Economic Distress Signal

Bringing America's wealth inequality to the front of the discussion. A philosophical and ethical analysis.

Jun 07, 2024

We are all quite acclimated to the general economic calls of distress regarding America’s glaring wealth inequality. To ad nauseam, young rich privileged kids have held their cardboard signs ordering society to ‘abolish capitalism’. We have seen the rise and fall of figures like Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang who have made depressing pleas against America’s rich invincible economic juggernauts like Amazon, Google, Kelloggs, etc, all to no avail. We have felt the strange pains of wanting economic justice while also despising the ‘taxes paid’ portion of our paychecks. I do not believe I am alone in wanting to maximize my tax refund, wanting to pay less in taxes, and also see economic justice instituted in the Land of Opportunities. Unfortunately, we have shamefully and simply put, gotten used to it. We are used to economic juggernauts being a part of our regular shopping habits. We are used to our local bookstores and local markets shutting down for lack of capacity to compete. We are used to paying more for less. We are used to both political parties neglecting economic justice and paying it mere lip service. We have decided to turn the other cheek, stop buying so much damn avocado toast, and submit to Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand.

Fortunately, fighting wealth inequality is possible. But major change has always been brought about by mass coordination of movements and resilient perseverance. Fighting wealth inequality will require a strong and just philosophical approach that incorporates both practical realism and moral actualities. Simple numbers and graph predictions will not suffice for wealth inequality is far more than that. Wealth inequality in America is no accident, it emerged as it did in France prior to the French Revolution, by poisonous philosophy, greed, manipulation, and distractions, all of which will be expounded below. Repelling other major forces of inequality and injustice has always had the prerequisite of unification of the people. The American Revolution was not won by a rag-tag group of narrow minded individuals, but an intellectually diverse band of farmers, politicians, writers, and metal workers. The French Revolution did not just constitute the frustrated vagabonds of the streets, but individuals of varying economic and social status. The Civil Rights movement in America was not restricted to Lyndon Johnson’s favorite African American Democrats, but blacks and whites of various philosophical worldviews. These examples and countless others would never see a strong genesis, let alone a finale, if they merely constituted a narrow minded monolithic party. Likewise, fighting wealth inequality in America will require a unification of both right and left of center individuals, holders of various socioeconomic statuses, and both de facto and de jure evolutions. This work seeks to cover various facets of wealth inequality in America and the philosophical undertones behind the statistics. No doubt this work cannot consummate the discussion on wealth inequality, nor will it seek to even come close to a definite answer for a solution to the problem. For this work has a single author, and as already explained, combating wealth inequality demands a movement.

A Recapping of Wealth Inequality in America 1900-Now

Thomas Piketty is a French economist and teaches at the Paris School of Economics, his primary works are Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Capital and Ideology, and The Economics of Inequality. For this work to constitute an intellectually honest endeavor into the subject I will draw from various sources with various philosophical-economic outlooks. However, I believe Piketty to hold the most academically sustainable and fortified account of economic history and diagnosis. This work will rely heavily on Piketty, but not exclusively. All graphs and figures noted can be viewed at this footnote.1

In the year 1900, the top 10% of Americans owned 80% of private property, within that metric, the top centile owned 43% of private property. These statistics are startling but graciously, they decrease steadily until the 90s. By 1985, the top decile owned owned roughly 62% of all private property with the top centile holding 24%.2 Though it makes the common American cringe with disgust that 1% of the population owned 24% of all private property, it must be acknowledged that change is not instant, and 24% is much more bearable than 43%, regardless of how much better we can do. However, after the 90s, wealth inequality began a steady rise due to multiple factors which we will address. The statistics for 2000-2020 are far more egregious. In 2000-2020, the top decile share was 70-75% which is just 5% below the unacceptable inequality of 1900 that caused mass reform. Inequality is notoriously difficult to calculate and the common metric, the Gini coefficient has been exposed by Piketty to be unreliable. The Gini coefficient is determined on data that underestimates true inequality due to household surveys regarding income being self-declared and thus inaccurate.3 The Gini coefficient does not factor in the underestimations of self-declared wealth and income, and does nothing to reveal true trends married to inequality, such as philosophy and social factors. One measurement of inequality that does not rely on manipulated data is the stock market, for these numbers are publicly available. Journalist Matt Phillips from Axios notes that as of 2024, 93% of all stock market wealth is claimed by the top decile of Americans (data provided by the Federal Reserve).4 Phillips notes that strangely the market is at its most ‘democratic’ but also its most unequal, potentially a cry for intervention.

