There’s a very obvious reason to shun Epstein. That Bostein did not says everything about him, whatever his justifications. He is saying that his job requires him to have no moral line whatsoever. But who takes such a job? I think the idea is that money cannot be dirty, it washes clean as soon as you give it to something worthy. But the truth is that the money is there to wash dirty people clean. This is the only reason they give that money. Strictly speaking, there are people destroying the health of the planet and making weapons that kill many that should also not be washed clean. Eschewing the Sacklers means that virtually all of these people should be eschewed who kill as many as the Sacklers did. We should not be so cynical to say it is all a farce so why not take the money. However, if we do not say this, then the rift widens and we have to look it square in the face and see how complicit virtually every laudable institution is, how awash in blood money and harm they all are.
So when are we going to say this? I think we should. We should stop our servility and start to speak out against these people. They should not be regarded as ‘respectable citizens.’ A number of environmentalists have said as much, including Aldo Leopold. Unless we start to create social norms around behaviors of mass harm we are always letting the money and prestige wash away the crimes. Henry Kissinger’s birthday party was a cheering example--people were called out for attending that party. The enormous social cachet of that group of people is very hard to affect. They operate as a gang and because the power structures are fairly closed and refusal to say anything critical about even the worst and most harmful crimes is the price of admission to the gang (as Larry Summers apparently told Elizabeth Warren) it’s hard to have any effect. So I doubt anything we say will matter. Harvard undergraduates will climb the greasy pole with internships with these very people. Nevertheless, we should still be as loud as possible about what they have done and what we think about it. We should speak and bear witness because it is true. Money can erase a lot of things but we shouldn’t let it erase the truth.
"Money can erase a lot of things but we shouldn’t let it erase the truth."
But it does if you let it escape. Ordinary multimillionaires become multibillionaires who become pigs.
We shouldn't have come to this point. Thank you, Oh Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Lewis Powell, Rupert Murdoch, the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and all of those who have colluded against this great country, and brought out the worst in its citizens.
Tax...the...rich. Without progressive taxation, there is no invisible hand.
Capitalism is a great economic system. It can only function long term that as wealth accumulates at the top of economic pyramid by virtue of the nature of capitalism the wealth must be redistributed, if not fascism is the natural out growth. And that is exactly what we are witnessing today in this country. Wealth redistribution essentially helps level the economic playing field by investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, R&D, and the protection of civil rights.
capitalism is an exploitative and rapacious economic system. It's origins are the mercantile system of western europe in the 15th and 16th centuries, as these countries started to find resources in lands they deemed savage, uncivilized (not christian), and with resources free for the taking. encouraged by papal permission to loot, pillage, and rape in order to compel conversion to christianity, they brought home their stolen treasures and slaves, and built an economic empire based therefore on free labor and relatively free or inexpensive raw resources.
capitalism, with minimally free slave labor, built the fortunes of this country. capitalism, by expropriating the land and resources of the previous occupants of this continent, built the fortunes of this country.
having a good standard of living cannot be equated with a moral lifestyle. if i stuff my face while people even in my city are homeless and hungry, where is the morality in that?
we have lived in a fascist state for a long time. I and others define fascism as the collusion between oli/plutarchs and gov't to preempt democratic norms and the rule fo law. it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that this started prior to the 20th century.
i joke sometimes that fascism is doing fine by me - i got my car, my dog, my wife, a paid for house, a pension. i got mine, so who cares?
if by wealth redistribution, one is talking about significant taxes on the rich, then that is just an incremental step towards liberty and justice for all.
Sadly that will never happen, because the rich fascist oligarchs have already won the class war. they've bought, as many have noted in these posts, both democrats and republicans politicians, and one doesn't usually gain office without the backing of the rich. and if one does gain office by small donations, then they are marginalized and called lefty progressives their democrat peers and republican opponents.
There is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed, said Ghandhi.
He also said poverty is the worst sort of violence.
Paul, you need to go further back to at least the 12th Century Crusades. Capitalism can work, but only if it's regulated. Fascism can never work because it is designed to support the wealthy at the expense of all other citizens. We have had a good thing going in America for 247 years, but unless more people start recognizing the need for control through regulation we'll lose it.
Fay, capital will never be regulated. The banksters and their puppetmasters the oligarchs have seen to that. And remember, our "good thing going" in america has been at the expense of the third world. Why do you think central americans are trying to escape their countries? it's because since the 1880's on, united fruit, C&H Sugar, Nestle, Dole, and an assortment of US Military supported corporations have stolen the land and labor, murdered those who've tried to bring justice and fairness. this is how we get our "good thing going". its all there in the history books if you care to read for yourself. it's a crummy thing to have to wrap our heads around the fact that our good life is at the expense of others. it's not about worthiness or "hard work". it's about violent theft of labor and resources. over and over again. amen.
Ownership is a claim originating in theft and maintained by force, which serves the claimant by freeing him from obligation. Stewardship, on the other hand, entails duties subject to public scrutiny and approval. The former is pre-cooperative, and consistent with this male dynamic: Plan > Execute > Reap Reward / Survive Failure > Disregard Fallout > Celebrate Outcome > Rest > Repeat...guess whose dynamic addresses the fallout?
Women are predisposed toward cooperation in a way men are not...it's a corollary to rape etc. Physical strength WAS the primary survival asset for most of human history, and it is the cooperation of the strongest with the rest that is more often a variable than a constant.
The end of history can only be claimed by women. Waiting and working for the day....
Well, certainly, capitalism has been better regulated in my own lifetime and, probably, yours. It's always been a struggle, but we did once have effective regulatory agencies in our federal government. This is what Republicans and the Supreme Court majority want to render helpless, and it's not as though it never existed.
Can you ever control capitalism though? Perhaps in theory, but in reality, it is self-perpetuating. As much as I want to see a LOT more government regulation on capitalism, I see that only postponing the inevitable. Capitalism requires growth. Capitalism requires desire. Capitalism requires greed. These values will, I believe, inevitably lead to reinforcing feedback that supports and perpetuates these values, until eventually we find ourselves where we are today.
Faye - you're right to look to the Crusades, though more likely the windmills they witnessed, rather than the crusaders.
Muslim regions were no different from Christendom - plenty of rich @ssholes around. But what if they got a fixed share of the dividends from a windmill, rather than the profits? What if you could balance one local @sshole by bringing in investors who were bigger @ssholes?
Of course, that would take lots of record keeping. Hmmm...monks are good at records...
That mixture of non-European tech and a crazy Catholic notion of "incorporating" a windmill - just like a cathedral! A "paper person" - probably led to any number of early experiments...
If one was forced to kiss a bunch of @ssholes to get by, at least doing so with paper people might not always wind up so horrible...
I feel like you're all correct. It's so tough. There's layer upon layer, historically, systemically. Obviously something needs to change. Or we can sit back and watch it all devolve into a true fascist state. As Chris Hedges writes, eventually the system does to its own people what it has been doing to others. It's incredibly sad ... and maddening ... and scary.
Paul, I can't say I entirely disagree, only that if faced with the choice between socialism and the "enlightened" Smithian form of capitalism, I'd pick capitalism.
The problem is, Smithianism is very difficult to control, which is why I suspect Piketty believes that the natural form of government is aristocracy/plutocracy.
Piketty had pushed for a global wealth tax, which makes sense since the plutocrats have now gone so far beyond their daily needs that their assets just keep accumulating, and don't count as income. When Piketty approached Lagarde about his idea, she gave him a Gallic shrug. A useful idiot for the European Central Bank.
Depressingly, Orwell was right. Whether you start with socialism or capitalism, the pigs always take over.
the problem for me is one of common human rights. we all have, (in my opinion) the unequivical right to clean water, clean air, housing, medical, food - the essentials for life. our viewpoints, in my opinion are colored by the quality of our lives - the best the world has ever seen. we have the wherewithal to create a socialistic government run by, of and for the people. but the will is not there amongst those of us who have it all, to share. I cannot see any ''enlightened" capitalism - it is by it's very nature dependent on almost free (expropriated) resources, and almost free labor. it does not share nicely in the sandbox. we have not ever seen any political system that did not devolve into fascism or autocracy or dictatorship. i'm not sure it's possible with our current mindsets.
but, given the more "moral" instincts of those who espouse socialism, I would go with that system, especially if we were able to ensure that privatization did not creep in as it starting to for many of the common necessities.
As someone who grew up in a quasi socialist system in the UK in the sixties and seventies, I can attest to its depressing character. Strike after strike, union leaders going to meet the prime minister to discuss pay raises, inefficiency, poor product quality, etc. Nothing worked.
If you did an experiment on the differences in economic delivery of socialism v capitalism, you might think of dividing Germany by a north-south line from the Baltic to the alps and having socialism to the east and capitalism to the west. Same people, same history, same language, same food, on both sides of the line, with one difference: capitalism to the west, socialism to the east. Oh wait, it's been done.
And the result was that after 20 years West Germans were driving Mercedes and BMWs and East Germans were driving one car, a Trabant, which let the rain in.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, in terms of consumption, capitalism is vastly more efficient than socialism. That doesn't make it morally superior, but we are only talking economics here. You are dubious about "enlightened" capitalism, but what is the alternative?
I agree with Sanders, the Danes have the best economic and social system in the world.
And they pay their fucking taxes, even the billionaires.
And, isn't it strange, Harvey, that this is what Adam Smith said 247 years ago? Capitalism only works if it is regulated, so the greedy don't get out of control. But we never learn do we? The Stock Market Crash of 1929; the tax breaks for the ultra wealthy in 1986, repeated under W, repeated under Trump. I guess we get what we deserve for not staying alert to the creep of greed.
Adam Smith understood capitalism and so did Karl Marx who understood capitalism far better than most pro capitalists. Labor unions, regulations and taxes have a regulatory/controlling affect on the potential excesses of capitalism.
The term "redistribution" has become a dog whistle along with the other popular MAGA tropes. One of the purposes of government is to create tax policy that promotes investment for the common good.
How do you pry wealth and power from the filthy dirty hands of the corrupt elites? Redistribution is necessary. Clawing back the ill gotten rewards for shameless assholery is difficult when the basis for rewarding them in the first place was a bastardized version of an economic theory, that posited a “wise king” at its pinnacle. Capitalism is a theory. It has been treated as a license to operate and an excuse to elide the rule of law. Because money rules. How do we get out of this circular trap? How do we take back our freedom and ability to choose our leaders and our future?
Harvey, the problem is getting the wealth redistribution to happen. It is hard when our media also must kiss a** to get the funding they need to fight off the right-wing consolidators and maintain a quality news room. For social media, rich investors jumped in to get more bucks for themselves and now dictate what media can cover and what they can say about it. Lying, no problem, misinformation, OK sure as long as it brings in advertiser and investor bucks, and currerently, it does.
The system is rigged thanks to the SCOTUS. Congress is owned by large donors and as a result needs to protect their donations to stay in office by making sure their donors survive being properly taxed. Money = free speech. An opinion that had to have been bought. A decision like that requires a tortured rationalization. It is pure insanity. It simple gives $ the ability to control the narrative. Cure = publicly financed campaigns and no donations over a small amount - PERIOD!
Yes, Harvey, the SC decision on Citizens United was purchased and at a price not high enough. The contortions used by the SC conservatives (right-wingers) was amazing. It makes no sense. The sections I have read (I gave up after a bit because it made no sense and I knew there was nothing I could do to fix it). I agree that we need serious, really serious election finance reworking. I don't think anyone, even the person running should be able to contribute more than $2,500.00 per individual contest per election and no more than that amount to any PAC. All of it MUST be accounted for, reported by individual's name, even if the corporation is contributing, who is approving the contribution. People need to know who is buying our candidates so we can figure out what their agenda is. The information must be made public.
Also, corporations should not be able to contribute without their shareholders agreeing. That won't be much of a problem since often one person owns half the shares, more than all the others combined. We the People could fix this if we demanded it be fixed. In the meantime, we need to stop bowing and scraping to the rich and famous. They need to do something really remarkable for the people of this nation to deserve it. Floating fascist candidates, laws, and hateful moves against people in this country do not count.
The one percent is not going to give up their money without a fight. They will get the ignorant working class to kill for them and left wing people will be the target.
Absolutely, and that's the way capitalism was originally conceived. Marx misunderstood it because he thought that the proletariat would have no power other than violence. He died in 1883 and had already had plenty of time to observe increasing levels of democracy, the formation of unions and collective bargaining. Already, by 1865, the concentration of wealth in the plutocracy was beginning to diminish in the advanced capitalist economies of the US, UK, and Germany. And, of course, this continued into the 20th Century in Europe, Japan and the US.
