March 16, 2009
Why America Needs to Bring Its Rich to Heel
Michael Blim
“This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We
don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success
should be rewarded. But what gets people upset – and rightfully so – are executives
being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by
U.S. taxpayers.”
Barack Obama, February 4, 2009
Barack Obama is a man of eminent good sense, whose strivings for balance and good measure are made more notable by the absence of similar aspirations among many members of the American political class. So, when it comes to America’s rich, he’s inclined to be benign, so long as they behave themselves and are benevolent in turn toward their fellow citizens. All he asks is for fairness in the marketplace and in the tax return. And the rich can be source of additional revenues, a sort of cash cow for the revised welfare state. As he told Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher during the campaign: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama’s moderation appears lost on America’s immoderate rich. Bonuses flow while the streams of jobs, credit, and profits run dry. They have driven the American economy over a cliff, but having clawed back their astonishing share of America’s income and wealth beginning with Reagan, they are not about to give it up. Instead, America’s rich are ginning up the corporate lobbies, right-wing think tanks, and suck-up foundations and charities to do battle for their privileges. The President during the last days of the campaign took to quoting the old leftist adage that “power is not going to give up without a fight,” while now he is content to rule in the name of simple fairness. Even the standard of fairness is anathema for all but a few of the rich, and they are throwing everything they have at him to drive the budget back from their corpulent comfort zone. Barack Obama, you were right: power won’t give up without a fight.
But to fight simply in the name of fairness is to lose the struggle before even taking the field. The American rich as a class have no intention of going gently into that good night. They are the most powerful upper class on earth, and they have fought very hard to create a global hegemon out of America since the Second World War. Their goal has been to get higher returns on their money, and to escape the bill for the economic decline they had caused by outsourcing capital and labor as well as disinvesting in the American industrial machine. Starting during the Vietnam War, they sent their capital abroad to build great multinationals, conquer markets abroad, and generate higher profits for their investments. They scuttled the American economy a quarter century ago, and commissioned their bankers out to build great financial behemoths capable of turning the world’s churning capital flows into profit opportunities for them.
And so the bankers labored, finding offshore, untaxed caches for the monies of the rich, and finding ways to valorize their dollar-denominated assets in an era of low-interest rate bearing investments. New instruments such as hedge funds and new products such as derivatives became crucial to protecting and increasing the wealth of America’s rich. They added that extra speculative point or two (or five) that kept the capital of America’s rich growing. They attracted capital from abroad that supported what should have been a sagging dollar, increasing demand for American-held wealth and protecting the dollar holdings of the American rich.
Yet, in all, something was going wrong. America’s everyday economy was falling behind. It could not produce the enormous profits of a China. Its multinationals prospered to the extent that they could advantage themselves of the Chinese industrial machine. More than a quarter century after Reagan’s gutting of the tax code, median family income was the same as it had been under the Gipper. Life’s essentials such as food, home, and education had become increasingly costly. America’s consumers needed to borrow, and by loaning them the money, America’s rich and those to whom they sold their bonds pulled profit from the jaws of economic decline. The banks, the hedge funds, and the private wealth handlers, for a time of course, made out. Higher returns meant greater wealth. Keeping the capital in American dollars and flowing through America’s financial firms meant that local equity stakes were protected, and American owners of capital were rewarded handsomely.
Now the rich are taking big hits, and thanks to them, so are we. They are bending every effort to get their money back, or rather currently replaced by the U.S. government. They are seeking to preserve their banks as private enterprises and resist regulation that would stop them from playing all of the off-book games that garnered so much money this past quarter century.
They will fight to keep their tax exemptions and low rates. The progressive tax rates passed by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, coupled with the wage and price policies forced upon the country during the Second World War, caused a significant decline in the amount of personal income the rich commanded of the American economy. The proportion of income they received dropped to 30% of the U.S. total in 1941 (it was hovering in the low forties between 1917 and 1940), and there it remained until the mid-seventies. After the Reagan tax cuts dropped the capital gains tax below that of regular income, the proportion of the American personal income going to the rich rose to 40% by the mid-eighties, and remained there through the late nineties.
It took decades and pitched battles to lower the economic gains, and hence the economic powers, of the rich. It is the long march that is necessary in American politics. Roosevelt fought these battles against the “economic royalists” openly. His program for fairness was under girded by a strategy to take away the powers of the rich – I am using the plural because economic power is transformed into political power when groups fight over their well-being – so that the gap between the rich and the rest of America was narrowed not only through expanded opportunities but was also accomplished by leveling the political and social playing field.
Moreover, leaving the rich powerful invites new economic disasters down the road. After all, their endless pursuit of profit and power got us into this mess. They turned the country inside out for their ends, and the breakdown has already cost us up to one quarter of our national wealth.
