How much impact would it have if, and a gigantic if here, consumers in sufficient numbers just stopped buying for a little while? I mean the way we have been buying during this pandemic. If we found a way to lower demand on our part, that would have to have an impact, no? As I'm decluttering/downsizing/redecorating I'm pretty much only using Facebook Marketplace and other similar sites and giving and getting great deals from private citizens while totally bypassing both the corporate machine and putting my still usable things in the landfill. Not sure how to get enough people on board, what the messaging would look like or who would put forth that message, but this would work at least in part, would it not? And give some power over the economy to the people?
Janet, good for you! As I wrote on this page a while back, I think most of us can and should simplify, declutter, get rid of all the stuff that's overwhelming us, and turn instead to reusing and recycling stuff already produced.
@Janet Kay. I guess our friend @DZK is hinting at what I will say directly. Eventually your car runs out of gas. The last toilet paper roll gets used. Your in-laws come for dinner and you need to make a nice meal. Just saying, consumers cannot out-wait the corporations. We need regulation, trust busting and more equitable tax policy. Our government is our tool if we can just keep it democratic and keep it representing at least some of what is good for regular folks!
Indeed, much of the problem is that the balance between capitalism and democracy is failing. Capitalism is taking over from democracy -- which in the long term is bad for both capitalism and democracy.
Benjamin R. Stockton ; But how? Where do we start? I buy locally grown veggies at the co-op, and look for things made in U.S.A., but I have to buy gas, like you mentioned.
Well, I certainly have no total answers - I'm just trying to figure it out. It feels to me that "consumerism" is a feel good thing and that being a responsible consumer is a good thing. But just imagine - you live in Boise you have certain choices available around you. If you live in one of the "retail deserts" in Los Angeles or other big cities, you certainly have different (less) choices available around you. Activist consumerism is, in my view, both a "white people's problem" and a "first world" problem. Our young friend Greta Thunberg calls all these kinds of things "blah blah blah." I don't think she means to discredit honest people honestly trying to improve matters. Rather, she is pointing out the uselessness of many forms of expression and urging effective actions. I'm a broken record after decades of political science education and personal activism, but I think we can only do one country at a time and we need to use our government as our tool to rein in unfettered capitalism as it romps over us in this neoliberal era. Regulate!
Very true. I guess my question was entirely theoretical. IF consumers did that, by magic, say ;-), would it bring prices down. It would have to, right? My last econ course was in 1983, but I think I remember that much.
Janet, as far as I can see, this is actually becoming a trend. Numerous “buy nothing” clubs are popping up so people can trade for things they want or need. I think it’s a wonderful idea. Too bad we can’t all forego things like insurance and utilities too. Still, a step in the right direction.
A different solution would be to find alternate sources for the items you need, such as shopping at certified Farmers markets for produce, eggs, and other food items; or at smaller retailers like a local supermarket chain vs. a national or big box store. Facebook "Buy Nothing" groups are also a good source of gently used items for free. I like your solution of shopping in the Facebook Marketplace and buying from local and/or small businesses. The only problem I have is actually FINDING those small businesses in my area, which is dominated by big box and national chains.
Be careful here. Corporations are not just CEOs and rich stockholders. Thousands of ordinary middle class and working class people are employed by corporations. I think they will be the ones who will be hurt the most by a boycott against a corporation.
This is very interesting, Tim. A couple of things. One, aren’t many corporations squeezing and laying off workers anyway? But two, what’s the practical and feasible solution?
It's called codetermination. Companies have to consider the rights of their workers, not just the shareholders. A certain percentage of the company's board is made up of worker representatives. Very active in Germany. I would look to that country to see how to establish it here.
After a ridiculously small amount of research I’m tentatively concluding that this happened largely because of unions. Apparently the Nazis broke it all up but it was reinstated and expanded after the war. Hence the importance of unions once again.
This is a side of the question that is in the back of my mind. Many middle class people- blue collar workers, union members, etc-also have retirement plans that are managed stock portfolios. Stock holders are not the enemy. As Pogo says: they are us.
I’m sorry to tell you this but the ordinary citizen is not the stock market. Sadly it’s the institutional investors like insurance companies who are the market. We all have small stakes in the market one way or another but we in no way have much if any power! Correct me if I’m wrong!
Oh no, you are correct. The trouble is that when "justice has a price" the little guy pays a much higher price, proportionally, than the institutional investors.
Sidebar: Why was it necessary for Biden to apologize for the language he used on an impertinent reporter that pales by comparison with the language his predecessor unapologetically used "liberally" on >anyone< who asked him a serious question - particularly with an impertinent FOX reporter? https://youtu.be/w7Zy5VajFqc
Thank you for your response, Prof Reich. But, in my mind it raises the question concerning whether he was intentionally drawing attention to it, or was it a "gaff?" I'm not as sophisticated on such subtleties as I'd have me be. You were there. You have a much better understanding of how these folks convey messages.