Nowhere was the societal increase in wealth seen more than the US, where taxes in the 1950s were up to 92%. What the factory owners have forgotten is that everyone benefits from redistribution - including the factory owners - since the middle class is consumptive.
We are living in a socialist state, where the plutocrats are the new Welfare Queens and the middle class has been hollowed out.
John, I must agree with you that the guys who are currently rich were bred to be rich, even if they didn't start out that way. Whatever they did as kids was praised and supported. When possible, they were sent to private often boarding schools where they were corralled with other kids just like themselves (a few members of minorities showed them their current and future targets. I have read of some of the cruelties that happened in those schools. They were well-trained, if they could learn the material to know just how to treat people not like themselves and to be with their own kind. Our "elite" colleges and universities completed the basic training which was topped off at "elite" corporations, law firms, and medical institutions where they could get the rest of the message of their superiority which they will employ throughout the rest of their lives. How anyone put through this process turns out to be a decent human being is practically a miracle. I am sure there are some.
With a stepped up tax basis for inheritance the rich will just get richer and richer. No one wants to overpay their taxes but the really rich will soon be able to buy the IRS.
John, as for the super rich being able to buy the IRS, I believe they already have. They got Dems to agree to Republican demands to cut funding that was already passed for the IRS, which, of course will keep it unless the IRS gets smart, from catching the tax-cheating millionaires and billionaires. That sounds a lot like having bought or at least paid a huge down payment on the IRS to me. What do you think?
How do we get rid of them? For starters, tax them heavily, like we did in the good old days post WWII right up until the Reagan presidency. That was when the American economy was the strongest and fastest growing in the world and when the middle class was ascendant. That, more than anything would make America great again.
That's a good one, John. If someone makes money by hard work and brains then more power to them. But that is usually not the case. They are born into it.
Michael, wow! You are really on point! I am so sick of the way people fawn over the rich and the rich are generally not worthy of that fawning (OK no one is except really young children). Money and celebrity have gotten us people in office who should never have been in office, Trump being the most recent. You don't have to know anything to get a top position if you have money, a lot of it or pretend you do, and are a celebrity. In fact to some, ignorance seems charming or anti-establishment these days. It is just plain ignorance! Money proves nothing except that someone is lucky, had a rich family, is dishonest, or has some rich friends. That's it. A touch of talent or skill may be involved, but only a small part.
Can you explain how hard work, focus, diligence, willingness to take a risk, work through failure, fiscal responsibility, etc doesn't count for anything but luck, family, dishonesty is what it takes? What a sorry contemptible outlook.
Jay, yes, all those things can be present among the very rich, but they are at least as involved in the lives of those who are not rich. It seems there are factors that can make the difference and they are, I believe, the factors I mentioned. When one has never faced poverty, real struggle when one does not know how it will work out, it is hard to empathize. There are some rich folks who got it through sports and entertainment, but in addition to their obvious talent, there is a lot of luck.
It that how the heirs of the Walmart fortune got their money? They never have to work a day in their lives. The Old Man made the money by putting thousands of small businesses out of business.
Progressive income taxes make sense when the bulk of the power/wealth flows from taxable income generating activities.
But when wealth comes from income generating assets (like other companies that "do" the activities in some other country), progressive income taxes can't get us there. For a very brief time, people could pretend "multinational corporations" were a strange aberration - but when every multi-millionaire except a landlord can operate accounts similarly to corporations 50-60 years ago, with income generating activities happening abroad or on paper while they personally earn nominal income (a $1 joke "wage", plus whatever they care to claim as income for other purposes) - then "wealth taxes" that get at property other than real estate will be necessary.
But none of that has anything to do with the proclivity of people to serve rich @ssholes. In the past, rich @ssholes owned people. Or they profited from people who traded, cheated, killed, etc other people. We've got no shortage of nasties, but which of them burnt down a company town, killed a dozen striking workers, shrugged as their families starved?
Once our @ssholes prove as bloodthirsty as their predecessors - perhaps we will find the means to tax "wealth" and rein them in. But that will have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, or any other system - that's just "civilization costs."
I don't know that there has to be any specific sort of tax. Ultimately, taxes are the cost of civilization, but whatever form they take, elites will develop mechanisms to avoid. Either we counter the elites by finding new mechanisms to collect, or we lose civilization.
We don't really need a wealth tax if people are willing to sacrifice civilization as we know it...but most people want to preserve at least some things they value.
In my family we often mourn the loss of Christopher Hitchens, especially in these recent horrible years. Your mention of Henry Kissinger reminded me of Hitchens' views about Kissinger.
I am also a Christopher Hitchens fan. But I also really miss George Carlin. Can you imagine what the comic philosopher would have to say during this current degenerating shit -show of a country? In his later years George really was a ‘Mark Twain’ of commentator about what’s going on in our once great country. And like Hitchens, and other independent thinkers, George was an atheist or should I say a realist,they thought with their minds not with tradition. He really liked to challenge the audience to look at things differently, even though they might not like it. He was very successful at Enlightening people. If you never followed him, do yourself a favor and look up all his ‘Work ‘and how his ideas matured over the years.
I am a fan of George Carlin and am very critical of Obfuscating Obvious Bad Words. I Abhor "N-Word" which to me is a non-word code symbol like a child saying #1 or #2 for urinate of defecate. My test of a dictionary before buying it was to look for Carlin's 7 words you could not say on TV, "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits" but also "Offensive Slang" words like "nigger," & "faggot." These words exist and are in use, despite ppl's sensitivities and need defining in a dictionary.
Christopher Hitchens provided my most important test. His rationality came from his empathy. Even though we often spoke in different languages, languages of “faith” vs. “age of reason,” his loving skepticism made me believe in a great goodness in the universe. He cared, truly.
Christopher Hitchens died Dec. 15, 2011 but he is still very much alive in his books and talks. Even if one doesn't agree with him, he is well worth being considered.
He along with the great folks at the FFRF, Americans United (for separation of church and state), the friendly atheist, Hemant Mehta, and other free-thinkers have made me into the street epistemologist I have become in recent years. I am forever in debt to their generous sharing of their knowledge.
There are many YouTube videos of Christopher Hitchens debating religion. I have been watching them lately and love his intellect and sense of humor. I was a fan before but even more so now because of the videos.
His wit and erudition are legendary and as sharp as his wit and tongue could be, he was big-hearted and a rabid truth-teller. He always seemed to detest phonies and hypocrites - irreverent, outrageous, so funny and so honest.
First it must be said the people are capable of rationalizing anything. Having said that the line between those of ill-gotten money and those who are thought to be respectable is not so clear. For an example the "conspiracy" between the healthcare industry, insurance industry and the processed food industry creates great wealth. But the healthcare industry depends on the illness caused by the processed food industry which in turn depends on the addictive quality of their products which, as the science has proved, is producing a long list of chronic diseases which is projected to bankrupt Medicare and cost trillions of dollars treating those diseases. The difference drug addiction or sugar addiction one can kill quickly and the other slower and longer term pain and suffering. As for the insurance companies they could care less. If claims are high their premiums go up, but rarely ever go down.
And the US government colludes as well, subsidizing such crops as corn, the source of corn syrup found in many products due to how cheap it is, and also used to produce "corn-fed" beef where the poor creatures are forced to eat something not natural to them, which causes them all sorts of digestive problems, but there are no subsidies for broccoli.
Everything you wrote, Ro! Especially that we should not let money erase the truth.. Of course one can pick and choose from whom to solicit money! IMO, donors should expect those seeking charitable contributions to perform due diligence BEFORE they seek donations since acceptance of a donation confers a modicum of respectability upon the donor. After all, what wealthy donor would want to be grouped in any way with someone who -- say -- ordered the chainsaw execution of a famous journalist and activist? Or maybe they would. What do I know?
Thanks! Decided that guy in Saudi Arabia is a much more timely example than Adolf. And I will never understand how civilized people can look past the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
It’s SUCH a good example. Everyone whitewashed and was obsequious to him *immediately*—NYT op ed writers and many others. The Saudi family is an excellent example to this. Our own government is very servile to the Saudi government —-for complicated reasons, of course. Something is terribly wrong. The vastness of the wealth has caused the weakening of the state. So it is ultimately up to people to draw a line themselves. This is what is so revealing about Botstein’s comment. He says he cannot draw a line because we are all dependent. How can Bard college thrive if he draws a line? Who then can draw a line? Not the government. Not the college presidents. This logic needs to be challenged. We need to draw the line and take the consequences. They behave like a gang with total internal loyalty so we must understand that their interests are not our interests and draw a line and those who collude and excuse must also be held accountable. Or else there is nothing.
Re-reading your comment, Ro, I found myself thinking that you absolutely NAILED it. Making antisocial behaviors absolutely unacceptable by civilized society is vital, but how to convince charitable institutions to be choosier about their donors? Maybe lots of bad publicity when thugs are appointed to boards, feted at dinners, have buildings named for them? The James Beard Award people this year eliminated a chef from competition after investigating his employees' claims that he harassed women employees, used racial slurs and slapped a sous-chef. One small step....
I have to re-read Aldo Leopold but he and also a few other environmentalists made this point years ago. Plus it is a huge and unnoticed problem for libertarians. Environmental harms are HARMS. Choking and killing someone with pollution is a harm. But economic and environmental and other harms are ignored except in a few very exceptional cases. To the extent we can make being a cause of these harms something that you can’t wash away with a few donations, it could be very good in the long run. Yes, they are ‘systemic’ but they are also things people directly allow and contribute to--and holding the individuals accountable at least in speech and as a social matter could reveal a lot about the systems in addition to making people think twice about what they are doing to others, and whether they’ll get away with it. Donations allow them to get away with it so objecting to donations is a good way to shed light.
I go around and around about this. Absolutely, people like Epstein should not ever be “normalized,” far less celebrated!! Egad. He should have been in jail far earlier and prevented from committing so many more crimes agains young girls. And stopped from using his financial power for evil.
I do want to make a distinction between this and what so many are calling “cancel culture,” though.
First, hanging that term on the left is SO disingenuous, since Republicans had a concerted program to report on and “cancel” college professors for decades — using members of Young Republicans and college Republican clubs to report on their professors. And they demonized the LGBTA+ community and hounded them from their jobs, destroying their reputations in their communities … on and on and on …
And if Joe McCarthy was not cancel culture on steroids, I’m a Monkey’s Uncle.
The new term “cancel culture” applied to the Left is how the Right responds to their own tactics being turned on them. It’s bogus, but the infiltration of the activity itself into Left behavior bothers me. It has been seen from time to time, and I don’t approve of it. There’s a charge that “the Left eats its own,” and I see that happening a little more often than I prefer. I dislike demanding purity of thought and toeing the party line, no matter who demands it.
Sp, finding the line between ABSOLUTELY not rehabilitating the a**holes, but still not subscribing to cancel culture that becomes too broad and lacks distinction—well, that is, to my mind, important.
What Prof. Reich says, I completely agree with. But I’m raising a related issue, because it matters.
Interesting points. But is being more discriminating w/re to one's sources of help actually "canceling" the source/person? One can refuse to go begging to an immoral person, or a person who obtains their largesse in immoral ways. That doesn't mean there's a massive move to boycott that source/person.
Completely agree. I’m making a distinction and raising the issue because we sometimes get carried away and the distinctions are NOT made. We wind up with prescribed group-think. I don’t like ideological purity for its own sake.
I think claiming that non-profit and charitable fundraising REQUIRES kissing the butts of immoral and actively-destructive people in our society is a cop out. YES, it’s hard to raise money. YES, they can do a lot of good with money, even if they get it from bad people. But does that wash away the badness? NO. It contributes to making those bad people look good enough to invite to dinner … Like Epstein. Does the good out weigh the bad? Ummmm, there’s asking people to think a little, and that’s hard, too.
Saying fundraisers have to go to the source, even if it’s an incredibly venal source, is actually taking the easy way out, because finding better people and asking them for donations is hard, but I hope it’s not impossible. No one says all “philanthropy” needs to come from Saints and Angels, but reasonable people can make judgments about who they will deal with.
And they should.
Make judgments, not follow a party line sans thought. And don’t sign onto cancelling, either, without thought.
Yes, it’s a tough problem to figure out. I don’t think the problem originates in people speaking the truth. The problem lies in ignorance, deception, misinformation, etc. But look at the opposite problem--people doing terrible things and not being held accountable. I doubt the extreme danger of ‘cancel culture’ simply because almost nobody is every actually ‘cancelled’ in that (a) they did nothing wrong and (b) they are forever shunned in society.
Powerful people are almost never shunned.