In another column, I will talk about how ordinary Americans’ chances of achieving economic security and political power are simply no match, unaided by the state, for the resourceful rich. They are a runaway train. Unless you stop the train, the rich will carry the American Dream off with them.
Winners of the American Dream contest like the Obamas too easily become victims of the belief that if they won, so can countless others. They may privately share their inner doubts about a system more closed than open, but they take their personal success as a form of witness to the truth about America. They found opportunity and made a success. The key then is more opportunity. For them, it is not necessary propaganda, but an inner belief for which their lives provide testimony.
At the same time, their new access to society’s top once again suggests that our class system is more open than the class systems of other societies, and that status mobility built on achievement is real. There is no greater believer in the American Dream than Barack Obama. He believes he is its embodiment. What he seeks is access to it for all.
Sociology trumps mythology. We have one of the lowest rates of inter-generational social mobility of any industrial country. Income and wealth have become more not less concentrated in the hands of the American rich – all this at a time when some like the Obamas have achieved a good measure of their dreams in ways that are not only undeniable but laudable.
Thus, it still needs to be said to President Obama:
Only in Frank Capra movies are the rich like everyone else. They have money and power that in comparison the rest of us don’t.
Economic opportunity cannot bring about the American Dream. It can only secure a few new places among the rich for new arrivals.
A politics of fairness invites failure, both immediately as in the defeat of your programs, and long term defeat in transforming America into the land of fairness you seek.
Power, as you say, won’t give up without a fight. They win by default if you don’t take them on.
So,
let’s get busy.
Posted by Michael Blim at 02:37 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Right on, Michael. Like you say, it's going to be a fight. Let's start thinking of how we fight right here on the pages of 3QD.
Evert
Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Mar 16, 2009 3:14:05 AM
I think you somewhat mistake the perspective of the president. I do not have the sense that he thinks that anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work their way into the American Dream. He seems reasonably empirical, and of course anyone who looks at the data about American class mobility understands that we are not an especially mobile or fluid society, class-wise. What evidence do you have that Obama views American society the way you say he does?
Posted by: Christopher M | Mar 16, 2009 5:42:07 AM
The thing to do, of course, is to infiltrate The Rich, the better to discern their nefarious plans.
I'd volunteer, but I'm already embedded in The Patriarchy.
Posted by: kynefski | Mar 16, 2009 7:22:17 AM
In response to Christopher M:
Actually, I think that President Obama is very much a captive of American Dream thinking. A transcript of his March 9, 2009 remarks on education reprinted March 10 by the New York Times contains striking instances in which he affirms his belief that given the right stuff, everyone in America can make it.
First, note the opening aspiration:
“What's at stake is nothing less than the American Dream. It's what drew my father and so many of your fathers and mothers to our shores in pursuit of an education.”
Second, note how in the course of his remarks, he maps his experience and subsequent success on to the lives of others:
“And when you're a kid you don't think about the sacrifices they're making. She had to work; I just had to go to school. But she'd still wake up every day to make sure I was getting what I needed for my education. And it's because she did this day after day, week after week, because of all the other opportunities and breaks that I got along the way, all the sacrifices that my grandmother and my grandfather made along the way, that I can stand here today as President of the United States. It's because of the sacrifices -- (applause.) See, I want every child in this country to have the same chance that my mother gave me, that my teachers gave me, that my college professors gave me, that America gave me.”
Third, note how he ends his remarks with a return to American Dream thinking and how he ties it to his general theme of American renewal:
“For in the end, Yvonne's dream (to realize her potential – MB) is a dream shared by all Americans. It's the founding promise of our nation: That we can make of our lives what we will; that all things are possible for all people; and that here in America, our best days lie ahead. I believe that. I truly believe if I do my part, and you, the American people, do yours, then we will emerge from this crisis a stronger nation, and pass the dream of our founding on to posterity, ever safer than before.”
There is much else to cite and say, but I hope this at least indicates that my point is worth considering.
Thanks for your comment.
Michael Blim
Posted by: Michael Blim | Mar 16, 2009 9:11:58 AM
The idea that "anyone can make it" in the U.S. is a myth. Someone from a poor background must be exceptionally talented, lucky or both to achieve the highest levels of success. On the other hand, a completely mediocre person, like George Bush, can become president purely through family connections. The U.S. ruling elite depends on this myth to justify its hold on privilege and power. That Obama also shills for this myth is not a good sign, but is to be expected.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Mar 16, 2009 9:35:54 AM
I think the central point, that the potential for anyone to achieve the American dream is overwhelmingly mythical, is very important. My conversations with conservative friends frequently hinge on the reality of The American Dream, but without addressing it in the open.
All manner of fixes for social ills are batted away by the concept of personal responsibility, for failing to rise above obstacles to achieve this dream one therefore deserves their sorry fate.