A recent Facebook post put it succinctly: "It's not inflation when corporations are raking in their highest profit margins in history. It's price gouging." Along with: "Why is this so hard for some people to understand?" (And that includes educated people in the media and government.)
two quick points today. 1)my national news--NYT, WP, NPR, MSNBC all mention the role of large corporations in today's inflation. 2)more importantly, once more I turn at once to history and Paul Krug, one of the few contemporary economists I trust. Today's rate is hard to compare over time because definitions and data gathering have changed greatly. But in longer term perspectives, today's rate is not alarmingly high or unprecedented. It is also uneven from sector to sector.
On nat. news, read the news not the OpEds!
If the Dems could walk and talk, they'd explain this to the "nation" or "the public", shut down the Reps., and try to deal responsibly with inflation.
Push back with buying power. Buy local. Really local.
Push Rooseveltian ideas. Advocate for breaking up corporate power by breaking up corporate farms. The breadbasket of the US, the heartland, needs to be salvaged and revitalised, which would strengthen the entire country; it feeds the entire country. Extend Booker's Black Farmers legislation to extend opportunities across the country to young and youngish people to build small farms, small towns, small industries. #Big Little Farm. #Kiss the Ground
Small farmers and ranchers have been getting squeezed between the mammoth firms that supply farm equipment, seeds, and fertilizer, on the one hand, and the giant food processors and meatpackers.
Professor, I certainly cannot add a word to your essay. However, there are some other factors that might be considered in the same context, particularly the role of the consumer and citizen. What can we do? It is just awful that so many have bought into the accusation that consumers are responsible for global warming, pollution, inflation and job losses. Corporations spend large amounts to try to assign the blame for problems onto individuals. The truth is that an individual, even by making the right choices, cannot much change the operations of global capitalism. Just one example, for brevity. Let's say you decide, based on the evidence, that eating beef is environmentally destructive. To be responsible, you avoid beef. However the beef industry is actively marketing around the globe to increase the number of people who hanker for and consume a "western diet". There are about 200 people around the world waiting to increase their consumption of beef and other environmentally costly foods for each westerner who might make other choices. This example attempts to show why I say we need government actions such as regulation and revised tax policy to rein in the excesses of global capitalism, which is less and less fettered under the 40 year trend towards neoliberalism. And the only way government can or will act to protect our interests is if we can achieve and maintain an effective Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. There you go... Unvarnished.
Agree completely. Our major role as individuals is to organize and mobilize so we have more political power to get laws, regulations (including antitrust enforcement) that will rein in the abuses of power of giant corporations and widening inequalities we're now experiencing.
Have to refer you to the Professor's excellent slender book, ‘Saving Capitalism,’ which might be subtitled ‘real capitalism doesn’t work the way you thought it did.’ If I may be so bold …
I indeed read the book and saw the film. Well done, well written. But...
Why the need to save it? If a system cannot or will not perpetuate itself, what's the point of a continued existence?
I'm going to guess that when Feudalism was on the ropes, the people in power because of it tried to save it. I know that Slavery was defended. People even fought a war in part because of it.
I don't think Capitalism is the devil. It enabled some good and some bad, like all that came before it.
It's prime directive for profit is it's own grave.
What's next? Damn if I know.
I do know that history isn't over and Thatcher's T.I.N.A. is the acronym of neo liberal BS.
What’s next? Great question. Whatever comes next needs to be new, innovative, with motivators other than greed which feeds into our human DNA. In a shrinking world, an environment at or beyond the tipping point Growth should no longer be rewarded. Maybe an economic system can be devised that rewards sustainability, and still has incentives for us to educate, apply ourselves, and live satisfying lives. He who dies with the most toys should not be declared the winner.
I like your reference to the old '80s meme about toys, that was concurrent with the "greed is good" ideology, and the notion that income was "just" a way of "keeping score" in some kind of half-assed "game."
I think it all goes wrong the moment it transforms into serving a "will to power," rather than simply an efficient means of paying the bills in return for goods & services. Adam Smith refers to "the usual profit" and "the invisible hand" a lot - virtually religious references, don't you agree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism
Definitely religious. I've heard Adam Smith referred to as "The Jesus of Capitalism".
Forget about being hostile to Capitalism, the very questioning of it in part or whole will get you silent, icy stares which will convince you to offend no more in that way.
Once my first marriage went bad, I liked to antagonize my then-wife - a graduate of >Capital< University, a private religious institution located in the >Capitol< city - by lobbing quotations from Marx around! Frothing at the mouth doesn't even come close to describing her response! I was young a young & dumb 19 year old, at the time. She could've been one of my HS teachers.
Let me hasten to add, she used to like brandishing the superiority of the Aryan race at me. And in that view, >I'm< a mongrel! A preacher's daughter too she was, BTW.
As long as you're distinguishing between the textbook definition of capital and the "ism" associated with it, I agree. I mightily distrust the "ism" of anything, particularly anything that >lends< itself to said suffix! I'll include the "ist" suffix, as well.
