The difference is of course up to you. Since the start of this whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement I've been asking myself that same question. In my most self-righteous moments I claim to want a completely fair system. Something that allows for no poverty, but restricts wealth at the other end to pay for it. Other times, mainly when I'm in a capitalistic mood, I think there should be no restriction on wealth inequality. I can honestly ride the fence on this one because neither extreme has worked in human history.
The United States, with it's mixed economy, has produced more wealth in shorter periods of time than in all other times of history. That is remarkable but what still remains are the vast numbers of people who are on the lower end of the spectrum. The poor and working poor. Which brings us back to the unanswered question of wealth distribution. Is it just that 10% of the population can have 80% of all the money?
Now this could easily devolve into a taxation argument, or you could simply label me as a commie liberal beatnik, and neither of those debates would be far off where the true debate should be, but I want to take this in a different direction.
I remember a particularly relevant microbial phenomenon occurring in mineral deposits. For the sake of this discussion, keep in mind that we're talking about completely unthinking organisms. These are things that exist and react purely to stimuli and their "programming". For instance, group A bacteria are going to eat mineral A deposits, and so on. But to a lesser degree they can survive on the mineral B, but not thrive. In this way, they have the perseverance to survive droughts of mineral A, so that when it does become abundant, they are there to utilize it.
Assume that these mineral deposits range from A-C, and that bacteria A-C utilize the same lettered mineral, but can also consume the others if need be to survive. In this mineral economy there is a particular abundance of mineral B, and this causes the population of bacteria B to grow and outnumber bacteria A and C. What this has the effect of doing is to cause a concentration of energy into a single organism. (This competition for energy represents the analogous competition of wealth in the human world.)
The problem arises when the distribution of energy becomes so concentrated that there is a lack of diversity in the environment. Because bacteria A and C provide essential nutrients to B, those two being marginalized ends up limiting the growth of B in the long run. So the instability continues in the system as bacteria B wanes once their mineral has been exhausted. Of course once mineral B is exhausted, minerals A and C are now the primary growth sources in the environment and their corresponding bacteria flourish. However, the most efficient system would be a relative distribution of energy and symbiotic growth amongst all three bacteria.
Translate this to the United States from the start of progressive taxation and aggressive social programs providing checks on the wealth accumulation of the 19th century and the market instability that occurred. Until the deregulation and regressive taxation from the 80s through today, there was relatively stable growth and distribution of incomes. However, when one group of our society amasses so much wealth that it inhibits the growth of the middle class, that is detrimental for the long term stability of our business system as a whole. The richest portion has increased buying power, but that buying power can't compensate for the middle class's aggregate demand as we're seeing in our current economic predicament.
Much as the bacteria have no long term vision, our society seems to not have the wisdom of prior economic history to look upon for lessons. As bacteria B concentrated all the environmental wealth, they did so at the cost of their long term livelihood. Perhaps we don't have the foresight at this point in history, but this level of income disparity currently in our nation does not cohere with previous economic models of efficient markets.
As the bacterial system shows, a relatively stable and efficient exchange of energy between constituents leads to the the greatest long term outcome. This is not advocating a completely free market. As I've said earlier, we have a mixed economy, where the government acts to regulate and tax as a means to keep the economic system stable and more efficient than naturally occurs. Perhaps the range of economic disparity should be from 4-6 instead of 1-10 as it is now. Your thoughts?!
Notes:
The reason movement is italicized is that they are trying to occupy, and thus are immobile. I get the broader reference though, but I love puns. Also while I agree with their sentiment, I know that a past connotation for occupy was sex. Oh the irony.
I'm simplifying tons of things, but no analogy is perfect. Wait, if an analogy were perfect wouldn't that just be the situation itself, and not an analogy?
I am currently looking up the specific study that I am remembering from. I will include a citation when I find it. It was 4 years ago, so give me a break a little. i.e. a couple of days.
The United States, with it's mixed economy, has produced more wealth in shorter periods of time than in all other times of history. That is remarkable but what still remains are the vast numbers of people who are on the lower end of the spectrum. The poor and working poor. Which brings us back to the unanswered question of wealth distribution. Is it just that 10% of the population can have 80% of all the money?
Now this could easily devolve into a taxation argument, or you could simply label me as a commie liberal beatnik, and neither of those debates would be far off where the true debate should be, but I want to take this in a different direction.
I remember a particularly relevant microbial phenomenon occurring in mineral deposits. For the sake of this discussion, keep in mind that we're talking about completely unthinking organisms. These are things that exist and react purely to stimuli and their "programming". For instance, group A bacteria are going to eat mineral A deposits, and so on. But to a lesser degree they can survive on the mineral B, but not thrive. In this way, they have the perseverance to survive droughts of mineral A, so that when it does become abundant, they are there to utilize it.