What about an economic system which, prior to the economic crash, provided roughly 45 million jobs that paid poverty level wages? Is it justifiable to systematically enslave so many working people with the excuse that they are failures as judged against this dream? Shouldn't the elites who gamed the system to milk these people along with the entire middle class to the point of economic collapse be examined under the light of day? With the sad state of mass media, I'm not holding my breath!
Posted by: Bill O'Brien | Mar 16, 2009 12:13:43 PM
Michael,
I enjoy reading your column but had some difficulty with this one. Unless you are proposing equality of results, you are committed to equality of opportunity and inequality of results—which I submit is a core tenet of American culture. The question is, how much inequality of wealth is appropriate? And to what extent is low social mobility due to inequality of opportunity?
It is one thing to say that "we need to bring to heel the rich of America" vs. "we need to reduce disparity of wealth in America." To me both point to the same end goal but the former will strike many rich and non-rich alike as antagonistic, akin to Nietzsche's ressentiment. The latter is not only better understood in its social impact, it is a message with precedents in American history. I'm afraid your style could become too great a stumbling block for too many.
Posted by: Namit | Mar 17, 2009 1:32:21 AM
Thanks Namit for your thoughtful comment.
I would respond in two ways. I do favor equality of resources rather than of opportunity, with more resources devoted to persons disadvantaged in ways relevant to their well being. I argued my reasons at length in a book, Equality and Economy. Suffice it to say here that if one takes a strong interest in the well being of every person, then equality of opportunity is a much harder argument to make than equality of resources based upon differential human functioning.
Second, I am trying in my work to take full account of the role of concentrated economic and political power in creating the very imperfect world in which we live. I will work harder so that it does not remind the reader of ressentiment. I don't think it is. Rather it is a sociological insight into the unhealthy dynamics of class rule over time.
Posted by: Michael Blim | Mar 17, 2009 7:02:10 AM
When a criminal comes into your home and steals what you have earned, we rightly lock that person up. Apparently you so-called progressives believe that theft is OK so long as it is carried out under the auspices of the state.
Your call to arms carries an ominous echo of the destructive forces that led to mass slaughter, theft, and dislocation of the elite bourgeoisie in communist Russia, China, and Cambodia. You had better be careful, for the ideas you are proposing are enough to spark either an ugly popular massacre or all out civil war.
You should keep your hands off what I have earned through my own energy, efforts, and talents. You have no right to it. You understand nothing about the world - you have obviously not engaged in it in any meaningful way. The middle and upper middle classes in our country (many of whom I actually know and engage with, unlike you) are people that strove to get an education and work hard to apply their talents according to the dollar-denominated value that is assigned in our FREE market system. These people are well-rounded, family and community oriented, and generally happy and contented with life. We also, unlike you, who has no understanding of anything, understand that the wealthy grease the wheels of all of this by coming up with creative new ways to put our talents to use, by allocating capital and investing in new projects and ventures that provide the economic growth opportunities that are a necessary condition for happiness in the modern world.
Finally, unlike you, I have actually met, known, and engaged with plenty of people in the lower and lower middle classes. Sorry to spoil your progressive fantasies, but these are not generally people that are held down or enslaved by a ruthless class of wealthies. Rather, they are people that for the most part don't have a clue about how to live a productive or meaningful life (and never will) - they have no commitment to bettering themselves, they are quick to take advantage of others where they can, they generally fail to live up to commitments, and they would be more than happy to have you use the powers of the state to appropriate the hard earned gains of people that actually contribute to society. Only in progressive fantasy land can one believe that the successful get there through thievery, and that the unsuccessful are only there because they are being 'oppressed'. In the real world we know that hard working, responsible people generally do pretty well, and that they don't call them the lower classes for nothing.
Maybe you guys should spend some time reading the science that you pretend to revere. You will clearly find that people differ in the talents and dispositions, and this is clearly why there is an inequality of outcomes in any society (I suppose you believe there was not inequality in your socialist fantasy lands?)
What you propose is to replace an elite that influences the course of our society through their actions in a marketplace that is free from coercion, with an elite that is equipped with the coercive powers of the state. So this will work out better right, and those elite will not abuse those powers to feed their own self-interests? In addition to being astonishingly poorly informed and dis-connected from the world on which you comment, you are incredibly naive. If you understood anything about anything, you would see that where the wealthy and powerful are most able and likely to take advantage of the rest of the society is when they are in cahoots with the government (as through mandates for consumers to purchase a certain type of product - such as ethanol or renewable energy, or as through regulations that lock out competition), and that the only remedy for this is less government influence and control over our society, and not more.
Posted by: DR | Mar 17, 2009 11:22:19 AM
Interesting article and comments. To me, an outsider, the American Dream is not a coherent economic policy but a motivating factor, like the cheering at a ball-game, a way of embellishing and elevating the fierce competitive struggle to make more money or acheive higher sporting gaols as if these were the highest spiritual pursuits.