Politicians use terms like capitalism and socialism to sway those who respond to simple abstractions. Maybe it's time to exchange capitalism for corporatism.
Both "ism's" are loaded to the gills with symbolism. Capitalism is good and right and that's that.
Socialism is the opposite and if you advocate for it you might find yourself physically injured.
I hear you about the term "Corporatism". Feels about right.
The Nation State came about 500 years or so ago.
Maybe the new way will be the Corporate State. They or it will have all the power in every way without the responsibility or obligation of running a physical state. Politicians will be kept on the payroll to play useful idiots and take the heat for all the malfeasance.
And the New York Times recently published an editorial with the unhelpful headline "President Biden's Economy is failing the Big Mac Test." The substance of the editorial is more nuanced and fairer, but the headline effectively places the entire blame for inflation on Biden. The news media is not helping the situation.
I second the comment that you should be part of the Biden administration, assuming that they would listen to you more than Clinton's economic team did. In addition to what he's doing, Biden could repeatedly and vociferously call out the greedy corporations for their role in inflation. Many ordinary, intelligent people have bought into the notion that any increase in corporate expenses, whether it is taxes, wages, transportation, or materials, must always be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. There should be pushback from the Biden administration that this is not the case.
With regard to the Fed, I read a comment that raising interest rates might not be successful in controlling inflation. If corporate greed is a major factor, maybe that comment is correct. I would like your thoughts on whether raising interest rates will actually bring down inflation.
They’re terrible with headlines all the time, unfairly attacking Biden most often. I’ve complained in the comments a lot along with others…maybe writing a letter to the editor is better
I have written to them three times about this -- I just hate it. WaPo was doing the same and I canceled my subscription with a letter explaining my action. In the comments sections of both papers readers are speaking out about the negativity and how unjustified it is.
So true. I threatened to unsubscribe from the Times but of course I can’t do without my crossword and Book Review. I don’t think the Guardian is as bad…
Oh my gosh, me too! I'm on day 1133 in a row doing the crossword, and there is no way I'm breaking that streak! :-) I like the Guardian, too. Are there any others out there that you would recommend?
That’s amazing! I don’t get to the crossword some days till after midnight so it screws with my streaks…I don’t know a whole lot about the best online papers tho I should look into it and would be happy to take suggestions! I do 538, then Atlantic, NYer and the Nation…
Interestingly, this editorial did not allow comments. However, a letter to the editor is always an option. Maybe if enough people write, they will listen. Good idea.
Most people cannot/will not look at corporate financial figures to understand what is going on. So they will continue to repeat what is presented to them in the media. I can hardly go a day without putting my mantra out there. We will not change the minds of people unless they can get better sources of news.
It is very helpful for us to have a reliable source like you to point these things out. We have to address propaganda of Fox News and others.
The same thing happens when the Democrats put out great programs that will improve the lives of all citizens, but especially middle and lower classes. What do they scream? Businesses can’t afford it! Where will the money come from? But it would come from our taxes, the same source that puts trillions into the military!! How can people not get that connection! Faux News. Republican politicians.
Corporate America is going head on against Biden therefore the administration has nothing to lose in playing hardball just as Robert recommends. Profits taxed at a much higher rate also sounds good after reading todays newsletter. Dreaming I know!
Time to leverage Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter to make all of this blindingly visible, supercharge our antitrust laws, and apply them everywhere they're needed.
Corporations should stop viewing us as a huge flock of geese producing an endless supply of golden eggs solely for corporate consumption.
This resonates, but what the administration has to lose is the Democratic majority in Congress and the tenuous, rendered largely ineffective by you know who's, majority in the Senate if this is not played and at least as importantly communicated well. Taxing profits at a much higher rate "sounds" good, but would these taxes not be passed on to consumers because of the root of the problem- overly concentrated power. Let's keep working on this folks!
Reply to myself: Also, taxes on corporate profits (and individual income and wealth) are too easily avoided, legally and illegally, often in ways that are harmful to the "taxers", again due to overly concentrated power on an international scale and lack of other constraints.
It appears that Biden, and many Congressional Republicans as well, are in favor of restoring anti-trust controls that can break up octopus corporations that are inherently anti-competition (because they bought up their major and minor competitors) and restore something akin to a competitive 'free' market.
It's not as thought the octopus corporations pay their workers more as the companies gain more market share and increased income. What's really happening is that the people at the top are using the increased profits to increase their own wealth. Monopoly is not good for American wage-earners and it isn't good for the overall health of the economy. Action is needed to redress the excesses of our new gilded age.
Biden is doing too little too late in the fight vs. monopolies and oligopolies. After all, he’s been a Washington insider all his career. He was Vice President under Obama when the large financial institutions were “too big to fail.” We need the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to tell us the truth and effectively fight those sucking the blood from workers and consumers.
I think it's a question of addressing the most serious fires in the forest at the moment, by intensity and proximity. For example, consider: https://youtu.be/8V1K5cYXkfE The question of fighting monopolies and oligopolies requires a more abstract, long-term strategy that would require Democrats to maintain a long-term majority and the voters a long-term attention span - a long-term uncertainty, at best; a long-term improbability far more probable.