Returning to the trend of the past century, we will do well to identify the change in 1900 to reduce inequality, and the change in 1990 to increase inequality. Historian Yuval Noah Harari moves us away from the numerical statistics and into the anthropological factors of economics. Harari notes that the twentieth century, with its toppling of empires, massive wars, and population booms, held a high demand for reductions of inequality regarding classes, race, and gender.5 Overtime, as humans explored, conquered, and established themselves, hyper-strict hierarchies evolved, these persisted well into the modern era. However, in the late modern era the human mind managed to center the notion of ‘equality’ or egalitarianism as an ideal. Harari notes that economic philosophies such as communism and liberalism in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution created high demands for soldiers, health, education, and welfare.6 How is one to fight a war, conquer a 10,000 mile stretch of land, or win an election if goods and wealth are not distributed so as to attain a strong populace? Though we began this century wearing rose tinted glasses, desiring to see our egalitarianism stretch to the third world nations, waiting for the people of Uganda to be identical to those of Finland, we have unfortunately seen a recession of egalitarianism.

Why have our deified philosophies of supply-and-demand, free markets, globalism, and free trade not lifted the tide of all boats in the harbor? The answer would take volumes of research and tireless debates and would be almost infinitely multi-faceted, but there are some answers to be gleaned from the chaos. I will provide four (of many) reasons for this recession in America: 1. The defeat of communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. 2. The political abandonment of the lower class. 3. de jure forces, or lack of forces in the market. And 4. The prevalence of technology.