Is there a better alternative to ‘we should speak the truth about the harmful effect of certain powerful people’s actions.’ I can’t think of a better alternative because the alternative is making extremely harmful actions normal, and that is deceit and unfair to the people harmed.
If you weigh the differences in harms between people who are harmed and killed by environmental destruction or cheated by dirty financial dealings, etc. and being unfair to a very wealthy and powerful person because maybe there is some mitigating factor I don’t think never holding people accountable for their actions comes out very far ahead.
There is the problem of misinformation but this problem will happen whether we speak the truth or not.
If people did not speak the truth, nobody would have been held accountable for Epstein. Epstein was an easier target because a) nobody’s wealth really depended on him. b) he had been prosecuted c) it was easy to make his crime seem detached from his wealth. There’s a way Epstein is being used as an effigy. People are enraged at billionaires on all sides. So Epstein, who courted the powerful from all political spheres, can be the effigy for both sides to burn. And their anger at the collusion of all these people can be directed at him, a dead man. And the crime is rape, which is a terrible crime, but it muddies how coercive sex and underage rape wasn’t the only thing Epstein was usually selling--he sold access to powerful people by other powerful people and if there was an option of using this to get more leverage then he would use this but he also dangled money and favors and access in addition to this--but everyone is tarred by his sex crimes even before he was arrested but nobody is really worrying about this. Nobody is worrying at all about whether we’re ‘being fair’ to those associated with Epstein.
Because we are trying to hold people to a higher standard. They should consider that the alluring women they are getting massages from and seeing topless at the pool are human beings. If they are teenagers, they should be concerned rather than impressed at Epstein’s ability to pay for teen sex. Or at least I hope that’s what we’re trying to do.
Criticizing people for their actions and statements is entirely valid. Destroying someone’s reputation over an unexamined statement is not. I think the “cancel culture” I take issue with most happens in forums like, and is escalated by entities like, Twitter, but maybe that’s more my impression, and not entirely accurate.
I have no problem with calling people to account for what they say, and especially with engaging with them and refining my understanding of their position, and having them refine and clarify it — or change their mind, which can also happen.
Yeah, most prominent people who have been attacked and had attempts at cancelling have managed to survive, on some level. I am not sorry in any way, shape or form that Harvey Weinstein got his just deserts. I am sorry we lost a man I considered a competent and valuable senator, but he’s alive and well and on tour now, if I am seeing accurate ads and news stories.
But I do have issues with NOT engaging people we disagree with. I have a problem with “platforming” heinous speech and advocacy, but I also have a problem with censorship and prior restraint.
So, those issues and spurs to behavior are exceedingly nuanced, and when it comes time to protest someone, that needs a lot of thought on how to best go about it, so we don’t go down the “mob mentality” rabbit hole.
Nobody said this self-governance thing would be easy
I have not worked out all the conundrums, myself. The value of freedom and especially freedom of expression is also being eroded--weirdly or maybe not weirdly--by people who claim they are defending freedom. At the same time, anyone with minority views of any kind whatsoever, particularly leftist views, benefits the most from an atmosphere of very free speech. Sometimes it’s like we are being led into a trap. If we chide young people too much for hassling speakers then we end up amplifying people whose actual desire is to erode freedom or destroy it altogether. On the other hand, some people just don’t get it...they don’t get we sort of HAVE to put up with lies and bullshit even really noxious ones--in this particular climate. And then the post truth thing! It’s all so much of a muddle. I am trying to think it through but I am sure I do not have a full handle on it. Thank you for your thoughts!
In addition, one can add the old cliché of "absolute power corrupts absolutely." On Earth, possessing BILLIONS of dollars makes one LITERALLY INVINCIBLE to mankind!
This needs to END and hopefully, with the ARREST of Donald "Bunkerboy" Trump, we CAN end the absolute power of obsolete billionaires.
I read the article, and though it mitigates the rage a little bit, Botstein still comes off badly. His job and his responsibility to raise tons of money was hard. But Jeffrey Epstein? Egad
Botstein says he believes in second chances for convicts, and I certainly applaud THAT for the broad spectrum of people who get out of jail and need to go straight …
And we know that SOME registered sex offenders have not physically preyed on people, but include other offenses that are less evil than Epstein’s. We can talk about whether they deserve “a second chance” at being accepted into our social circles or not — apparently Mr. Botstein thought they did, especially if they had lots of money.
And some repent and make determined effort to behave themselves. I can’t comment on how successful that is …
But a whole monied class of people put Epstein’s behavior on the same level as someone convicted of flashing. His original machinations and spending enormous amounts of money to escape punishment were rewarded with being accepted back into polite {and very wealthy] society. That’s really sick. People who say they didn’t know how bad he was … well they should have.
Even Donald Trump once said he knew Jeffrey’s taste in girls was similar to his own. Trump is quoted as saying he knew Epstein liked his female companions “on the young side.” I don’t think Epstein’s behavior was such a secret.
Thanks for the link. I was taken by Botstein's quote:
“That is a humiliating experience to go back over and over and over,” Dr. Botstein said, adding, “We’re completely at the mercy of the very wealthy.”
But also this:
“He [Epstein] enjoyed humiliating and dangling prospects,” Dr. Botstein said, adding, “He was sadistic. He absolutely strung me along.”
My conclusion is that Botstein knew Epstein was sadistic, and as the article notes, ultimately tighter than Botstein had hoped with donations. He gets zero social IQ points for that misjudgment, and goes into the negative points when he actually discriminates between sex offender and sex trafficker. The article states that Bard believes in "second chances" for felons, but sex offenders are possibly the hardest to rehabilitate. And they WILL offend again if allowed. Botstein should have known that.
Yes, spot on. Everyday we watch more examples of corporate rule, greed, and corruption. And it will keep getting worse until we strike at the root problem with the We the People Amendment @movetoamend.orgmovetoamend.org
Was Trump involved in the merger? Kushner? Even Tons-of- Fun Christy says that they should be investigated!!
On the SAME DAY Saudi controlled OPEC announced new attempts to limit oil production - raising prices -- and they control our largest refineries and some of our biggest companies -- . like Exxon. Is this not a national security issue????
Meanwhile, Saudis are buying crucial resources. E.G. Fondomonte, which is owned by one of the largest dairy companies in Saudi Arabia, bought vast tracts of desert in western Arizona on top of a massive groundwater aquifer in part because there are no regulations on how much water can be pumped out of the ground.
The Saudis are also buying farmland--productive, grows food farmland. Once owning the land, they have no respect for water rights or sustainable farming. I want an enforceable law that forbids the ownership of any land by foreigners, any foreigner.
Definitely something that should be made a principle - why allow any foreigner to buy up the country's assets - they have almost unlimited resources to do just that unless they are stopped !
Worse. Far worse. Chinese military base 90 miles from Key West!!
The news follows intense speculation that Russia, not China, was planning to reopen its Soviet-era espionage base in Lourdes, a town near Havana, which it shut down in 2002. High-ranking Russian national security officials and diplomats have been traveling to the island recently and the two governments appear as close as ever, with Cuban leaders offering public support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Since 1973 they've been undermining our economy and have been buying politicians as well as our companies, especially in the energy sector. Helped finance Fox. Helped Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Supported Hussain during the Iran Iraq War.
Iraq was their competitor in the oil business. We wasted $ trillions. Lost "blood and treasure"
They have the same interest as Putin. Russia needs high energy prices
I had NO IDEA that the PGA had any kind of tax-exempt status!! You want to talk about money, morality, decency, not to mention fairness, wealth distribution, dishonorable tax laws?!! How about this news item that caught my eye before leaving computer-land for the morning. This was a Yahoo News item this morning and it is astounding that the PGA EVER had tax-exempt status, but now? NOW? That must end NOW!! Write your Congress-people!!
"Congress Tees Up New Bill Stripping PGA Tour’s Tax-Exempt Status
Daniel Libit
Wed, Jun 7, 2023
Barely a day after the PGA Tour shocked the world by announcing it would be joining a for-profit venture with its heretofore hated rival—the Saudi-backed LIV Golf—a Congressional bill has been introduced to strip the tour of its tax-exempt status.
On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), the third-ranking minority member on the House Armed Services Committee, proposed the “No Corporate Tax Exemption for Professional Sports Act,” which would end the PGA Tour’s ability to file as an IRS 501-C organization, as it has done for decades."
The article goes on with some excerpts here:
"As Sportico noted in a story published earlier Wednesday, the PGA Tour is one of the last major American pro sports organizations to continue operating as a federal nonprofit, after the NFL voluntarily converted to for-profit status in 2015.
Over the last 15 years, there have been several bills proposed, mostly by Republicans, that would change the Internal Revenue Code to disallow pro sports organizations earning more than $10 million in annual revenue from availing themselves of tax-exempt status.
“Saudi Arabia cannot be allowed to sportswash its government’s horrific human rights abuses and the 2018 murder of American-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi by taking over the PGA,” Garamendi said. “PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan should be ashamed of the blatant hypocrisy and about-face he and the rest of PGA’s leadership demonstrated.”
Garamendi, a former college football player and wrestler at Cal, has been a member of Congress since 2009. He previously served as the lieutenant governor of California.
“ 'The notion that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund would pay zero dollars in taxes on their blood money and potentially billions of dollars in profits while countless American families pay their fair share while struggling to make ends meet is ludicrous,” Garamendi said. “My common-sense legislation would right this wrong and bring some much-needed accountability to this matter.”
As an aside, thanks also to all the commentators who post here. Considered viewpoints, worthwhile info, heartfelt reminisces, respectful disagreements ...unlike the terrorists of fb/twitter.
What the article above says is, ""As Sportico noted in a story published earlier Wednesday, the PGA Tour is one of the last major American pro sports organizations to continue operating as a federal nonprofit, after the NFL voluntarily converted to for-profit status in 2015."
Having been in the position of running a nonprofit and needing the wealthy in order to pay staff and accomplish our mission, I can admit that there were many times when I wished we could have achieved our goals without them. I often felt like a serf, arranging our activities so that the lord or lady would favor us. I agreed with Obama when he proposed that large donations should not be deducted at the higher tax rates (when they actually pay higher rates).
Not only must nonprofits be dependent upon the wealthy (most of whom are good people) but they also must compete for grants from wealthy foundations and banks. Billions of dollars are held by community and family foundations that dribble out 5% of their assets to nonprofits every year. Now that Federal earmarks have returned, nonprofits must now compete for money from their representatives.
Why is it that this country has so many social needs that are only partially alleviated by nonprofit work? I believe it is because mankind has forever developed standards that rewards only certain characteristics. Our capitalist system supports those standards and the ever accelerating benefits flow to the wealthy.
It’s not surprising that nonprofits spend most of their income on salaries and fundraising. Typically they have two budgets: administrative and capital. Many donations are restricted for capital purposes. Of course I agree that family foundations should not provide salaries for the family board members.
I live a couple of blocks from his charitable headquarters in Coconut Grove -- that's a variation on the theme where they loan to themselves and therefore do not declare it as income.
Nancy, do you think government should be providing services that are left to the nonprofits to deal with? It seems to me that government programs have been successfully targeted by the monied classes and the dribs and drabs such entities contribute are outlets for ego gratification, the ultimate in privatization.
It seems to me that government has been co-opted and society suffers for it.
Mary, this is worthy of a long conversation. There are many things that government should be doing more of, such as healthcare, early education, and childcare. I would’ve preferred to have been able to collect donations from the greater public that had more disposable income with higher wages because the wealthy were hoarding less. Once wealthy people begin to make large donations, they are often given awards and recognition that discourages average donors. If a nonprofit is worthy of existence it should be able to raise money from a diverse group of those who benefit from or believe in their work. As a nonprofit executive I can admit that it’s a lot easier collecting $1 million from one donor rather than $1 million from 1000 or more donors. Our current tax structure now discourages smaller donors who use standard deductions. I actually Like congressional earmarks because they contribute taxpayer dollars for projects that are vetted through Congress that benefit directly communities and families. I’m sure many will disagree. It’s an interesting discussion and one where I am not aware of a good model in other countries that would provide us with some interesting alternatives.
Epstein is no more morally repugnant than Trump; indeed Trump’s sins are more varied and some are against the whole nation . Both money and power are what rules the modern world in reality. Thus one could conclude that the party who supports Trump’s candidacy is also bought and paid for by as*holes as well. Money and power are more addictive than any drug.
Virginia Hastings ; Actually, Epstein was one of tRump's buds with whom he often hung out. It would not shock me to find out that tRump indulged in some of Epstein's 'commodities'. I think there is a reason that Epstein was found dead in that jail cell. He knew too much. I don't believe for a second that he was the suicidal type. Bill Barr had the power over all prisons. It would have been easy, like so much corruption.