Unfortunately you may be right as to the attention span of the voters. As to fighting the forest fires, Obama and Biden sought to fight the fires of 2008 by bailing out the big banks, leaving many homeowners to go under. My premise is that they used the wrong strategy in the short term. They should have let the banks sink or swim on their own, and pursued some of the bad actors who were knowingly committing fraudulent transactions. But being corporate Dems, they didn’t seek to protect working and middle class folks first.
Those choices by Obama and Biden then have contributed to the lack of faith people have in Biden, and in government in general, now.
Granted, but in the >current< climate, most measures on just about anything related to interfering with moneyed interests are - quite simply - a non-starter. I agree you recommend good measures. That's not the important point of what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to get at is: that it will require a long-term effort, requiring a reliable long-term majority, to even consider spending any considerable amount of time on it, that would necessarily divert attention from the other, immediate fires we have at hand. And then, there's now the question of a conservative-packed SCOTUS to consider in the mix - that will be there long after the currently elected officials are long-gone.
It goes back to the attention span of the voters. The lack of trust and faith that the populace has in most politicians of both parties I feel leads to their short attention span. They aren’t willing to give mainstream pols the benefit of the doubt, and so they aren’t paying attention to them. On the right, they pay attention to clowns like Trump and Tucker Carlson. If nothing else, they find them “entertaining”—like watching gladiators get torn apart by lions was entertaining and diverting to the ancient Roman populace
Absolutely correct - and don't minimize the influence of team sports, particularly football - specifically, American football. That's not to minimize Soccer and its "soccer hooligans," who have been with us for ages - but predominantly elsewhere. Indeed, there are a number of mindless sports jocks holding seats in Congress, who were relatively successful football coaches - Tommy Tuberville comes immediately to mind. I've been wondering if Urban Myer is considering a run. His antics of late look like CV material as a Q-publican!
Corporations raise prices because they can do so now. They could not do so for the last ten years. Why the sudden change? On oil do we really want more production and lower prices? I thought we had a global warming problem. Isn’t this the reason why Biden’s first action in the Oval Office was to shut down the Keystone pipeline? People remember this.
Yes, we do remember because rail cars and trucks already transport the oil and that created more jobs than a pipeline that would be obsolete in 20 years. They raise prices, congress raises the minimum wage to cover them.
Agree! We need our President and his cabinet to speak and act for our times, with firm grasp on facts put to the people in a vigorous way. Use great journalists also to root out wrongs, including greed. Reminds me of early 20th century with Teddy, doing the difficult things for breaking up trusts, monopolies like Standard Oil, railroads, meat packers, etc.
Not to be impertinent - my new "word of the day" - but aren't those or similar measures included in the BBB package that the Q-publicans & DINOs won't even allow debated, let alone act on? That's the only thing that seems to vaguely >resemble< an intelligent thing for me to add to this topic.
Yes, indeed they are in the BBB package. But the Democrats could present each of them individually as inflation-fighting and deficit-reducing tools that are very popular with voters. Keep reminding workers that Republicans represent the rich.
BTW: I mentioned in an earlier discussion how FDR got New Deal measures through that way. The real problem with that may be that the Q-publicans have read history, too. Although idiotic, that doesn't mean they're either stupid or illiterate. Well read and self-serving is more my thinking, and acting with utter contempt for their voters who rely on them for leadership, having already convinced them that public education is a waste of tax dollars. Like ol' Tweety publicly proclaimed, they just "love the undereducated."
How much impact would it have if, and a gigantic if here, consumers in sufficient numbers just stopped buying for a little while? I mean the way we have been buying during this pandemic. If we found a way to lower demand on our part, that would have to have an impact, no? As I'm decluttering/downsizing/redecorating I'm pretty much only using Facebook Marketplace and other similar sites and giving and getting great deals from private citizens while totally bypassing both the corporate machine and putting my still usable things in the landfill. Not sure how to get enough people on board, what the messaging would look like or who would put forth that message, but this would work at least in part, would it not? And give some power over the economy to the people?
Janet, good for you! As I wrote on this page a while back, I think most of us can and should simplify, declutter, get rid of all the stuff that's overwhelming us, and turn instead to reusing and recycling stuff already produced.
@Janet Kay. I guess our friend @DZK is hinting at what I will say directly. Eventually your car runs out of gas. The last toilet paper roll gets used. Your in-laws come for dinner and you need to make a nice meal. Just saying, consumers cannot out-wait the corporations. We need regulation, trust busting and more equitable tax policy. Our government is our tool if we can just keep it democratic and keep it representing at least some of what is good for regular folks!
Indeed, much of the problem is that the balance between capitalism and democracy is failing. Capitalism is taking over from democracy -- which in the long term is bad for both capitalism and democracy.