Assume that these mineral deposits range from A-C, and that bacteria A-C utilize the same lettered mineral, but can also consume the others if need be to survive. In this mineral economy there is a particular abundance of mineral B, and this causes the population of bacteria B to grow and outnumber bacteria A and C. What this has the effect of doing is to cause a concentration of energy into a single organism. (This competition for energy represents the analogous competition of wealth in the human world.)
The problem arises when the distribution of energy becomes so concentrated that there is a lack of diversity in the environment. Because bacteria A and C provide essential nutrients to B, those two being marginalized ends up limiting the growth of B in the long run. So the instability continues in the system as bacteria B wanes once their mineral has been exhausted. Of course once mineral B is exhausted, minerals A and C are now the primary growth sources in the environment and their corresponding bacteria flourish. However, the most efficient system would be a relative distribution of energy and symbiotic growth amongst all three bacteria.
Translate this to the United States from the start of progressive taxation and aggressive social programs providing checks on the wealth accumulation of the 19th century and the market instability that occurred. Until the deregulation and regressive taxation from the 80s through today, there was relatively stable growth and distribution of incomes. However, when one group of our society amasses so much wealth that it inhibits the growth of the middle class, that is detrimental for the long term stability of our business system as a whole. The richest portion has increased buying power, but that buying power can't compensate for the middle class's aggregate demand as we're seeing in our current economic predicament.
Much as the bacteria have no long term vision, our society seems to not have the wisdom of prior economic history to look upon for lessons. As bacteria B concentrated all the environmental wealth, they did so at the cost of their long term livelihood. Perhaps we don't have the foresight at this point in history, but this level of income disparity currently in our nation does not cohere with previous economic models of efficient markets.
As the bacterial system shows, a relatively stable and efficient exchange of energy between constituents leads to the the greatest long term outcome. This is not advocating a completely free market. As I've said earlier, we have a mixed economy, where the government acts to regulate and tax as a means to keep the economic system stable and more efficient than naturally occurs. Perhaps the range of economic disparity should be from 4-6 instead of 1-10 as it is now. Your thoughts?!
Notes:
The reason movement is italicized is that they are trying to occupy, and thus are immobile. I get the broader reference though, but I love puns. Also while I agree with their sentiment, I know that a past connotation for occupy was sex. Oh the irony.
I'm simplifying tons of things, but no analogy is perfect. Wait, if an analogy were perfect wouldn't that just be the situation itself, and not an analogy?
I am currently looking up the specific study that I am remembering from. I will include a citation when I find it. It was 4 years ago, so give me a break a little. i.e. a couple of days.
I really enjoyed reading your post. The more I think about it though, I really don't have an answer. Neither of my parents grew up in affluent homes, and neither went to college, but with hard work and determination my father has worked his way up to being truly wealthy and truly happy. The same goes for his father, and my mothers father currently. I've seen hard work pay off, and it just makes it hard for me to feel hard for those out in the streets complaining about what they don't have instead of working harder to get it. On the other hand, I don't know what those people have been through, and I don't know their lives. So much in our lives is unpredictable, and we are forced to go with it. I believe that people should work hard for what they have and take pride in what they have earned. We live in a land of excess that is unprecedented, which makes those with less think that they need more, when in reality they do not. I think that the current system needs to be tweaked, but as far as how, and what we could do I cannot make up my mind.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you dude, I too come from generations of hard work and as you so aptly described things are always more complex than it's assumed or appears on the surface. The measure of a man, or woman, has become relatively how much crap you've accumulated in life. I agree with you that this needs to change.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think the problem is though, is when the disgustingly rich come into being. More money than anyone can fathom rich. Consider this sentiment. During the eras of the progressive taxation in this country. The days of the progressive Bull Mouse party, the rich were paying what we would consider a ridiculous amount of taxes. 90% on their top earnings. The rationale behind this was that this income was excess. That those individuals at the top were doing so well, that their top income levels weren't necessarily going to their survival. AKA they had a huge mansion and there were starving people.
This sort of redistribution of wealth works to improve the lives of the whole country, including the top earners. The economy is more stable and efficient when there is a more equitable distribution of income. Right? When there is more money in circulation, then it can be distributed better. Of course I'm making a more socialistic argument, and I don't necessarily agree with that. The tenets of the Communist Manifesto are crazy things like, all your inheritance ever going to the state. Things like that. No american agrees with that.
However, thanks to a strong and vibrant socialist movement during the turn of the century through the great depression, we were able to adopt many socialistic but also capitalistic ideas and our economy grew and was stable throughout much of this century. No doubt allowing me to be here.
Thank you for your great comment. Got me thinking!
I too found this an interesting read. I do have a problem with the 10% acquiring the 80% of wealth, but on the other hand they have worked for it in most cases right? so I am not going to limit what someone can achieve through hard work like the both of you have stated. My problem comes in when that top 10% is irresponsible with the money and what they have been given. Which I do think happens a lot. But what can we really change about the current system we have in place. It seems to be a system of flux rather than a stable system so something should be done in my opinion.
ReplyDelete