by From Ken Zimmerman Oligarchy is an old form for economic and political organization. It was invented long before the invention of capitalism. From about 1500 forward all western nations have been organized as oligarchies politically and economically. All modern capitalist nations today are democratic oligarchies. That means in many areas of life pluralities of citizens, or even populist demands make the decisions about major areas of concern. But oligarchies attempt to protect their advantages. Since all oligarchies in these nations are concerned with protecting the advantage they have in wealth, these oligarchies are concerned with property rights and taxes. Since most believe loss of property rights in these nations in unlikely, most of their efforts focus on tax policy and rates.
Topics:
Editor considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Dean Baker writes Health insurance killing: Economics does have something to say
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking mathematical economics
John Quiggin writes RBA policy is putting all our futures at risk
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Extra Unordinarily Persistent Large Otput Gaps´ (EU-PLOGs)
from Ken Zimmerman
Oligarchy is an old form for economic and political organization. It was invented long before the invention of capitalism. From about 1500 forward all western nations have been organized as oligarchies politically and economically. All modern capitalist nations today are democratic oligarchies. That means in many areas of life pluralities of citizens, or even populist demands make the decisions about major areas of concern. But oligarchies attempt to protect their advantages. Since all oligarchies in these nations are concerned with protecting the advantage they have in wealth, these oligarchies are concerned with property rights and taxes. Since most believe loss of property rights in these nations in unlikely, most of their efforts focus on tax policy and rates. The simplest and most effective way for oligarchies to effect tax policy and rates is to purchase the policies and rates they want. After all they possess more wealth that other members of society which allows them to purchase and control media sources such as newspapers, social media companies, and, of course politicians. This doesn’t guarantee success, however, as some in these groups may resist bribes. But great wealth also purchases propaganda, alliances with groups with “dirt” on opponents, and high walls, both physical and digital. As a last resort, the members of the oligarchy can always hire thieves to steal what they need to win. But oligarchy and democracy can coexist in the same nation and do in many parts of the western world. Some are more successful than others.
The Nordic nations for example struck a bargain with their oligarchies – the government will protect a portion of your wealth up to an identified point so long as the oligarchies stay out of the political game. It’s not 100% successful but it works well enough to make the Nordic nations 300% more economically equal than the US. It’s not unlike the more tacit agreement between the British Parliament and the British Royal family.
No oligarchy in any western nation is monolithic. That is, there are clear divisions in the oligarchy. While generally pursuing protection of their wealth the members of an oligarchy often differ on ways to achieve this end, who is and is not a member whose wealth ought to be protected, and the belief in and support for democratic decision making. For example, some members of the American oligarchy see no prohibition on murder to protect their wealth. Also, Donald Trump is generally not accepted by the other members of the American oligarchy as someone whose wealth ought to be protected. Finally, some members of the American oligarchy support American democracy (within the bounds of wealth protection). For example, two famous Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. On the other hand, David and Charles Koch present a libertarian version of democracy that undercuts government efforts to ensure elections are fair and honest, or that the average American should receive help from their own government to ensure each has enough resources to survive. In the “Samaritan’s Dilemma,” James Buchanan, the libertarian economist funded by David and Charles Koch, claimed Jesus was mistaken. Enlisting the Good Samaritan story, Buchanan made his case that “modern man [had] ‘gone soft’”: he lacked the “strategic courage” needed to restore the market to its proper ordering. From this perspective, what seemed to be the ethical thing to do—help someone in need—was not, in fact, the correct thing to do, because the assistance would encourage the recipient to “exploit” the giver rather than the recipient solving her/his own problems. Buchanan used as an analogy the spanking of children by parents: it might hurt, but it taught “the fear of punishment that will inhibit future misbehavior.” Similarly, “the potential parasite” needed curbing to prevent efforts to “deliberately exploit” society’s “producers” (businesspersons and other members of the oligarchy accepted by the Kochs, etc.). More than any other writings by Buchanan, this article captures the stark morality of libertarianism, giving us the movement’s prescription for how America’s third century could reverse the “soft” errors of its second. Perhaps they didn’t recognize what they had done, or perhaps they didn’t care, but Buchanan with money from the Kochs re-invented “Social Darwinism,” the most malicious theoretic intrusion in human society before the racial theories of the Nazis.
Ensuring that resources needed for survival are scarce for those not part of the oligarchy is one effective tool for use by the oligarchy to protect its wealth. It doesn’t matter if there really is a shortage of these resources. It matters only that those the oligarchy wants to control and keep subservient believe that a shortage exists. This is the primary reason that the bought-and-paid-for political servants of the oligarchy hammer constantly on the national debt, budget deficits, and the need to reduce payout by the government for such basic citizen aid programs as social security, food assistance, government assistance for education, and government aid when ordinary citizens suffer violent crime. Some in the oligarchy have accepted Buchanan’s “Good Samaritan” story as fact, and thus see any sort of government aid to “non-producers” as both an attack on society and unlikely to make the recipients better off. Those not sold on Buchanan’s story simply see the denial of public aid as an effective and inexpensive way to protect their wealth.
Over the last 10 years the Koch brothers and other rich right-wing donors provided vast quantities of “dark money” (political spending that, by law, had become untraceable) to groups and candidates whose missions, if successful, would hobble unions, limit voting, deregulate corporations, shift taxes to the less well-off, and even deny climate change. The master plan here was to turn the US into the libertarian paradise described by economist James Buchanan. Or, more accurately to use the national and state governments to recreate the US in this image. This was done without any vote or even cursory request for permission from the American public. The American oligarchy, or at these segments of it have gone too far. They obviously don’t want a discussion or compromises with other segments of American society. They choose instead to recreate American culture in any way they see fit. This is not acceptable. This is insurrection under the Constitution and must be treated as such.
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/the-constant-production-of-scarcity/