No one with half a brain believes he committed suicide. Of course he knew too much and probably names that were never associated with his whole sorry life of sexual predation.
Daniel Solomon : I don't doubt that tRump would 'sample the wares' if it suited him. Being competitors does not erase his greed or lust for whatever he wants. I have seen video where he was quite friendly with Epstein as they were openly evaluating the 'merchandise' .
Time line involved. I attached the Jane Doe allegations where they were jointly accused of statutory rape.
Trump turned it into a friggin' business. We had one case at DOL where an allegation was made, but it was flawed -- complainant blew the statute of limitations.
As an old ICU nurse, I marvel at all the a$$ kissing of Bill Gates, who is an expert in every field and even an outstanding book reviewer. Time to tax the rich adequately. They make their millions on the backs of others. Their ideas, inventions, or purchased software AKA DOS would not bring them a red cent without the labor if others. Our value system stinks. And believe me money is how America shows what it values.
Gates, the college drop-out is indeed a contemporary P.T. Barnum with his "there's a sucker born every minute and you're one of them" contemptuous persona.
The real lesson, as Professor Reich implies, is that this is just the beginning. Given the requirement of investors to earn a historical rate of return on their money (3-5% on bonds and 8-10% on equities) combined with lower rates of economic growth results in their ultimately capturing greater and greater shares of the national income. In 1991 money seeking a rate of return amounted to about $90 trillion. Now it’s closer to $400 trillion. The result, of course, is that all this wealth seeking more wealth must buy more and more, even taking over the functions once performed by the state (e.g. space exploration, war, communication etc.). Thus even governments, as well as non-profits such as Bard, must increasingly seek their beneficence. Eventually the top 10 percent (or 5 percent, or, ultimately .001 percent) will own everything. The big question is how can the increasing power of the plutocrats be checked?
Absolutely correct. As late stage capitalism flounders and fails to produce the economic growth the avaricious capital class demands, that class increasingly finds schemes to shift wealth from the middle and lower classes to themselves. That's what the the Financial Crisis of 2009 was ultimately about. And that's what the Covid "get the vaxx" hysteria was about. Shifting wealth upward.
This is really interesting---and important. Do you have anything we could read about this. It’s obvious that there is a need for the superrich to find a place to park their money which is probably why we see small healthcare companies and huge amounts of land and housing being bought by Blackrock, et. al. Water, health, housing, etc. is all being bought. I was astonished to find that 30% is the REQUIRED return for these real estate speculators. 30%!!! All the means of life. Which is going to deeply worsen the current crisis along with consolidation of transportation and food we will be at their mercy. However, I don’t have any source that puts it all together--it’s just various things I glean from FT and Bloomberg. Are there any scholarly articles or books on this phenom that you know of?
I have tried to put together the material in a couple of places, most recently in a chapter on Financialization in The Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by James Carrier (3rd edition, 2022, Elgar Publishing), and an article on Covid and finance in Covid-19 and the Global Economy, edited by Tim DiMuzio and Matt Dow (2023 Routledge). I can share those chapters, if you like. I have a more comprehensive version in a working paper that you can access at
It's a working paper that I've drawn on, revised, etc. and plan on submitting and expanding into a book length threatment. Any comments or critique is welcomed.
I don’t think it can be checked. It is the nature of man. How many middle class and lower classes would do the same thing if they had the opportunity? Greed, power and money is the name of the game. It will be our undoing.....and we are on the way.
I think there's more variation than this being the nature of man, or did you mean the gender? Most humans are born with the capacity for empathy, but many of us, have that pounded out of us, or at least discouraged in our younger years. With our definition of masculinity, which most men can never achieve, being ruthless and without compassion may be compensation for this. We need to radically change not only our economic system, but how we raised our kids, especially around gender identity.
J., thanks for your message. We need to think about what we want for our future. I am not a man and cannot know in a visceral sense what it’s like to be in that situation, but I do know that exploitation is not just about being a woman, tough as that can be in certain contexts. And I support people being treated as part of humanity wherever they land on the spectrum. The future is in our hands.
Mary, it sure looks that way. If there was good journalism to educate enough voters about what can be done to help turn things around, some changes could pull things 'out of the fire' . Like drivers on a road going opposite ways, most humans would avoid hitting an oncoming vehicle. But only if they can see it coming! There could be widespread demand for better legislation, enforcement of anti trust laws and restoration of the FCC, FEC, EPA and the rule of law. We need luck, lots of it, and pluck.
Is it really a question of wealth or poverty? Isn't it more a question of having principles and standing by them? Morality - character - aren't qualities attached to financial status, or any other external quality. They are what they are and you either have them or you don't. What those Epstein "groupies" (and I mean those seeking something from him, or responding to his overtures to them) demonstrated is what we are seeing every day in this country (and not only this country, obviously) and that is the absence of the proverbial moral compass, of any engrained sense of decency, morality - of character.
Money may set loose the many available ways of acting out one's immoral or amoral lack of character in more varied ways, but lack of character is not the exclusive purview of any particular financial status, racial status, gender, education or any other qualifier.
For those public figures, "celebrities," politicians, CEO's, etc. who lack character, they may be able to keep their indecency hidden for a while, maybe a long while; money buys silence and secrets - from those also without character - we have learned. The notion of there being different levels of "character" was "popularized" by the Clintons. The idea that there were such things as public character and, separately, private character was part of the shift in consciousness that they and their "team" developed in order to shift attitudes about their behaviors.
That discrepancy was demonstrated very dramatically (in my opinion) when we would see Bill and Hillary exit a church in Washington, D.C. on a Sunday, sometimes a Black church, and Bill would be shown on camera smiling, holding his Bible high up as he waved and greeted people outside the church. We later learned that he was meeting Monica Lewinsky for a liaison at the White House.
Public - private - but that precious quality we call "character" not there.
You have to know right from wrong and choose right. That's how morality works.
Basically morality is dying on every level- personal, social, fiscal, political, international political. Desperate people seek fundamentalist Christian “truths” for simple answers and irrationally and ironically see Trump as their political saviour. It’s a very complex matter that capitalism has avoided tackling. It threatens democracy. This and global warming are the real issues that humans worldwide need to work on.
When basic needs are met, and institutions are worthy of our trust, people won’t be desperate for the comfort provided by rigid belief systems and their conditional acceptance of alienated “sheep”, as they are often called (tongue in cheek). Noble my ass!
On top of all that, even as much sucking up as Presidents, Board Members, etc., do, it is not enough to keep our cultural institutions going much less education, health care, child care, etc. I could go on and on. The problem suggests that the sort of socialism that exists in Scandinavia and other parts of Western Europe is a better path to follow.
They Been buying the Supreme Court since Slavery and they bought the CURRENT supreme Court .
Did you think the Jan 6 Attempt coupe was a grass roots effort??? Really !!!
The re introduction of Slavery is the goal of the wealthy idle rich .
Look at our tax system money is broken into classes according to how you acquire it. The Rich pay less than 5 % while the working poor ( wage slaves ) pay nearly 40% of actual wages through all combined tax systems.
Money has skewed the entire scream of government into protect the Rich tax thx the wage slaves.
Slavery as an institution was discredited around the world in the mid 19th century.
But it is far too lucrative an institution for the capital accumulating class to give up. They bring it back in euphemised forms like the $7.25 an hour wage.
With the new Christo- fascist party is trying to do is to get rid of as much immigration as possible. They want to replace the immigrants in the field with children. They also want to replace them with people who we receive welfare.
So it simply goes like this: drop the number of immigrants coming into this country and replace those immigrants with children and welfare recipients. That's the Christo- fascist solution to the dilemma of the rich people having to pay too much for labor. Slave owners the South learned it's much cheaper. And since a lot of black people are very poor because of white corporations, and unable to get jobs, they too will be out in the fields with the children as welfare recipients. We can add women to the picture. The crystal fascists want women out of the labor market. They also are pro-force birth. As soon we will be seeing women and their children on welfare and working the field s. Won't that be a nice little party for the Christo- fascist party?
Why am I using the term Christo- fascist party? Because I refuse to call a pig a butterfly. The truth only hurts if you tell a lie first.
Do other "advanced" and "developed" countries have this problem. Not so much. Why not? Because taxes pay for universities, museums, operas and support even tiny theater troupes. Take a look at Western Europe.
On point and timely. Much like the adults in the room can’t pretend any longer that our way of life cannot co-exist with our ecosystem any longer, the adults also can’t afford to pretend any longer that our Capitalist economy is working the way it needs to. Real trouble is brewing when the only way our colleges -for example- thrive in the current state of things is for the Leo Botsteins of the world to grovel for scraps. There will be a revolution, how do you avoid it? Well, the rich pay their fair share of taxes and stop getting the tax avoiding loopholes would be an urgent first step in avoiding the worst outcomes for all.
It's "Please Sir, may I have some more?". Politics makes liars of us all.
Leon Botstein, Saul Alinsky, and many others...Good careers that will forever be tainted because our system forces those who wish to do good, to the street, cup in hand to beg billionaires. And, that trip sometimes takes you to the bad side of town...Hospitals, universities, charities, the arts...If you want to survive, you have to mooch. That's Love American Style.
I am a retired academic who did her fair share of administrative work. The rush to take the devil's money, and its horrific impact on academic values, that started at my university in the 1990s, has been a source of pain to me. I remember all too well when I was dean of my college being told by the president of the university that he didn't see any reason for me to worry about what the faculty wanted to see done. If there was money on the table, that was all he needed.
There’s a very obvious reason to shun Epstein. That Bostein did not says everything about him, whatever his justifications. He is saying that his job requires him to have no moral line whatsoever. But who takes such a job? I think the idea is that money cannot be dirty, it washes clean as soon as you give it to something worthy. But the truth is that the money is there to wash dirty people clean. This is the only reason they give that money. Strictly speaking, there are people destroying the health of the planet and making weapons that kill many that should also not be washed clean. Eschewing the Sacklers means that virtually all of these people should be eschewed who kill as many as the Sacklers did. We should not be so cynical to say it is all a farce so why not take the money. However, if we do not say this, then the rift widens and we have to look it square in the face and see how complicit virtually every laudable institution is, how awash in blood money and harm they all are.
So when are we going to say this? I think we should. We should stop our servility and start to speak out against these people. They should not be regarded as ‘respectable citizens.’ A number of environmentalists have said as much, including Aldo Leopold. Unless we start to create social norms around behaviors of mass harm we are always letting the money and prestige wash away the crimes. Henry Kissinger’s birthday party was a cheering example--people were called out for attending that party. The enormous social cachet of that group of people is very hard to affect. They operate as a gang and because the power structures are fairly closed and refusal to say anything critical about even the worst and most harmful crimes is the price of admission to the gang (as Larry Summers apparently told Elizabeth Warren) it’s hard to have any effect. So I doubt anything we say will matter. Harvard undergraduates will climb the greasy pole with internships with these very people. Nevertheless, we should still be as loud as possible about what they have done and what we think about it. We should speak and bear witness because it is true. Money can erase a lot of things but we shouldn’t let it erase the truth.
"Money can erase a lot of things but we shouldn’t let it erase the truth."
But it does if you let it escape. Ordinary multimillionaires become multibillionaires who become pigs.
We shouldn't have come to this point. Thank you, Oh Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Lewis Powell, Rupert Murdoch, the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and all of those who have colluded against this great country, and brought out the worst in its citizens.
Tax...the...rich. Without progressive taxation, there is no invisible hand.
Capitalism is a great economic system. It can only function long term that as wealth accumulates at the top of economic pyramid by virtue of the nature of capitalism the wealth must be redistributed, if not fascism is the natural out growth. And that is exactly what we are witnessing today in this country. Wealth redistribution essentially helps level the economic playing field by investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, R&D, and the protection of civil rights.
capitalism is an exploitative and rapacious economic system. It's origins are the mercantile system of western europe in the 15th and 16th centuries, as these countries started to find resources in lands they deemed savage, uncivilized (not christian), and with resources free for the taking. encouraged by papal permission to loot, pillage, and rape in order to compel conversion to christianity, they brought home their stolen treasures and slaves, and built an economic empire based therefore on free labor and relatively free or inexpensive raw resources.
capitalism, with minimally free slave labor, built the fortunes of this country. capitalism, by expropriating the land and resources of the previous occupants of this continent, built the fortunes of this country.
having a good standard of living cannot be equated with a moral lifestyle. if i stuff my face while people even in my city are homeless and hungry, where is the morality in that?
we have lived in a fascist state for a long time. I and others define fascism as the collusion between oli/plutarchs and gov't to preempt democratic norms and the rule fo law. it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that this started prior to the 20th century.
i joke sometimes that fascism is doing fine by me - i got my car, my dog, my wife, a paid for house, a pension. i got mine, so who cares?
if by wealth redistribution, one is talking about significant taxes on the rich, then that is just an incremental step towards liberty and justice for all.