The fall of Communism and the Soviet Union effectively silenced all innovative economic discussion on the socio-political scale. The realities of The Gulag, mass killing fields, and brutal totalitarianism was surprisingly not a desire for society at large. The fall of the Soviet Union was complex and ultimately not the aim of this work, however, Yuval Noah Harari gives a strong quote.
“Capitalism did not defeat communism because capitalism was more ethical, because individual liberties are sacred, or because God was angry with the heathen communists. Rather, capitalism won the Cold War because distributed data processing works better than centralized data processing-”.7 Though plenty of nuclear bombs, mass graves, and mansions can be built under totalitarian regimes, developing mass tech companies like Google and Meta proves a bit more tricky. To avoid slipping into a communist state, Americans, and the west in general, doubled down on the economic philosophy that defeated communism (or shall we say ‘outlasted’ it). The Red Scare stole the same script from the Salem Witch Trials and as communists, socialists, and other non-capitalists or capitalist questioning professors, news reporters, journalists, and editors entered unemployment, capitalism took its throne like a true Napoleon. Capitalism is not a monolithic idea, but the general practice of free markets and non imprisoning local bakers has in fact generated significant economic prosperity and growth. We have been able to observe overwhelming exponential growth in productivity. In 1950, America’s GDP per hour worked equated to roughly $17-18 per hour, the maverick of capitalism and technological revolutions have brought this to almost $60 per hour by 2015.8 The concept of ‘productivity’ and its maximization will be brought into question later. Regardless, our car’s seat warmers, vegan beef patties, infinite iPhone variations, and curated Instagram pages are all brought to us by free trade and capitalism. However, have we allowed Capitalism to go unchecked? Is the current state of wealth inequality the be-all-end-all for market innovation? Surely, something greater must be possible for the species that created cheesecake, landed on the moon, and invented high-speed wireless internet.
It is a common error to believe that the modern political left remains a fiscal champion of the lower working class American. Though it is true that both political parties make excellent lip service and promises to reinvigorating the lower class, seldom do formidable policies see the light of day. The sad reality is, ten million dollars from a lobbyist tycoon is a much better political vehicle than attempting to convince ten million poor voters that you will help them, especially if that help comes at the cost of the ten million lobbied dollars. The history of inequality in America reveals that this was not always the case. Major media from The Atlantic to MSNBC have all published pieces noting the exodus of the lower working class from the democratic party, meaning at one point the political left appeared as a safe space. Journalist Eric Sondermann notes that the left used to be the hub for both academic elites, gay rights activists, climate activists, and race conscious individuals. And though this group has relatively remained unchanged, it is missing its binding ingredient: the working class. Sondermann as well as economist Robert Reich rightly point out that the great dividing factor in our economic battleground (as well as social and political) is education level. Sondermann claims that the poor working class has abandoned the left, or rather the left has abandoned the poor working class regarding issues such as crime, immigration, and trade policy.9 But I believe Sondermann to be right when he pushes further into the No Man’s Land of subjects; he writes, ‘Flash on every debate over those born male playing women’s sports; every placard about “defunding the police;” every corporate training on “equity” instead of the old standard of equal opportunity; every talking head declaring “no migrant is illegal;” every reference to “birthing people;” every email proclaiming the sender’s pronouns; and every gratuitous use of “Latinx”, a description only three percent of Latinos even embrace.’10 With the academic and intellectual elites of the left dictating ‘proper thought’ among the lower working class while simultaneously lobbying millions of dollars for joint business ventures with political juggernauts, the men and women of America making $20,000 a year do not really know where to turn for political relief. A common theme throughout this work is the interweaving of social philosophy throughout logistical and statistical readings. Thomas Piketty also provides well researched notes regarding the abandonment of the lower working class and thus the solidification of wealth inequality. The reasons the left have lost support from the working class are not infinite, but pretty close to it. In 1960, the Democrats took up the racial matters of the day as high priority which caused many of the disadvantaged southern whites to affiliate with the Republican Party.11 Other reasons regarding the exodus revolve around multiculturalism, nativism, and pluralism, these claims fall under a hypothesis known as the nativist hypothesis. However, Piketty and other economists find the nativist hypothesis to not fully account for the phenomenon, especially when you factor in the rise of minorities and immigrants aligning with right-wing political parties. A more suitable hypothesis is the social hypothesis. This view claims that the fiscal (as well as social) practices of the left have slowly left more and more working class individuals behind. Piketty, just like Sondermann, finds access to education to be a major factor in this divide. In the past, across all western countries the highly educated were generally conservative and thus the elites, both business and academic, voted right. However, today the academic elite class is largely composed of individuals left of center. teachers, mid-high level public workers, those in healthcare, and cultural workers largely vote left, but industrial and service workers now vote the right.12 Business elites continue to be more aligned with the Republican party which is notorious for large bail outs, unregulated markets, and lower taxes, including in taxable points that could prove to be socially revolutionary if were taxed higher such as inheritance, wealth, and capital gains. Meanwhile, the academic left is its own elite class, and Democratic politicians desire these votes. Democrats now participate in their own fiscal lobbying, bailouts13, and major PACs. All these high dollar sign actions are exacerbated with concentrated wealth and a high degree of wealth inequality. Piketty writes, ‘-the electoral left, having become the party of the educated, has also become the advocate and champion of republican elitism, even more so than the “bourgeois” parties that the left opposed when it was the party of workers.”14 In all, it appears that in our current state of American politics, the rich men in suits are not eager to aid the lower class.