We need a diagram of our monetary system that everyone can understand. Then we can proactively guard our monetary system. Please draw a pretty one.
https://youtu.be/al4C7Ig8gQw
Right on
We have to out last corporations
Benjamin R. Stockton ; But how? Where do we start? I buy locally grown veggies at the co-op, and look for things made in U.S.A., but I have to buy gas, like you mentioned.
Well, I certainly have no total answers - I'm just trying to figure it out. It feels to me that "consumerism" is a feel good thing and that being a responsible consumer is a good thing. But just imagine - you live in Boise you have certain choices available around you. If you live in one of the "retail deserts" in Los Angeles or other big cities, you certainly have different (less) choices available around you. Activist consumerism is, in my view, both a "white people's problem" and a "first world" problem. Our young friend Greta Thunberg calls all these kinds of things "blah blah blah." I don't think she means to discredit honest people honestly trying to improve matters. Rather, she is pointing out the uselessness of many forms of expression and urging effective actions. I'm a broken record after decades of political science education and personal activism, but I think we can only do one country at a time and we need to use our government as our tool to rein in unfettered capitalism as it romps over us in this neoliberal era. Regulate!
Haha! Romps! All the way to the bank.
Very true. I guess my question was entirely theoretical. IF consumers did that, by magic, say ;-), would it bring prices down. It would have to, right? My last econ course was in 1983, but I think I remember that much.
Janet, as far as I can see, this is actually becoming a trend. Numerous “buy nothing” clubs are popping up so people can trade for things they want or need. I think it’s a wonderful idea. Too bad we can’t all forego things like insurance and utilities too. Still, a step in the right direction.
Paula and Janet, please see: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-to-overcome-the-tyranny-of-stuff, where I talk about "buy nothing" clubs
FYI: I heard talk of barter networks back in the '80s, when I worked in downtown DC. Just sayin'.
Yes barter is a real option
A different solution would be to find alternate sources for the items you need, such as shopping at certified Farmers markets for produce, eggs, and other food items; or at smaller retailers like a local supermarket chain vs. a national or big box store. Facebook "Buy Nothing" groups are also a good source of gently used items for free. I like your solution of shopping in the Facebook Marketplace and buying from local and/or small businesses. The only problem I have is actually FINDING those small businesses in my area, which is dominated by big box and national chains.
Be careful here. Corporations are not just CEOs and rich stockholders. Thousands of ordinary middle class and working class people are employed by corporations. I think they will be the ones who will be hurt the most by a boycott against a corporation.
This is very interesting, Tim. A couple of things. One, aren’t many corporations squeezing and laying off workers anyway? But two, what’s the practical and feasible solution?
Put employee representation on the corporation board of directors. Not as token observers, but as active participants in running the company.
Love the idea but how do we make it happen?
It's called codetermination. Companies have to consider the rights of their workers, not just the shareholders. A certain percentage of the company's board is made up of worker representatives. Very active in Germany. I would look to that country to see how to establish it here.
After a ridiculously small amount of research I’m tentatively concluding that this happened largely because of unions. Apparently the Nazis broke it all up but it was reinstated and expanded after the war. Hence the importance of unions once again.
@Tim Baldwin. I think you are on to something there...
This is a side of the question that is in the back of my mind. Many middle class people- blue collar workers, union members, etc-also have retirement plans that are managed stock portfolios. Stock holders are not the enemy. As Pogo says: they are us.
I’m sorry to tell you this but the ordinary citizen is not the stock market. Sadly it’s the institutional investors like insurance companies who are the market. We all have small stakes in the market one way or another but we in no way have much if any power! Correct me if I’m wrong!
Oh no, you are correct. The trouble is that when "justice has a price" the little guy pays a much higher price, proportionally, than the institutional investors.
Yes but justice has a price
Sidebar: Why was it necessary for Biden to apologize for the language he used on an impertinent reporter that pales by comparison with the language his predecessor unapologetically used "liberally" on >anyone< who asked him a serious question - particularly with an impertinent FOX reporter? https://youtu.be/w7Zy5VajFqc
It wasn't. By apologizing, he drew more attention to it.
Remember the West Wing episode where Pres. Bartlett is caught on hot mic saying something similar and it turns out he knew exactly what he was doing?
Thank you for your response, Prof Reich. But, in my mind it raises the question concerning whether he was intentionally drawing attention to it, or was it a "gaff?" I'm not as sophisticated on such subtleties as I'd have me be. You were there. You have a much better understanding of how these folks convey messages.
I guess he was differentiating himself from Trump. He’s supposed to be bringing the Soul of America back
Also this has quite productively brought out a history of insults of Doocy https://youtu.be/InrtSD-jRGQ
A good chuckle! Thanks!
I agree, and why the hell aren’t you part of the biden administration ? You could do so much more from the inside….
A recent Facebook post put it succinctly: "It's not inflation when corporations are raking in their highest profit margins in history. It's price gouging." Along with: "Why is this so hard for some people to understand?" (And that includes educated people in the media and government.)