Sadly that will never happen, because the rich fascist oligarchs have already won the class war. they've bought, as many have noted in these posts, both democrats and republicans politicians, and one doesn't usually gain office without the backing of the rich. and if one does gain office by small donations, then they are marginalized and called lefty progressives their democrat peers and republican opponents.
There is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed, said Ghandhi.
He also said poverty is the worst sort of violence.
Paul, you need to go further back to at least the 12th Century Crusades. Capitalism can work, but only if it's regulated. Fascism can never work because it is designed to support the wealthy at the expense of all other citizens. We have had a good thing going in America for 247 years, but unless more people start recognizing the need for control through regulation we'll lose it.
Fay, capital will never be regulated. The banksters and their puppetmasters the oligarchs have seen to that. And remember, our "good thing going" in america has been at the expense of the third world. Why do you think central americans are trying to escape their countries? it's because since the 1880's on, united fruit, C&H Sugar, Nestle, Dole, and an assortment of US Military supported corporations have stolen the land and labor, murdered those who've tried to bring justice and fairness. this is how we get our "good thing going". its all there in the history books if you care to read for yourself. it's a crummy thing to have to wrap our heads around the fact that our good life is at the expense of others. it's not about worthiness or "hard work". it's about violent theft of labor and resources. over and over again. amen.
Ownership is a claim originating in theft and maintained by force, which serves the claimant by freeing him from obligation. Stewardship, on the other hand, entails duties subject to public scrutiny and approval. The former is pre-cooperative, and consistent with this male dynamic: Plan > Execute > Reap Reward / Survive Failure > Disregard Fallout > Celebrate Outcome > Rest > Repeat...guess whose dynamic addresses the fallout?
Women are predisposed toward cooperation in a way men are not...it's a corollary to rape etc. Physical strength WAS the primary survival asset for most of human history, and it is the cooperation of the strongest with the rest that is more often a variable than a constant.
The end of history can only be claimed by women. Waiting and working for the day....
Well, certainly, capitalism has been better regulated in my own lifetime and, probably, yours. It's always been a struggle, but we did once have effective regulatory agencies in our federal government. This is what Republicans and the Supreme Court majority want to render helpless, and it's not as though it never existed.
Paul - capital as we know it will always be regulated: it is born of regulation, and without it, cannot exist.
The question is whether it will be WELL regulated.
"good thing going in America for 247 years"?
Tell it to the North, Central, and South American Native "Indians".
Hallejulia !
You're right, of course, it wasn't good for everyone
But , but "regulation is pure commie pinko *** leftist libtardism". /s /s /s
Can you ever control capitalism though? Perhaps in theory, but in reality, it is self-perpetuating. As much as I want to see a LOT more government regulation on capitalism, I see that only postponing the inevitable. Capitalism requires growth. Capitalism requires desire. Capitalism requires greed. These values will, I believe, inevitably lead to reinforcing feedback that supports and perpetuates these values, until eventually we find ourselves where we are today.
Faye - you're right to look to the Crusades, though more likely the windmills they witnessed, rather than the crusaders.
Muslim regions were no different from Christendom - plenty of rich @ssholes around. But what if they got a fixed share of the dividends from a windmill, rather than the profits? What if you could balance one local @sshole by bringing in investors who were bigger @ssholes?
Of course, that would take lots of record keeping. Hmmm...monks are good at records...
That mixture of non-European tech and a crazy Catholic notion of "incorporating" a windmill - just like a cathedral! A "paper person" - probably led to any number of early experiments...
If one was forced to kiss a bunch of @ssholes to get by, at least doing so with paper people might not always wind up so horrible...
I feel like you're all correct. It's so tough. There's layer upon layer, historically, systemically. Obviously something needs to change. Or we can sit back and watch it all devolve into a true fascist state. As Chris Hedges writes, eventually the system does to its own people what it has been doing to others. It's incredibly sad ... and maddening ... and scary.
Paul, I can't say I entirely disagree, only that if faced with the choice between socialism and the "enlightened" Smithian form of capitalism, I'd pick capitalism.
The problem is, Smithianism is very difficult to control, which is why I suspect Piketty believes that the natural form of government is aristocracy/plutocracy.
Piketty had pushed for a global wealth tax, which makes sense since the plutocrats have now gone so far beyond their daily needs that their assets just keep accumulating, and don't count as income. When Piketty approached Lagarde about his idea, she gave him a Gallic shrug. A useful idiot for the European Central Bank.
Depressingly, Orwell was right. Whether you start with socialism or capitalism, the pigs always take over.
the problem for me is one of common human rights. we all have, (in my opinion) the unequivical right to clean water, clean air, housing, medical, food - the essentials for life. our viewpoints, in my opinion are colored by the quality of our lives - the best the world has ever seen. we have the wherewithal to create a socialistic government run by, of and for the people. but the will is not there amongst those of us who have it all, to share. I cannot see any ''enlightened" capitalism - it is by it's very nature dependent on almost free (expropriated) resources, and almost free labor. it does not share nicely in the sandbox. we have not ever seen any political system that did not devolve into fascism or autocracy or dictatorship. i'm not sure it's possible with our current mindsets.
but, given the more "moral" instincts of those who espouse socialism, I would go with that system, especially if we were able to ensure that privatization did not creep in as it starting to for many of the common necessities.
As someone who grew up in a quasi socialist system in the UK in the sixties and seventies, I can attest to its depressing character. Strike after strike, union leaders going to meet the prime minister to discuss pay raises, inefficiency, poor product quality, etc. Nothing worked.
If you did an experiment on the differences in economic delivery of socialism v capitalism, you might think of dividing Germany by a north-south line from the Baltic to the alps and having socialism to the east and capitalism to the west. Same people, same history, same language, same food, on both sides of the line, with one difference: capitalism to the west, socialism to the east. Oh wait, it's been done.
And the result was that after 20 years West Germans were driving Mercedes and BMWs and East Germans were driving one car, a Trabant, which let the rain in.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, in terms of consumption, capitalism is vastly more efficient than socialism. That doesn't make it morally superior, but we are only talking economics here. You are dubious about "enlightened" capitalism, but what is the alternative?
I agree with Sanders, the Danes have the best economic and social system in the world.
And they pay their fucking taxes, even the billionaires.
“There is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed, said Ghandhi.” And this says it all. Thanks Paul Cesmat
I feel it will take several generations to break the mindset of greed.
And, isn't it strange, Harvey, that this is what Adam Smith said 247 years ago? Capitalism only works if it is regulated, so the greedy don't get out of control. But we never learn do we? The Stock Market Crash of 1929; the tax breaks for the ultra wealthy in 1986, repeated under W, repeated under Trump. I guess we get what we deserve for not staying alert to the creep of greed.
Adam Smith understood capitalism and so did Karl Marx who understood capitalism far better than most pro capitalists. Labor unions, regulations and taxes have a regulatory/controlling affect on the potential excesses of capitalism.
But...is it ever enough of an effect?
The term "redistribution" has become a dog whistle along with the other popular MAGA tropes. One of the purposes of government is to create tax policy that promotes investment for the common good.
How do you pry wealth and power from the filthy dirty hands of the corrupt elites? Redistribution is necessary. Clawing back the ill gotten rewards for shameless assholery is difficult when the basis for rewarding them in the first place was a bastardized version of an economic theory, that posited a “wise king” at its pinnacle. Capitalism is a theory. It has been treated as a license to operate and an excuse to elide the rule of law. Because money rules. How do we get out of this circular trap? How do we take back our freedom and ability to choose our leaders and our future?
Harvey, the problem is getting the wealth redistribution to happen. It is hard when our media also must kiss a** to get the funding they need to fight off the right-wing consolidators and maintain a quality news room. For social media, rich investors jumped in to get more bucks for themselves and now dictate what media can cover and what they can say about it. Lying, no problem, misinformation, OK sure as long as it brings in advertiser and investor bucks, and currerently, it does.
The system is rigged thanks to the SCOTUS. Congress is owned by large donors and as a result needs to protect their donations to stay in office by making sure their donors survive being properly taxed. Money = free speech. An opinion that had to have been bought. A decision like that requires a tortured rationalization. It is pure insanity. It simple gives $ the ability to control the narrative. Cure = publicly financed campaigns and no donations over a small amount - PERIOD!
Yes, Harvey, the SC decision on Citizens United was purchased and at a price not high enough. The contortions used by the SC conservatives (right-wingers) was amazing. It makes no sense. The sections I have read (I gave up after a bit because it made no sense and I knew there was nothing I could do to fix it). I agree that we need serious, really serious election finance reworking. I don't think anyone, even the person running should be able to contribute more than $2,500.00 per individual contest per election and no more than that amount to any PAC. All of it MUST be accounted for, reported by individual's name, even if the corporation is contributing, who is approving the contribution. People need to know who is buying our candidates so we can figure out what their agenda is. The information must be made public.
Also, corporations should not be able to contribute without their shareholders agreeing. That won't be much of a problem since often one person owns half the shares, more than all the others combined. We the People could fix this if we demanded it be fixed. In the meantime, we need to stop bowing and scraping to the rich and famous. They need to do something really remarkable for the people of this nation to deserve it. Floating fascist candidates, laws, and hateful moves against people in this country do not count.
The one percent is not going to give up their money without a fight. They will get the ignorant working class to kill for them and left wing people will be the target.
Absolutely, and that's the way capitalism was originally conceived. Marx misunderstood it because he thought that the proletariat would have no power other than violence. He died in 1883 and had already had plenty of time to observe increasing levels of democracy, the formation of unions and collective bargaining. Already, by 1865, the concentration of wealth in the plutocracy was beginning to diminish in the advanced capitalist economies of the US, UK, and Germany. And, of course, this continued into the 20th Century in Europe, Japan and the US.
Nowhere was the societal increase in wealth seen more than the US, where taxes in the 1950s were up to 92%. What the factory owners have forgotten is that everyone benefits from redistribution - including the factory owners - since the middle class is consumptive.
We are living in a socialist state, where the plutocrats are the new Welfare Queens and the middle class has been hollowed out.
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
I agree, except for the idea that the super rich 'become' pigs. Most of them were pigs from the time that they started walking.
John, I must agree with you that the guys who are currently rich were bred to be rich, even if they didn't start out that way. Whatever they did as kids was praised and supported. When possible, they were sent to private often boarding schools where they were corralled with other kids just like themselves (a few members of minorities showed them their current and future targets. I have read of some of the cruelties that happened in those schools. They were well-trained, if they could learn the material to know just how to treat people not like themselves and to be with their own kind. Our "elite" colleges and universities completed the basic training which was topped off at "elite" corporations, law firms, and medical institutions where they could get the rest of the message of their superiority which they will employ throughout the rest of their lives. How anyone put through this process turns out to be a decent human being is practically a miracle. I am sure there are some.
With a stepped up tax basis for inheritance the rich will just get richer and richer. No one wants to overpay their taxes but the really rich will soon be able to buy the IRS.
John, as for the super rich being able to buy the IRS, I believe they already have. They got Dems to agree to Republican demands to cut funding that was already passed for the IRS, which, of course will keep it unless the IRS gets smart, from catching the tax-cheating millionaires and billionaires. That sounds a lot like having bought or at least paid a huge down payment on the IRS to me. What do you think?
Ruth, I think you are right. We are going back to the Gilded Age when the richest men on earth paid no taxes at all.
If you eat all your pigs
you'll have no more pork
How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
exactly
These pigs are like feral hogs. They're parasites and they're destroying everything that they encounter. We need to get rid of them.
How?
How do we get rid of them? For starters, tax them heavily, like we did in the good old days post WWII right up until the Reagan presidency. That was when the American economy was the strongest and fastest growing in the world and when the middle class was ascendant. That, more than anything would make America great again.
So ?
Mr. Clifford's statement is pretty broad.
Capital piggery I think is more a learned thing,
Learned in the home pig pen
Taught in the Hedera?
Rewarded In the houses of WallStreet.
Forgiven by proffers to church
Courted in the halls of Congress
Among whom there is no shame
- Pretty observable.
That's a good one, John. If someone makes money by hard work and brains then more power to them. But that is usually not the case. They are born into it.
Michael, wow! You are really on point! I am so sick of the way people fawn over the rich and the rich are generally not worthy of that fawning (OK no one is except really young children). Money and celebrity have gotten us people in office who should never have been in office, Trump being the most recent. You don't have to know anything to get a top position if you have money, a lot of it or pretend you do, and are a celebrity. In fact to some, ignorance seems charming or anti-establishment these days. It is just plain ignorance! Money proves nothing except that someone is lucky, had a rich family, is dishonest, or has some rich friends. That's it. A touch of talent or skill may be involved, but only a small part.