Even the Corleone family in the Godfather movies was presented (with some irony, but with a greater dose of true-believer conviction) as pursuing the American Dream. The rich and famous are the painted cherubs cavorting across the guilded ceiling of this erzats materialist religion. Look up to them in wonder, make up and patch your own pair of wings and soar skyward towards the beckoning angels who preceded you - should you fall the cleaners will promptly sweep away your twisted remains to some landfill.
Posted by: aguy109 | Mar 17, 2009 11:32:29 AM
Preach on, brother DR!
A noticeable silence from the 3 Quarks apparatchiks. Better hope they aren't collecting our IP addresses and forwarding them to Comrade Brother #1 Obama........
Posted by: Wade Nichols | Mar 17, 2009 7:25:24 PM
The American dream for the whole world.
Mercedes Benz A Number One!
Posted by: Carlos | Mar 17, 2009 10:07:04 PM
As per the first paragraph of this post, however, it exemplifies something that scares me silly: the deep certainty with which all comers seem to feel they can divine the depths of Obama's soul — based on less real information than one would require from someone seeking to change the oil on your car (have you ever done this before?).
Where did all this absolute messianic assurance come from? What is it based on other than good speechwriters? I mean, I love you guys n'all, but… Really?
Posted by: Carlos | Mar 17, 2009 10:27:44 PM
Actually, Wade -- your IP address is very important to me, because I have some special biscotti for you. People whose paper worth is half-ish what it was last March find them really, really good. There's no reason not to send DR some too.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 17, 2009 10:29:00 PM
So we learn today that A.I.G. executives might offer to give back half their bonuses if we say pretty please. A.I.G. = Arrogance, Incompetence, Greed.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Mar 18, 2009 2:40:26 PM
Um, DR, I presume that's an Ayn Randish parody you've written there?
Posted by: cfrost | Mar 19, 2009 5:22:46 AM
Elatia - my worth is not defined based on what's written on paper. It's defined based on what I can do and contribute to my family, to my community, and - through my vocation - to society.
cfrost - generating a snarky little comment that plays to the peanut gallery sure beats actually having to digest arguments, think about them, and address them, eh?
Posted by: DR | Mar 19, 2009 1:06:50 PM
Actually, Wade -- your IP address is very important to me, because I have some special biscotti for you.
I have something for you as well. I keep it in my home. Figure that one out.
People whose paper worth is half-ish what it was last March find them really, really good. There's no reason not to send DR some too.
No matter how many inane cut and paste comments you post on this blog, you're net worth to society is never going to get much above zero.
Posted by: Wade Nichols | Mar 21, 2009 12:05:51 PM
Trouble is, Wade, you have something for all of us, and you don't keep it in your home. Why not play in groups when you're feeling less contemptuous of them? It's more fun!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 21, 2009 12:57:22 PM
"Comrade Brother #1 Obama"
I love this.
Wade, this comrade brother has appointed a Treasury Secretary whose "solution" to the financial meltdown is to socialize investment risks and privatize the profits. I don't think that welfare for the ultra-rich--excuse me, "ultra most-productive"--is quite what Marx and Engels had in mind.
DR,
You might tell the nurses to keep an eye on your thorazine IV drip. Too much in the bloodstream can give you the trots.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Mar 21, 2009 1:16:51 PM
The irony of this whole thread is that you clowns spend more time nit picking what I wrote and attack me, rather than addressing the points so eloquently stated by DR.
Don't worry though. If the "revolution" that you "progressives" desire ever really comes, you folks will be lined up against the wall right after DR and I.
Posted by: Wade Nichols | Mar 21, 2009 2:17:14 PM
In response to a comment bit upstream, Michael wrote -- "I am trying in my work to take full account of the role of concentrated economic and political power in creating the very imperfect world in which we live. I will work harder so that it does not remind the reader of ressentiment. I don't think it is. Rather it is a sociological insight into the unhealthy dynamics of class rule over time."
Michael, this speaks so truly to me. As it must to many readers. I hope at some point you'll blog about how this thinking is being carried forth in larger work you do. Meanwhile, I'm in queue to buy the book.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 21, 2009 4:42:28 PM
I read the article with interest, as well as the comments afterward.
I am more curious about the fact that the president, the treasury secretary and the members of congress who crafted the stimulus bill actually wrote the provision for the bonuses to AIG. That Chris Dodd would lie about that does not surprise me, that he would blame shift to the president does not surprise me. That we fail to take into account these facts, and then desire no accountability from our public servants does.
I am new to 3quarks and enjoy the forum.
Posted by: Patrick | Mar 22, 2009 10:14:07 AM
Post a comment