People need a diagram to understand. Robert needs to draw a diagram.
https://youtu.be/al4C7Ig8gQw
two quick points today. 1)my national news--NYT, WP, NPR, MSNBC all mention the role of large corporations in today's inflation. 2)more importantly, once more I turn at once to history and Paul Krug, one of the few contemporary economists I trust. Today's rate is hard to compare over time because definitions and data gathering have changed greatly. But in longer term perspectives, today's rate is not alarmingly high or unprecedented. It is also uneven from sector to sector.
On nat. news, read the news not the OpEds!
If the Dems could walk and talk, they'd explain this to the "nation" or "the public", shut down the Reps., and try to deal responsibly with inflation.
But then there are the Dems!
Push back with buying power. Buy local. Really local.
Push Rooseveltian ideas. Advocate for breaking up corporate power by breaking up corporate farms. The breadbasket of the US, the heartland, needs to be salvaged and revitalised, which would strengthen the entire country; it feeds the entire country. Extend Booker's Black Farmers legislation to extend opportunities across the country to young and youngish people to build small farms, small towns, small industries. #Big Little Farm. #Kiss the Ground
ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS.
Small farmers and ranchers have been getting squeezed between the mammoth firms that supply farm equipment, seeds, and fertilizer, on the one hand, and the giant food processors and meatpackers.
Yes, progressive ones who are not sell outs!
Professor, I certainly cannot add a word to your essay. However, there are some other factors that might be considered in the same context, particularly the role of the consumer and citizen. What can we do? It is just awful that so many have bought into the accusation that consumers are responsible for global warming, pollution, inflation and job losses. Corporations spend large amounts to try to assign the blame for problems onto individuals. The truth is that an individual, even by making the right choices, cannot much change the operations of global capitalism. Just one example, for brevity. Let's say you decide, based on the evidence, that eating beef is environmentally destructive. To be responsible, you avoid beef. However the beef industry is actively marketing around the globe to increase the number of people who hanker for and consume a "western diet". There are about 200 people around the world waiting to increase their consumption of beef and other environmentally costly foods for each westerner who might make other choices. This example attempts to show why I say we need government actions such as regulation and revised tax policy to rein in the excesses of global capitalism, which is less and less fettered under the 40 year trend towards neoliberalism. And the only way government can or will act to protect our interests is if we can achieve and maintain an effective Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. There you go... Unvarnished.
Agree completely. Our major role as individuals is to organize and mobilize so we have more political power to get laws, regulations (including antitrust enforcement) that will rein in the abuses of power of giant corporations and widening inequalities we're now experiencing.
I agree with all except the bit at the end "Unless capitalism is made to work for everyone".
Capitalism was not designed for this. What you see before your eyes is Capitalism returning the results it was intended to create.
Still a fan?
Have to refer you to the Professor's excellent slender book, ‘Saving Capitalism,’ which might be subtitled ‘real capitalism doesn’t work the way you thought it did.’ If I may be so bold …
Have you read that one? — b.rad
I indeed read the book and saw the film. Well done, well written. But...
Why the need to save it? If a system cannot or will not perpetuate itself, what's the point of a continued existence?
I'm going to guess that when Feudalism was on the ropes, the people in power because of it tried to save it. I know that Slavery was defended. People even fought a war in part because of it.
I don't think Capitalism is the devil. It enabled some good and some bad, like all that came before it.
It's prime directive for profit is it's own grave.
What's next? Damn if I know.
I do know that history isn't over and Thatcher's T.I.N.A. is the acronym of neo liberal BS.
Maybe it's kind of a pregnant window event.
What’s next? Great question. Whatever comes next needs to be new, innovative, with motivators other than greed which feeds into our human DNA. In a shrinking world, an environment at or beyond the tipping point Growth should no longer be rewarded. Maybe an economic system can be devised that rewards sustainability, and still has incentives for us to educate, apply ourselves, and live satisfying lives. He who dies with the most toys should not be declared the winner.
I like your reference to the old '80s meme about toys, that was concurrent with the "greed is good" ideology, and the notion that income was "just" a way of "keeping score" in some kind of half-assed "game."
I think it all goes wrong the moment it transforms into serving a "will to power," rather than simply an efficient means of paying the bills in return for goods & services. Adam Smith refers to "the usual profit" and "the invisible hand" a lot - virtually religious references, don't you agree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism
Definitely religious. I've heard Adam Smith referred to as "The Jesus of Capitalism".
Forget about being hostile to Capitalism, the very questioning of it in part or whole will get you silent, icy stares which will convince you to offend no more in that way.
Once my first marriage went bad, I liked to antagonize my then-wife - a graduate of >Capital< University, a private religious institution located in the >Capitol< city - by lobbing quotations from Marx around! Frothing at the mouth doesn't even come close to describing her response! I was young a young & dumb 19 year old, at the time. She could've been one of my HS teachers.
Let me hasten to add, she used to like brandishing the superiority of the Aryan race at me. And in that view, >I'm< a mongrel! A preacher's daughter too she was, BTW.