Can you explain how hard work, focus, diligence, willingness to take a risk, work through failure, fiscal responsibility, etc doesn't count for anything but luck, family, dishonesty is what it takes? What a sorry contemptible outlook.
Jay, yes, all those things can be present among the very rich, but they are at least as involved in the lives of those who are not rich. It seems there are factors that can make the difference and they are, I believe, the factors I mentioned. When one has never faced poverty, real struggle when one does not know how it will work out, it is hard to empathize. There are some rich folks who got it through sports and entertainment, but in addition to their obvious talent, there is a lot of luck.
It that how the heirs of the Walmart fortune got their money? They never have to work a day in their lives. The Old Man made the money by putting thousands of small businesses out of business.
"Ordinary multimillionaires become multibillionaires who become pigs"... I suspect they. were pigs before they became multimillionaires.
Oink, oink says the beast. Roast the pig before the pig eats us.
Michael Hutchinson 💯!
Progressive income taxes make sense when the bulk of the power/wealth flows from taxable income generating activities.
But when wealth comes from income generating assets (like other companies that "do" the activities in some other country), progressive income taxes can't get us there. For a very brief time, people could pretend "multinational corporations" were a strange aberration - but when every multi-millionaire except a landlord can operate accounts similarly to corporations 50-60 years ago, with income generating activities happening abroad or on paper while they personally earn nominal income (a $1 joke "wage", plus whatever they care to claim as income for other purposes) - then "wealth taxes" that get at property other than real estate will be necessary.
But none of that has anything to do with the proclivity of people to serve rich @ssholes. In the past, rich @ssholes owned people. Or they profited from people who traded, cheated, killed, etc other people. We've got no shortage of nasties, but which of them burnt down a company town, killed a dozen striking workers, shrugged as their families starved?
Once our @ssholes prove as bloodthirsty as their predecessors - perhaps we will find the means to tax "wealth" and rein them in. But that will have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, or any other system - that's just "civilization costs."
Agreed. There has to be a wealth tax. Has to be. Piketty is right.
I don't know that there has to be any specific sort of tax. Ultimately, taxes are the cost of civilization, but whatever form they take, elites will develop mechanisms to avoid. Either we counter the elites by finding new mechanisms to collect, or we lose civilization.
We don't really need a wealth tax if people are willing to sacrifice civilization as we know it...but most people want to preserve at least some things they value.
In my family we often mourn the loss of Christopher Hitchens, especially in these recent horrible years. Your mention of Henry Kissinger reminded me of Hitchens' views about Kissinger.
I'm applauding your post.
I am also a Christopher Hitchens fan. But I also really miss George Carlin. Can you imagine what the comic philosopher would have to say during this current degenerating shit -show of a country? In his later years George really was a ‘Mark Twain’ of commentator about what’s going on in our once great country. And like Hitchens, and other independent thinkers, George was an atheist or should I say a realist,they thought with their minds not with tradition. He really liked to challenge the audience to look at things differently, even though they might not like it. He was very successful at Enlightening people. If you never followed him, do yourself a favor and look up all his ‘Work ‘and how his ideas matured over the years.
I am a fan of George Carlin and am very critical of Obfuscating Obvious Bad Words. I Abhor "N-Word" which to me is a non-word code symbol like a child saying #1 or #2 for urinate of defecate. My test of a dictionary before buying it was to look for Carlin's 7 words you could not say on TV, "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits" but also "Offensive Slang" words like "nigger," & "faggot." These words exist and are in use, despite ppl's sensitivities and need defining in a dictionary.
Christopher Hitchens provided my most important test. His rationality came from his empathy. Even though we often spoke in different languages, languages of “faith” vs. “age of reason,” his loving skepticism made me believe in a great goodness in the universe. He cared, truly.
“Arguably” - a collection of Hitchens’ brilliant essays: https://a.co/aopF3qD
I have the book--- now will open it!!
Google his brother, Peter, as well, & see if you agree with me that the wrong brother left us far too young.
A brilliant mind..gone too soon.
https://www.npr.org/2012/09/05/159995528/how-christopher-hitchens-faced-his-own-mortality
Christopher Hitchens died Dec. 15, 2011 but he is still very much alive in his books and talks. Even if one doesn't agree with him, he is well worth being considered.
He along with the great folks at the FFRF, Americans United (for separation of church and state), the friendly atheist, Hemant Mehta, and other free-thinkers have made me into the street epistemologist I have become in recent years. I am forever in debt to their generous sharing of their knowledge.
There are many YouTube videos of Christopher Hitchens debating religion. I have been watching them lately and love his intellect and sense of humor. I was a fan before but even more so now because of the videos.
His wit and erudition are legendary and as sharp as his wit and tongue could be, he was big-hearted and a rabid truth-teller. He always seemed to detest phonies and hypocrites - irreverent, outrageous, so funny and so honest.
As the people of East Timor what they think of Henry Kissinger; not to mention the murder of President Allende. Kissinger has bloody hands.
Kissinger is an international criminal being harbored in the US.
And he was a snitch just like Raygun.
Yes ; "That killer Kissinger".
First it must be said the people are capable of rationalizing anything. Having said that the line between those of ill-gotten money and those who are thought to be respectable is not so clear. For an example the "conspiracy" between the healthcare industry, insurance industry and the processed food industry creates great wealth. But the healthcare industry depends on the illness caused by the processed food industry which in turn depends on the addictive quality of their products which, as the science has proved, is producing a long list of chronic diseases which is projected to bankrupt Medicare and cost trillions of dollars treating those diseases. The difference drug addiction or sugar addiction one can kill quickly and the other slower and longer term pain and suffering. As for the insurance companies they could care less. If claims are high their premiums go up, but rarely ever go down.
And the US government colludes as well, subsidizing such crops as corn, the source of corn syrup found in many products due to how cheap it is, and also used to produce "corn-fed" beef where the poor creatures are forced to eat something not natural to them, which causes them all sorts of digestive problems, but there are no subsidies for broccoli.
If the government has a fiduciary duty to the Medicare trust fund, then any "excess" profits are fair game for recoupment.
How do we get it?
I like that comment a lot. And just think, churches have been getting money by doing that very thing for countless years.
Everything you wrote, Ro! Especially that we should not let money erase the truth.. Of course one can pick and choose from whom to solicit money! IMO, donors should expect those seeking charitable contributions to perform due diligence BEFORE they seek donations since acceptance of a donation confers a modicum of respectability upon the donor. After all, what wealthy donor would want to be grouped in any way with someone who -- say -- ordered the chainsaw execution of a famous journalist and activist? Or maybe they would. What do I know?
GOOD FREAKING QUESTION. I hadn’t thought of that. And also --PERTINENT EXAMPLE.
Thanks! Decided that guy in Saudi Arabia is a much more timely example than Adolf. And I will never understand how civilized people can look past the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
It’s SUCH a good example. Everyone whitewashed and was obsequious to him *immediately*—NYT op ed writers and many others. The Saudi family is an excellent example to this. Our own government is very servile to the Saudi government —-for complicated reasons, of course. Something is terribly wrong. The vastness of the wealth has caused the weakening of the state. So it is ultimately up to people to draw a line themselves. This is what is so revealing about Botstein’s comment. He says he cannot draw a line because we are all dependent. How can Bard college thrive if he draws a line? Who then can draw a line? Not the government. Not the college presidents. This logic needs to be challenged. We need to draw the line and take the consequences. They behave like a gang with total internal loyalty so we must understand that their interests are not our interests and draw a line and those who collude and excuse must also be held accountable. Or else there is nothing.
Re-reading your comment, Ro, I found myself thinking that you absolutely NAILED it. Making antisocial behaviors absolutely unacceptable by civilized society is vital, but how to convince charitable institutions to be choosier about their donors? Maybe lots of bad publicity when thugs are appointed to boards, feted at dinners, have buildings named for them? The James Beard Award people this year eliminated a chef from competition after investigating his employees' claims that he harassed women employees, used racial slurs and slapped a sous-chef. One small step....
I have to re-read Aldo Leopold but he and also a few other environmentalists made this point years ago. Plus it is a huge and unnoticed problem for libertarians. Environmental harms are HARMS. Choking and killing someone with pollution is a harm. But economic and environmental and other harms are ignored except in a few very exceptional cases. To the extent we can make being a cause of these harms something that you can’t wash away with a few donations, it could be very good in the long run. Yes, they are ‘systemic’ but they are also things people directly allow and contribute to--and holding the individuals accountable at least in speech and as a social matter could reveal a lot about the systems in addition to making people think twice about what they are doing to others, and whether they’ll get away with it. Donations allow them to get away with it so objecting to donations is a good way to shed light.
I go around and around about this. Absolutely, people like Epstein should not ever be “normalized,” far less celebrated!! Egad. He should have been in jail far earlier and prevented from committing so many more crimes agains young girls. And stopped from using his financial power for evil.
I do want to make a distinction between this and what so many are calling “cancel culture,” though.
First, hanging that term on the left is SO disingenuous, since Republicans had a concerted program to report on and “cancel” college professors for decades — using members of Young Republicans and college Republican clubs to report on their professors. And they demonized the LGBTA+ community and hounded them from their jobs, destroying their reputations in their communities … on and on and on …
And if Joe McCarthy was not cancel culture on steroids, I’m a Monkey’s Uncle.
The new term “cancel culture” applied to the Left is how the Right responds to their own tactics being turned on them. It’s bogus, but the infiltration of the activity itself into Left behavior bothers me. It has been seen from time to time, and I don’t approve of it. There’s a charge that “the Left eats its own,” and I see that happening a little more often than I prefer. I dislike demanding purity of thought and toeing the party line, no matter who demands it.
Sp, finding the line between ABSOLUTELY not rehabilitating the a**holes, but still not subscribing to cancel culture that becomes too broad and lacks distinction—well, that is, to my mind, important.
What Prof. Reich says, I completely agree with. But I’m raising a related issue, because it matters.
Interesting points. But is being more discriminating w/re to one's sources of help actually "canceling" the source/person? One can refuse to go begging to an immoral person, or a person who obtains their largesse in immoral ways. That doesn't mean there's a massive move to boycott that source/person.
Completely agree. I’m making a distinction and raising the issue because we sometimes get carried away and the distinctions are NOT made. We wind up with prescribed group-think. I don’t like ideological purity for its own sake.
I think claiming that non-profit and charitable fundraising REQUIRES kissing the butts of immoral and actively-destructive people in our society is a cop out. YES, it’s hard to raise money. YES, they can do a lot of good with money, even if they get it from bad people. But does that wash away the badness? NO. It contributes to making those bad people look good enough to invite to dinner … Like Epstein. Does the good out weigh the bad? Ummmm, there’s asking people to think a little, and that’s hard, too.
Saying fundraisers have to go to the source, even if it’s an incredibly venal source, is actually taking the easy way out, because finding better people and asking them for donations is hard, but I hope it’s not impossible. No one says all “philanthropy” needs to come from Saints and Angels, but reasonable people can make judgments about who they will deal with.
And they should.
Make judgments, not follow a party line sans thought. And don’t sign onto cancelling, either, without thought.
That’s my point.
Completely agree!
Yes, it’s a tough problem to figure out. I don’t think the problem originates in people speaking the truth. The problem lies in ignorance, deception, misinformation, etc. But look at the opposite problem--people doing terrible things and not being held accountable. I doubt the extreme danger of ‘cancel culture’ simply because almost nobody is every actually ‘cancelled’ in that (a) they did nothing wrong and (b) they are forever shunned in society.
Powerful people are almost never shunned.
Is there a better alternative to ‘we should speak the truth about the harmful effect of certain powerful people’s actions.’ I can’t think of a better alternative because the alternative is making extremely harmful actions normal, and that is deceit and unfair to the people harmed.
If you weigh the differences in harms between people who are harmed and killed by environmental destruction or cheated by dirty financial dealings, etc. and being unfair to a very wealthy and powerful person because maybe there is some mitigating factor I don’t think never holding people accountable for their actions comes out very far ahead.
There is the problem of misinformation but this problem will happen whether we speak the truth or not.
