, will be considered as an institution. Thus, in America Free-enterprise Capitalism might be looked upon as the major institution guiding our economic policies. The Free-enterprise system is also generally viewed as the source responsible for the many personal freedoms enjoyed in America. However, we must also realize that Socialism is also, and in many cases, unavoidably entwined and included in our system. The military, post office, public education, etc. are examples.
To the apostles of “Free-enterprise”, all the wealth, the material comforts, even the abundance of natural resources we exploit and share in America we owe to that system. Whatever shortfalls may appear in the society tend to be viewed as the fault of “big government”, or “creeping socialism”. The Avant-Guard of this capitalist- free-enterprise philosophy, referring to themselves as libertarians, tend to believe that if only we could somehow eradicate those compromising, parasitic elements of socialism from our system, all the world would traverse the path towards “wine and roses”.
The practitioners and material benefactors of capitalism, inevitably, through the ages, would acquire many high priests and philosophizers to support and to justify their position. At the core of this justification theory lies the famous “trickle-down” idea espoused by such names as Adam Smith, Nelson Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Ronald Reagan (ie. The more wealth gained by those at the top, the more would sift down to those below, and the final result would be greater benefit for all). No doubt very appealing logic for those on top! Carnegie found wide public acceptance among the successful for his “American Beauty Rose” theory, where he related socioeconomic progress to Darwin’s “survival of fittest” theory. By culling out the lesser roses in his garden, Carnegie could produce a finer strain of rose. Similarly, reasoned Carnegie, in business, if left unrestricted by governmental interference competition would weed out the weak, resulting in the most productive and beneficial outcome for all!
The ensuing “Great Depression” of the ‘30’s, and Roosevelt’s socialistic cures put such theories on hold, and showed that life and economics was not so simple. Of course, the resurgence of prosperity in the ‘50’s thru the ‘80’s, led to renewed sounds of “Social Darwinism”! Yet, the great S&L debacle of the eighties accompanied by the quadrupling of the national debt bestowed again a sobering effect on most. (Refer to section on S&Ls).
However, relative to the overall issue of human survival, these arguments over the efficiency of supply-side economics (modern euphemism for trickle-down) misses the point. The question that remains, is are we producing things that are in our best interest? Are we allocating our labor and resources sufficiently to such urgent needs as education, health care, and housing? J. K. Galbraith, in his best-selling book, “The Affluent Society”, written in the late ‘50’s, documents his point that at least three-fourths of our production consists of “manufactured needs”, directed by “Madison Avenue” (the advertising industry) which contribute nothing to our general welfare. To cite one example, more money is spent annually on alcohol and tobacco in America than is spent on public education.
Again, the words of Walter Cronkite, that trusted icon of American journalism, “Today”, he says, “We see the extreme strain which all the presumably strongest economic powers are suffering from an effort to support both the free independence of capitalism and the costs of humane social welfare. With scarcely an exception, the democratic nations are failing to support both. So a different system is going to be required. …We may have to find some marvelous middle ground between capitalism and Communism.” (LA Times Mag. Jan. 21, ‘96)
An even more serious consideration asks: How does this intense devotion to economic competition and struggle affect our ethical and moral concepts? Does this cutthroat competition lend itself to the development of the attitude of brotherhood, cooperation, and human compassion. Might not justice, and fair treatment inevitably take a back seat in the arena of dog eat dog, unregulated free enterprise systems? After all, “how many times must a man turn his head” not to notice that unethical practices often have an edge in commercial and financial competition? It would seem that it would require a rather large degree of naivete to deny that this type of commitment to economic competition would not have an important place in the shaping of “human nature”, especially regarding the value and importance of taking time to participate in the democratic process. Finally, in this age where the primal need is to develop individuals who can find satisfaction in serving others, more than just themselves, simple logic seems to tell us that the American “love affair” with unlimited free-enterprise has become seriously antiquated.
A. Rankin (LA Times, Feb. 16, ‘96) reports on the growing gap in wealth between the relatively rich and everyone else in the U.S. “The average blue-collar worker’s weekly wage peaked in 1972 and has fallen 18.5% since then, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U.S. economy has grown 30% since 1980, but almost all the money made off that growth flowed to the richest 20% of U.S. families, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Sixty percent of U.S. families actually made less money in 1994 than in 1979…Meanwhile the richest 5% enjoyed a 44% increase in income over that period, census data show.” Real, and effective cooperation among the citizens of America, and also among peoples of the world can occur only when a climate of mutual trust is created. For this to happen people must first be both willing and anxious to treat each other justly and fairly. These are simply not values fostered by Capitalism. After over two hundred years of trickle-down in America we find that only 5% of the people possess 95% of the wealth. It’s little wonder a large portion of Americans don’t buy the Horatio Alger fable. Many have little trust for others in the society. Economic disparity leads to periodic riots and insurrection in the cities. Economic disparity and its inevitable partner, unequal opportunity, are directly correlated to a climate of hate, violence, and crime of all sorts. How could we not expect to find arsonists who would find satisfaction and joy in the burning of expensive homes during the firestorms of Southern California?
In reality, the inevitable outcome of a reliance on the capitalist structure is to produce a social system designed to condition the minds and limit the opportunities of the populace in such a way so as to protect and enhance the existing imbalance of wealth. The conventional wisdom in support of maintaining this structure can always cite the great progress in material comforts achieved. Yet, while the capitalist free-enterprise system provides extraordinary economic benefits for some, and a comfortable living for many in “western countries”, there, nevertheless, exists a serious downside to the picture. (unsurprisingly, generally ignored by those of affluence) While perhaps but a quarter of the inhabitants of the U.S. live below the poverty line, over three quarters of the people of the world live in poverty. Since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, and the advent of capitalism over three hundred years ago, such conditions throughout the world have not improved.
As the ‘80s flowed into the ‘90s, the interlocking relationship between politics and economics became dramatically apparent as the great S&L crisis began to unfold, as well as did the entanglement between politics, economics, and foreign relations during the Persian Gulf War.