Nope. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll track it down.
As long as you're distinguishing between the textbook definition of capital and the "ism" associated with it, I agree. I mightily distrust the "ism" of anything, particularly anything that >lends< itself to said suffix! I'll include the "ist" suffix, as well.
Politicians use terms like capitalism and socialism to sway those who respond to simple abstractions. Maybe it's time to exchange capitalism for corporatism.
Both "ism's" are loaded to the gills with symbolism. Capitalism is good and right and that's that.
Socialism is the opposite and if you advocate for it you might find yourself physically injured.
I hear you about the term "Corporatism". Feels about right.
The Nation State came about 500 years or so ago.
Maybe the new way will be the Corporate State. They or it will have all the power in every way without the responsibility or obligation of running a physical state. Politicians will be kept on the payroll to play useful idiots and take the heat for all the malfeasance.
Hey wait a minute...
And the New York Times recently published an editorial with the unhelpful headline "President Biden's Economy is failing the Big Mac Test." The substance of the editorial is more nuanced and fairer, but the headline effectively places the entire blame for inflation on Biden. The news media is not helping the situation.
I second the comment that you should be part of the Biden administration, assuming that they would listen to you more than Clinton's economic team did. In addition to what he's doing, Biden could repeatedly and vociferously call out the greedy corporations for their role in inflation. Many ordinary, intelligent people have bought into the notion that any increase in corporate expenses, whether it is taxes, wages, transportation, or materials, must always be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. There should be pushback from the Biden administration that this is not the case.
With regard to the Fed, I read a comment that raising interest rates might not be successful in controlling inflation. If corporate greed is a major factor, maybe that comment is correct. I would like your thoughts on whether raising interest rates will actually bring down inflation.
Maybe we should all start writing to the Times and other media when we see things like this and tell them we think it’s misleading. What do you think?
They’re terrible with headlines all the time, unfairly attacking Biden most often. I’ve complained in the comments a lot along with others…maybe writing a letter to the editor is better
I definitely think so. I don’t know what effect it will have but they need to be told, IMO.
I have written to them three times about this -- I just hate it. WaPo was doing the same and I canceled my subscription with a letter explaining my action. In the comments sections of both papers readers are speaking out about the negativity and how unjustified it is.
So true. I threatened to unsubscribe from the Times but of course I can’t do without my crossword and Book Review. I don’t think the Guardian is as bad…
I don’t think you need to unsubscribe. As a subscriber you have a lot of weight. Just tell them what you think.
Oh my gosh, me too! I'm on day 1133 in a row doing the crossword, and there is no way I'm breaking that streak! :-) I like the Guardian, too. Are there any others out there that you would recommend?
I don’t know about that but I’m always looking for Words with Friends players. 😀
Shoot, now I’m kind of inspired to try for a real streak tho…
That’s amazing! I don’t get to the crossword some days till after midnight so it screws with my streaks…I don’t know a whole lot about the best online papers tho I should look into it and would be happy to take suggestions! I do 538, then Atlantic, NYer and the Nation…
You too, Juliet. Words with Friends?
Interestingly, this editorial did not allow comments. However, a letter to the editor is always an option. Maybe if enough people write, they will listen. Good idea.
I AGREE WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
Most people cannot/will not look at corporate financial figures to understand what is going on. So they will continue to repeat what is presented to them in the media. I can hardly go a day without putting my mantra out there. We will not change the minds of people unless they can get better sources of news.
It is very helpful for us to have a reliable source like you to point these things out. We have to address propaganda of Fox News and others.
The same thing happens when the Democrats put out great programs that will improve the lives of all citizens, but especially middle and lower classes. What do they scream? Businesses can’t afford it! Where will the money come from? But it would come from our taxes, the same source that puts trillions into the military!! How can people not get that connection! Faux News. Republican politicians.
Corporate America is going head on against Biden therefore the administration has nothing to lose in playing hardball just as Robert recommends. Profits taxed at a much higher rate also sounds good after reading todays newsletter. Dreaming I know!
Time to leverage Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter to make all of this blindingly visible, supercharge our antitrust laws, and apply them everywhere they're needed.
Corporations should stop viewing us as a huge flock of geese producing an endless supply of golden eggs solely for corporate consumption.
This resonates, but what the administration has to lose is the Democratic majority in Congress and the tenuous, rendered largely ineffective by you know who's, majority in the Senate if this is not played and at least as importantly communicated well. Taxing profits at a much higher rate "sounds" good, but would these taxes not be passed on to consumers because of the root of the problem- overly concentrated power. Let's keep working on this folks!
Reply to myself: Also, taxes on corporate profits (and individual income and wealth) are too easily avoided, legally and illegally, often in ways that are harmful to the "taxers", again due to overly concentrated power on an international scale and lack of other constraints.
It appears that Biden, and many Congressional Republicans as well, are in favor of restoring anti-trust controls that can break up octopus corporations that are inherently anti-competition (because they bought up their major and minor competitors) and restore something akin to a competitive 'free' market.