If people did not speak the truth, nobody would have been held accountable for Epstein. Epstein was an easier target because a) nobody’s wealth really depended on him. b) he had been prosecuted c) it was easy to make his crime seem detached from his wealth. There’s a way Epstein is being used as an effigy. People are enraged at billionaires on all sides. So Epstein, who courted the powerful from all political spheres, can be the effigy for both sides to burn. And their anger at the collusion of all these people can be directed at him, a dead man. And the crime is rape, which is a terrible crime, but it muddies how coercive sex and underage rape wasn’t the only thing Epstein was usually selling--he sold access to powerful people by other powerful people and if there was an option of using this to get more leverage then he would use this but he also dangled money and favors and access in addition to this--but everyone is tarred by his sex crimes even before he was arrested but nobody is really worrying about this. Nobody is worrying at all about whether we’re ‘being fair’ to those associated with Epstein.
Because we are trying to hold people to a higher standard. They should consider that the alluring women they are getting massages from and seeing topless at the pool are human beings. If they are teenagers, they should be concerned rather than impressed at Epstein’s ability to pay for teen sex. Or at least I hope that’s what we’re trying to do.
Criticizing people for their actions and statements is entirely valid. Destroying someone’s reputation over an unexamined statement is not. I think the “cancel culture” I take issue with most happens in forums like, and is escalated by entities like, Twitter, but maybe that’s more my impression, and not entirely accurate.
I have no problem with calling people to account for what they say, and especially with engaging with them and refining my understanding of their position, and having them refine and clarify it — or change their mind, which can also happen.
Yeah, most prominent people who have been attacked and had attempts at cancelling have managed to survive, on some level. I am not sorry in any way, shape or form that Harvey Weinstein got his just deserts. I am sorry we lost a man I considered a competent and valuable senator, but he’s alive and well and on tour now, if I am seeing accurate ads and news stories.
But I do have issues with NOT engaging people we disagree with. I have a problem with “platforming” heinous speech and advocacy, but I also have a problem with censorship and prior restraint.
So, those issues and spurs to behavior are exceedingly nuanced, and when it comes time to protest someone, that needs a lot of thought on how to best go about it, so we don’t go down the “mob mentality” rabbit hole.
Nobody said this self-governance thing would be easy
I have not worked out all the conundrums, myself. The value of freedom and especially freedom of expression is also being eroded--weirdly or maybe not weirdly--by people who claim they are defending freedom. At the same time, anyone with minority views of any kind whatsoever, particularly leftist views, benefits the most from an atmosphere of very free speech. Sometimes it’s like we are being led into a trap. If we chide young people too much for hassling speakers then we end up amplifying people whose actual desire is to erode freedom or destroy it altogether. On the other hand, some people just don’t get it...they don’t get we sort of HAVE to put up with lies and bullshit even really noxious ones--in this particular climate. And then the post truth thing! It’s all so much of a muddle. I am trying to think it through but I am sure I do not have a full handle on it. Thank you for your thoughts!
All I can say is, Hear, hear.
Well, and … Ditto. My worries precisely.
Thank you, as well.
In addition, one can add the old cliché of "absolute power corrupts absolutely." On Earth, possessing BILLIONS of dollars makes one LITERALLY INVINCIBLE to mankind!
This needs to END and hopefully, with the ARREST of Donald "Bunkerboy" Trump, we CAN end the absolute power of obsolete billionaires.
Jeff Bezos.......I resent that! I gave a dollar to a bum just last week.
Well said!
There are so very few who will stand up. The only two I think of at this moment is Rachel Carson and Greta Thunberg.
Please read the whole story, and Botstein’s honest defense, before piling on.
A College President Defends Seeking Money From Jeffrey Epstein
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/us/jeffrey-epstein-leon-botstein-bard-college.html?referringSource=articleShare
I read the article, and though it mitigates the rage a little bit, Botstein still comes off badly. His job and his responsibility to raise tons of money was hard. But Jeffrey Epstein? Egad
Botstein says he believes in second chances for convicts, and I certainly applaud THAT for the broad spectrum of people who get out of jail and need to go straight …
And we know that SOME registered sex offenders have not physically preyed on people, but include other offenses that are less evil than Epstein’s. We can talk about whether they deserve “a second chance” at being accepted into our social circles or not — apparently Mr. Botstein thought they did, especially if they had lots of money.
And some repent and make determined effort to behave themselves. I can’t comment on how successful that is …
But a whole monied class of people put Epstein’s behavior on the same level as someone convicted of flashing. His original machinations and spending enormous amounts of money to escape punishment were rewarded with being accepted back into polite {and very wealthy] society. That’s really sick. People who say they didn’t know how bad he was … well they should have.
Even Donald Trump once said he knew Jeffrey’s taste in girls was similar to his own. Trump is quoted as saying he knew Epstein liked his female companions “on the young side.” I don’t think Epstein’s behavior was such a secret.
Thanks for the link. I was taken by Botstein's quote:
“That is a humiliating experience to go back over and over and over,” Dr. Botstein said, adding, “We’re completely at the mercy of the very wealthy.”
But also this:
“He [Epstein] enjoyed humiliating and dangling prospects,” Dr. Botstein said, adding, “He was sadistic. He absolutely strung me along.”
My conclusion is that Botstein knew Epstein was sadistic, and as the article notes, ultimately tighter than Botstein had hoped with donations. He gets zero social IQ points for that misjudgment, and goes into the negative points when he actually discriminates between sex offender and sex trafficker. The article states that Bard believes in "second chances" for felons, but sex offenders are possibly the hardest to rehabilitate. And they WILL offend again if allowed. Botstein should have known that.
Like the PGA-LIV merger. I guess wealthy murderers are also acceptable, if the price is right.
Yes, spot on. Everyday we watch more examples of corporate rule, greed, and corruption. And it will keep getting worse until we strike at the root problem with the We the People Amendment @movetoamend.org movetoamend.org
Was Trump involved in the merger? Kushner? Even Tons-of- Fun Christy says that they should be investigated!!
On the SAME DAY Saudi controlled OPEC announced new attempts to limit oil production - raising prices -- and they control our largest refineries and some of our biggest companies -- . like Exxon. Is this not a national security issue????
Meanwhile, Saudis are buying crucial resources. E.G. Fondomonte, which is owned by one of the largest dairy companies in Saudi Arabia, bought vast tracts of desert in western Arizona on top of a massive groundwater aquifer in part because there are no regulations on how much water can be pumped out of the ground.
The Saudis are also buying farmland--productive, grows food farmland. Once owning the land, they have no respect for water rights or sustainable farming. I want an enforceable law that forbids the ownership of any land by foreigners, any foreigner.
Definitely something that should be made a principle - why allow any foreigner to buy up the country's assets - they have almost unlimited resources to do just that unless they are stopped !
I think I heard China is doing this too...
I’ve heard the same about China. Ironic, isn’t it, Europeans took land from the people here….What goes around, comes around.
Worse. Far worse. Chinese military base 90 miles from Key West!!
The news follows intense speculation that Russia, not China, was planning to reopen its Soviet-era espionage base in Lourdes, a town near Havana, which it shut down in 2002. High-ranking Russian national security officials and diplomats have been traveling to the island recently and the two governments appear as close as ever, with Cuban leaders offering public support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article276215936.html#storylink=cpy
Especially in African countries.
Me,too.
David, hello,
This is what I think.
The Saudis dream to be the financial center of the world.
We should understand that.
They are 'The" competition.
The dollar as the benchmark currency is borderless .
The U S has made the stock market borderless too
Enabling large foreign investment ownership
in companies and its' money "voice" .
Majority ownership can and will direct the company's
political contributions to the candidates who will benefit them and their country's
policies.
Am I wrong?
If you're directing it to me, a LOT worse.
Since 1973 they've been undermining our economy and have been buying politicians as well as our companies, especially in the energy sector. Helped finance Fox. Helped Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Supported Hussain during the Iran Iraq War.
Iraq was their competitor in the oil business. We wasted $ trillions. Lost "blood and treasure"
They have the same interest as Putin. Russia needs high energy prices
I read where rump does stand to profit from this merger. Kushner already has been paid by the Saudis; that was probably just a first installment.
Thanks for the link
🤬
The Washington Post would beg to differ with you.
I had NO IDEA that the PGA had any kind of tax-exempt status!! You want to talk about money, morality, decency, not to mention fairness, wealth distribution, dishonorable tax laws?!! How about this news item that caught my eye before leaving computer-land for the morning. This was a Yahoo News item this morning and it is astounding that the PGA EVER had tax-exempt status, but now? NOW? That must end NOW!! Write your Congress-people!!
"Congress Tees Up New Bill Stripping PGA Tour’s Tax-Exempt Status
Daniel Libit
Wed, Jun 7, 2023
Barely a day after the PGA Tour shocked the world by announcing it would be joining a for-profit venture with its heretofore hated rival—the Saudi-backed LIV Golf—a Congressional bill has been introduced to strip the tour of its tax-exempt status.
On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), the third-ranking minority member on the House Armed Services Committee, proposed the “No Corporate Tax Exemption for Professional Sports Act,” which would end the PGA Tour’s ability to file as an IRS 501-C organization, as it has done for decades."
The article goes on with some excerpts here:
"As Sportico noted in a story published earlier Wednesday, the PGA Tour is one of the last major American pro sports organizations to continue operating as a federal nonprofit, after the NFL voluntarily converted to for-profit status in 2015.
Over the last 15 years, there have been several bills proposed, mostly by Republicans, that would change the Internal Revenue Code to disallow pro sports organizations earning more than $10 million in annual revenue from availing themselves of tax-exempt status.
“Saudi Arabia cannot be allowed to sportswash its government’s horrific human rights abuses and the 2018 murder of American-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi by taking over the PGA,” Garamendi said. “PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan should be ashamed of the blatant hypocrisy and about-face he and the rest of PGA’s leadership demonstrated.”
Garamendi, a former college football player and wrestler at Cal, has been a member of Congress since 2009. He previously served as the lieutenant governor of California.
“ 'The notion that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund would pay zero dollars in taxes on their blood money and potentially billions of dollars in profits while countless American families pay their fair share while struggling to make ends meet is ludicrous,” Garamendi said. “My common-sense legislation would right this wrong and bring some much-needed accountability to this matter.”
Thanks for the info, disturbing as it is.
As an aside, thanks also to all the commentators who post here. Considered viewpoints, worthwhile info, heartfelt reminisces, respectful disagreements ...unlike the terrorists of fb/twitter.
Only because they don't like Arabs. If it was David Koch they wouldn't mind at all.
Who’s they?
David Koch was born in the U.S.A. ? At least
I just wrote to my congresspeople on resistbot. Thanks!
Is the NFL nonprofit? I thought it was.
What the article above says is, ""As Sportico noted in a story published earlier Wednesday, the PGA Tour is one of the last major American pro sports organizations to continue operating as a federal nonprofit, after the NFL voluntarily converted to for-profit status in 2015."
Having been in the position of running a nonprofit and needing the wealthy in order to pay staff and accomplish our mission, I can admit that there were many times when I wished we could have achieved our goals without them. I often felt like a serf, arranging our activities so that the lord or lady would favor us. I agreed with Obama when he proposed that large donations should not be deducted at the higher tax rates (when they actually pay higher rates).
Not only must nonprofits be dependent upon the wealthy (most of whom are good people) but they also must compete for grants from wealthy foundations and banks. Billions of dollars are held by community and family foundations that dribble out 5% of their assets to nonprofits every year. Now that Federal earmarks have returned, nonprofits must now compete for money from their representatives.
Why is it that this country has so many social needs that are only partially alleviated by nonprofit work? I believe it is because mankind has forever developed standards that rewards only certain characteristics. Our capitalist system supports those standards and the ever accelerating benefits flow to the wealthy.
What constitutes a "charity?" Too many have overhead that eats the donations so that the only "beneficiaries" are the management and employees of the "non profits." https://www.thestreet.com/markets/you-wont-believe-the-overhead-costs-at-these-10-nonprofits-12878005
Too many so called non profits are established as a vehicle to make jobs for the friends and relatives of donors.
Too many so called non profits do not contribute to improve society. In fact, some, IMHO that further political goals should not exist.
My favorite "charity": Social Security trust funds. Virtually no overhead. Money goes to disabled people, widow(ers), orphans. Helps avoid default and reduced payouts to beneficiaries. Get complete tax write off. https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html#:~:text=How%20can%20I%20make%20a,you%20are%20giving%20is%20unconditional.
It’s not surprising that nonprofits spend most of their income on salaries and fundraising. Typically they have two budgets: administrative and capital. Many donations are restricted for capital purposes. Of course I agree that family foundations should not provide salaries for the family board members.
Didn't Howard Hughes try to dodge taxes by saying he was living on the good will and graces of the charity that supported him - his corporation?
I live a couple of blocks from his charitable headquarters in Coconut Grove -- that's a variation on the theme where they loan to themselves and therefore do not declare it as income.
Nancy, do you think government should be providing services that are left to the nonprofits to deal with? It seems to me that government programs have been successfully targeted by the monied classes and the dribs and drabs such entities contribute are outlets for ego gratification, the ultimate in privatization.
It seems to me that government has been co-opted and society suffers for it.
Mary, this is worthy of a long conversation. There are many things that government should be doing more of, such as healthcare, early education, and childcare. I would’ve preferred to have been able to collect donations from the greater public that had more disposable income with higher wages because the wealthy were hoarding less. Once wealthy people begin to make large donations, they are often given awards and recognition that discourages average donors. If a nonprofit is worthy of existence it should be able to raise money from a diverse group of those who benefit from or believe in their work. As a nonprofit executive I can admit that it’s a lot easier collecting $1 million from one donor rather than $1 million from 1000 or more donors. Our current tax structure now discourages smaller donors who use standard deductions. I actually Like congressional earmarks because they contribute taxpayer dollars for projects that are vetted through Congress that benefit directly communities and families. I’m sure many will disagree. It’s an interesting discussion and one where I am not aware of a good model in other countries that would provide us with some interesting alternatives.
Capitalism = exploitation.
Epstein is no more morally repugnant than Trump; indeed Trump’s sins are more varied and some are against the whole nation . Both money and power are what rules the modern world in reality. Thus one could conclude that the party who supports Trump’s candidacy is also bought and paid for by as*holes as well. Money and power are more addictive than any drug.
Virginia Hastings ; Actually, Epstein was one of tRump's buds with whom he often hung out. It would not shock me to find out that tRump indulged in some of Epstein's 'commodities'. I think there is a reason that Epstein was found dead in that jail cell. He knew too much. I don't believe for a second that he was the suicidal type. Bill Barr had the power over all prisons. It would have been easy, like so much corruption.
No one with half a brain believes he committed suicide. Of course he knew too much and probably names that were never associated with his whole sorry life of sexual predation.
Actually, Epstein and Trump were competitors. Trump brought "models" to US under our temporary visa programs.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/14/teen-models-powerful-men-when-donald-trump-hosted-look-of-the-year
Jane Doe alleged Rape. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
Daniel Solomon : I don't doubt that tRump would 'sample the wares' if it suited him. Being competitors does not erase his greed or lust for whatever he wants. I have seen video where he was quite friendly with Epstein as they were openly evaluating the 'merchandise' .
Time line involved. I attached the Jane Doe allegations where they were jointly accused of statutory rape.
Trump turned it into a friggin' business. We had one case at DOL where an allegation was made, but it was flawed -- complainant blew the statute of limitations.
The statute of limitations often defeats justice for victims 😢.
Definitely! Can’t shake the feeling that Epstein was really done away with and tRumpf was somehow involved.
Good dots connecting!
As an old ICU nurse, I marvel at all the a$$ kissing of Bill Gates, who is an expert in every field and even an outstanding book reviewer. Time to tax the rich adequately. They make their millions on the backs of others. Their ideas, inventions, or purchased software AKA DOS would not bring them a red cent without the labor if others. Our value system stinks. And believe me money is how America shows what it values.
Love your comment. Succinct, insightful.
Gates, the college drop-out is indeed a contemporary P.T. Barnum with his "there's a sucker born every minute and you're one of them" contemptuous persona.
The real lesson, as Professor Reich implies, is that this is just the beginning. Given the requirement of investors to earn a historical rate of return on their money (3-5% on bonds and 8-10% on equities) combined with lower rates of economic growth results in their ultimately capturing greater and greater shares of the national income. In 1991 money seeking a rate of return amounted to about $90 trillion. Now it’s closer to $400 trillion. The result, of course, is that all this wealth seeking more wealth must buy more and more, even taking over the functions once performed by the state (e.g. space exploration, war, communication etc.). Thus even governments, as well as non-profits such as Bard, must increasingly seek their beneficence. Eventually the top 10 percent (or 5 percent, or, ultimately .001 percent) will own everything. The big question is how can the increasing power of the plutocrats be checked?
Absolutely correct. As late stage capitalism flounders and fails to produce the economic growth the avaricious capital class demands, that class increasingly finds schemes to shift wealth from the middle and lower classes to themselves. That's what the the Financial Crisis of 2009 was ultimately about. And that's what the Covid "get the vaxx" hysteria was about. Shifting wealth upward.
Richard Robbins: Thanks for the facts. They are as scary as they're unsustainable!
This is really interesting---and important. Do you have anything we could read about this. It’s obvious that there is a need for the superrich to find a place to park their money which is probably why we see small healthcare companies and huge amounts of land and housing being bought by Blackrock, et. al. Water, health, housing, etc. is all being bought. I was astonished to find that 30% is the REQUIRED return for these real estate speculators. 30%!!! All the means of life. Which is going to deeply worsen the current crisis along with consolidation of transportation and food we will be at their mercy. However, I don’t have any source that puts it all together--it’s just various things I glean from FT and Bloomberg. Are there any scholarly articles or books on this phenom that you know of?
Hi Ro:
I have tried to put together the material in a couple of places, most recently in a chapter on Financialization in The Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by James Carrier (3rd edition, 2022, Elgar Publishing), and an article on Covid and finance in Covid-19 and the Global Economy, edited by Tim DiMuzio and Matt Dow (2023 Routledge). I can share those chapters, if you like. I have a more comprehensive version in a working paper that you can access at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hn85hblgj64y7j8/Confronting%20the%20Tyranny%20of%20the%20Rate%20of%20Return--Third%20Revision%20copy.pdf?dl=0
It's a working paper that I've drawn on, revised, etc. and plan on submitting and expanding into a book length threatment. Any comments or critique is welcomed.
--Richard
This looks really good!!!
THANKS!!
I don’t think it can be checked. It is the nature of man. How many middle class and lower classes would do the same thing if they had the opportunity? Greed, power and money is the name of the game. It will be our undoing.....and we are on the way.
I think there's more variation than this being the nature of man, or did you mean the gender? Most humans are born with the capacity for empathy, but many of us, have that pounded out of us, or at least discouraged in our younger years. With our definition of masculinity, which most men can never achieve, being ruthless and without compassion may be compensation for this. We need to radically change not only our economic system, but how we raised our kids, especially around gender identity.
J., thanks for your message. We need to think about what we want for our future. I am not a man and cannot know in a visceral sense what it’s like to be in that situation, but I do know that exploitation is not just about being a woman, tough as that can be in certain contexts. And I support people being treated as part of humanity wherever they land on the spectrum. The future is in our hands.
I did mean man , as in humanity, not gender
Mary, it sure looks that way. If there was good journalism to educate enough voters about what can be done to help turn things around, some changes could pull things 'out of the fire' . Like drivers on a road going opposite ways, most humans would avoid hitting an oncoming vehicle. But only if they can see it coming! There could be widespread demand for better legislation, enforcement of anti trust laws and restoration of the FCC, FEC, EPA and the rule of law. We need luck, lots of it, and pluck.
Ever since the Citizens United decision, the super wealthy have taken over our government. We must pass an amendment to reverse this decision.
Nice work if we could only get it.
I think of the very recent PGA/ Saudi marriage as an example of this sort of thing.
Is it really a question of wealth or poverty? Isn't it more a question of having principles and standing by them? Morality - character - aren't qualities attached to financial status, or any other external quality. They are what they are and you either have them or you don't. What those Epstein "groupies" (and I mean those seeking something from him, or responding to his overtures to them) demonstrated is what we are seeing every day in this country (and not only this country, obviously) and that is the absence of the proverbial moral compass, of any engrained sense of decency, morality - of character.
Money may set loose the many available ways of acting out one's immoral or amoral lack of character in more varied ways, but lack of character is not the exclusive purview of any particular financial status, racial status, gender, education or any other qualifier.
For those public figures, "celebrities," politicians, CEO's, etc. who lack character, they may be able to keep their indecency hidden for a while, maybe a long while; money buys silence and secrets - from those also without character - we have learned. The notion of there being different levels of "character" was "popularized" by the Clintons. The idea that there were such things as public character and, separately, private character was part of the shift in consciousness that they and their "team" developed in order to shift attitudes about their behaviors.
That discrepancy was demonstrated very dramatically (in my opinion) when we would see Bill and Hillary exit a church in Washington, D.C. on a Sunday, sometimes a Black church, and Bill would be shown on camera smiling, holding his Bible high up as he waved and greeted people outside the church. We later learned that he was meeting Monica Lewinsky for a liaison at the White House.
Public - private - but that precious quality we call "character" not there.
You have to know right from wrong and choose right. That's how morality works.
Basically morality is dying on every level- personal, social, fiscal, political, international political. Desperate people seek fundamentalist Christian “truths” for simple answers and irrationally and ironically see Trump as their political saviour. It’s a very complex matter that capitalism has avoided tackling. It threatens democracy. This and global warming are the real issues that humans worldwide need to work on.
When basic needs are met, and institutions are worthy of our trust, people won’t be desperate for the comfort provided by rigid belief systems and their conditional acceptance of alienated “sheep”, as they are often called (tongue in cheek). Noble my ass!
Do you know what is causing the death of morality?
Religion !
"Noblesse oblige" and the social gospel are part of the American Protestant work ethic. Faith, hope, charity...and all that rot.
On top of all that, even as much sucking up as Presidents, Board Members, etc., do, it is not enough to keep our cultural institutions going much less education, health care, child care, etc. I could go on and on. The problem suggests that the sort of socialism that exists in Scandinavia and other parts of Western Europe is a better path to follow.
I agree
Money talks BS Walks !
They Been buying the Supreme Court since Slavery and they bought the CURRENT supreme Court .
Did you think the Jan 6 Attempt coupe was a grass roots effort??? Really !!!
The re introduction of Slavery is the goal of the wealthy idle rich .
Look at our tax system money is broken into classes according to how you acquire it. The Rich pay less than 5 % while the working poor ( wage slaves ) pay nearly 40% of actual wages through all combined tax systems.
Money has skewed the entire scream of government into protect the Rich tax thx the wage slaves.
J
Absolutely.
Slavery as an institution was discredited around the world in the mid 19th century.
But it is far too lucrative an institution for the capital accumulating class to give up. They bring it back in euphemised forms like the $7.25 an hour wage.
We also are seeing approval of child labor in too many states. Some kids are immigrants trying to help their families.
Slavery (self moderated) for the young nothing has changed since before the Civil War against Slavery young enough to work the fields until death .
J
Exactly self moderated Slavery!
With the new Christo- fascist party is trying to do is to get rid of as much immigration as possible. They want to replace the immigrants in the field with children. They also want to replace them with people who we receive welfare.
So it simply goes like this: drop the number of immigrants coming into this country and replace those immigrants with children and welfare recipients. That's the Christo- fascist solution to the dilemma of the rich people having to pay too much for labor. Slave owners the South learned it's much cheaper. And since a lot of black people are very poor because of white corporations, and unable to get jobs, they too will be out in the fields with the children as welfare recipients. We can add women to the picture. The crystal fascists want women out of the labor market. They also are pro-force birth. As soon we will be seeing women and their children on welfare and working the field s. Won't that be a nice little party for the Christo- fascist party?
Why am I using the term Christo- fascist party? Because I refuse to call a pig a butterfly. The truth only hurts if you tell a lie first.
Do other "advanced" and "developed" countries have this problem. Not so much. Why not? Because taxes pay for universities, museums, operas and support even tiny theater troupes. Take a look at Western Europe.
On point and timely. Much like the adults in the room can’t pretend any longer that our way of life cannot co-exist with our ecosystem any longer, the adults also can’t afford to pretend any longer that our Capitalist economy is working the way it needs to. Real trouble is brewing when the only way our colleges -for example- thrive in the current state of things is for the Leo Botsteins of the world to grovel for scraps. There will be a revolution, how do you avoid it? Well, the rich pay their fair share of taxes and stop getting the tax avoiding loopholes would be an urgent first step in avoiding the worst outcomes for all.
It's "Please Sir, may I have some more?". Politics makes liars of us all.
Leon Botstein, Saul Alinsky, and many others...Good careers that will forever be tainted because our system forces those who wish to do good, to the street, cup in hand to beg billionaires. And, that trip sometimes takes you to the bad side of town...Hospitals, universities, charities, the arts...If you want to survive, you have to mooch. That's Love American Style.
You have to give Alinsky credit for the fart-in of the Rochester Symphony.
I am a retired academic who did her fair share of administrative work. The rush to take the devil's money, and its horrific impact on academic values, that started at my university in the 1990s, has been a source of pain to me. I remember all too well when I was dean of my college being told by the president of the university that he didn't see any reason for me to worry about what the faculty wanted to see done. If there was money on the table, that was all he needed.