It's not as thought the octopus corporations pay their workers more as the companies gain more market share and increased income. What's really happening is that the people at the top are using the increased profits to increase their own wealth. Monopoly is not good for American wage-earners and it isn't good for the overall health of the economy. Action is needed to redress the excesses of our new gilded age.
Biden is doing too little too late in the fight vs. monopolies and oligopolies. After all, he’s been a Washington insider all his career. He was Vice President under Obama when the large financial institutions were “too big to fail.” We need the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to tell us the truth and effectively fight those sucking the blood from workers and consumers.
I think it's a question of addressing the most serious fires in the forest at the moment, by intensity and proximity. For example, consider: https://youtu.be/8V1K5cYXkfE The question of fighting monopolies and oligopolies requires a more abstract, long-term strategy that would require Democrats to maintain a long-term majority and the voters a long-term attention span - a long-term uncertainty, at best; a long-term improbability far more probable.
Unfortunately you may be right as to the attention span of the voters. As to fighting the forest fires, Obama and Biden sought to fight the fires of 2008 by bailing out the big banks, leaving many homeowners to go under. My premise is that they used the wrong strategy in the short term. They should have let the banks sink or swim on their own, and pursued some of the bad actors who were knowingly committing fraudulent transactions. But being corporate Dems, they didn’t seek to protect working and middle class folks first.
Those choices by Obama and Biden then have contributed to the lack of faith people have in Biden, and in government in general, now.
Granted, but in the >current< climate, most measures on just about anything related to interfering with moneyed interests are - quite simply - a non-starter. I agree you recommend good measures. That's not the important point of what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to get at is: that it will require a long-term effort, requiring a reliable long-term majority, to even consider spending any considerable amount of time on it, that would necessarily divert attention from the other, immediate fires we have at hand. And then, there's now the question of a conservative-packed SCOTUS to consider in the mix - that will be there long after the currently elected officials are long-gone.
It goes back to the attention span of the voters. The lack of trust and faith that the populace has in most politicians of both parties I feel leads to their short attention span. They aren’t willing to give mainstream pols the benefit of the doubt, and so they aren’t paying attention to them. On the right, they pay attention to clowns like Trump and Tucker Carlson. If nothing else, they find them “entertaining”—like watching gladiators get torn apart by lions was entertaining and diverting to the ancient Roman populace
Absolutely correct - and don't minimize the influence of team sports, particularly football - specifically, American football. That's not to minimize Soccer and its "soccer hooligans," who have been with us for ages - but predominantly elsewhere. Indeed, there are a number of mindless sports jocks holding seats in Congress, who were relatively successful football coaches - Tommy Tuberville comes immediately to mind. I've been wondering if Urban Myer is considering a run. His antics of late look like CV material as a Q-publican!
You are probably right about football, although I have to confess I like watching the action.
Not to mention frat boys.
Corporations raise prices because they can do so now. They could not do so for the last ten years. Why the sudden change? On oil do we really want more production and lower prices? I thought we had a global warming problem. Isn’t this the reason why Biden’s first action in the Oval Office was to shut down the Keystone pipeline? People remember this.
Yes, we do remember because rail cars and trucks already transport the oil and that created more jobs than a pipeline that would be obsolete in 20 years. They raise prices, congress raises the minimum wage to cover them.
Agree! We need our President and his cabinet to speak and act for our times, with firm grasp on facts put to the people in a vigorous way. Use great journalists also to root out wrongs, including greed. Reminds me of early 20th century with Teddy, doing the difficult things for breaking up trusts, monopolies like Standard Oil, railroads, meat packers, etc.
Where is the friggin' Secretary of Commerce?
Interesting question! What is the Secretary of Commerce’s role anyway?
I would like to suggest some additional steps to reduce inflation:
1) Tax capital gains at the same rate as wages. It's the investor class that has increased demand due to their pandemic gains.
2) Tax corporations based on the income they report to their shareholders.
3) End deductions for the interest on loans that use equities as collateral - the billionaire tax dodge.
Not to be impertinent - my new "word of the day" - but aren't those or similar measures included in the BBB package that the Q-publicans & DINOs won't even allow debated, let alone act on? That's the only thing that seems to vaguely >resemble< an intelligent thing for me to add to this topic.
Yes, indeed they are in the BBB package. But the Democrats could present each of them individually as inflation-fighting and deficit-reducing tools that are very popular with voters. Keep reminding workers that Republicans represent the rich.
BTW: I mentioned in an earlier discussion how FDR got New Deal measures through that way. The real problem with that may be that the Q-publicans have read history, too. Although idiotic, that doesn't mean they're either stupid or illiterate. Well read and self-serving is more my thinking, and acting with utter contempt for their voters who rely on them for leadership, having already convinced them that public education is a waste of tax dollars. Like ol' Tweety publicly proclaimed, they just "love the undereducated."
And corollary, for the Republicans, the workers are to be suppressed and "pacified."