The sexy capitalism of the 1950s that would go on to laugh at the fall of communism is not the capitalism we see today. Tech giants, market manipulation, and lack of political incentives to regulate the market have allowed massive amounts of wealth to accumulate in the top 1%’s pockets. Referring to our earlier point on the reduction of inequality in America after 1900, one of the greatest factors was the implementation of progressive taxation on both wealth and inheritance. In 1932-1980 ‘the top marginal income rate averaged 81 percent in the United States-’.15 After 1980, progressive taxation was undone by Ronald Reagan during the ‘conservative revolution’, both in America and the UK under Margaret Thatcher. Important to note, the economy FLOURISHED after World War Two with progressive taxation. The blinded claims that progressive taxation would undo our economy or institute a Maoist socialist regime do not square with history. Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalist, and in the case of America and the UK, it allowed capitalism to flourish. A startling fact is that under Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a Republican mind you, incomes over $400,000 were taxed at all the way up to 92%. For all tax rates for various incomes from 1862-2021 this link will provide.16 Today, the highest tax rate for any income is 37%. In Piketty’s work, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the question of ethics and morality is brought up regarding the steep wealth that could be inherited from low or untaxed fortunes. The question is a strong one: why work or even act morally if you are to gain a fortune?17Though this reality was apparent in 18th, 19th, and even 20th century Europe, it ironically did not appear in the United States until the 21st century, as if history is moving backwards. Lack of proper and ethical taxation from the government is proving painful. On one side there are pseudo liberals who cannot articulate the importance of higher taxation on wealth, inheritance, and income, and on the right there are demagogues like Charlie Kirk who claim that all taxation is theft. Blanketing the American populace from lower to upper classes is fear, anxiety, and distrust regarding ethical taxation.
Manipulating the flow of money and ‘hacking’ the capitalist consumer has never been easier than in the 21st century. Yuval Noah Harari returns as one of the few philosopher-historians who thinks clearly regarding the impact of A.I. on our economy. For a detailed coverage of my views on A.I. in America’s ‘pseudo’ capitalist economy, I encourage the reader to examine my previous Substack work. Harari makes a tongue-in-cheek comment that it is possible that while there is any conflict in the world, our species should focus on turning all swords into plowshares until conflict and diseases are eradicated; I do not find this comment bothersome at all. However Harari points out the reality that those who live in palaces have always had different agendas than those who live in straw shacks.18 A.I. is now on the scene and anyone who does not believe this will create a radical change in our economy should probably get the same looks we give flat Earthers. In 2014, Deep Knowledge Ventures in Hong Kong developed a new algorithm named VITAL which gets a place on their board and votes on investment prospects for the company.19 Harari notes that a major sector of the transportation market is dominated by taxi drivers, bus drivers, and truckers who could all theoretically unionize and demand more economic justice, something that would make large transportation investment firms go ‘boo!’ So how to stop this boo-generating unionization? Having all vehicles on one centralized self-driving algorithm.20 As per my last essay regarding A.I. and capitalism, the financial benefits do not even allow this implementation to be debated. Human safety on the road is ensured when there are no more car accidents, a centralized hub for all vehicles to communicate through would effectively stop all traffic deaths. Moreover, a company does not need to give PTO, raises, health care, matched 401ks, or those dreaded maternity and paternity leaves to A.I. algorithms. If that was not enough, humans need to rest and eat, and cannot drive all day, but an algorithm is not inhibited by these fleshy inconveniences. If inequality is bad today, one has not seen the rise of Harari’s ‘useless class’ that will be left behind once A.I. is mastered economically. This useless class will not just be unemployed, but unemployable.21 To further solidify inequality in America and the world, our purchasing decisions might follow the path of least resistance and find themselves in the hands of algorithms as well. Dangerously, this not only enhances wealth inequality, but threatens modern notions of liberalism as well. Liberalism champions the decision making prowess of the individual, the conscious self, and we happily embrace the consequences of our freely made decisions. However, if algorithms are able to accurately read and predict the material reactions in our bodies, we would be insane not to listen to it. Harari writes, ‘Liberalism sanctifies the narrating self, and allows it to vote in the polling stations, in the supermarket, and in the marriage market. For centuries this made good sense, because though the narrating self believed in all kinds of fictions and fantasies, no alternative system knew me better. Yet once we have a system that really does know me better, it will be foolhardy to leave authority in the hands of the narrating self.’22 This is no longer science fiction. Computer systems are already mapping us better than we know ourselves. A group called Geeksme is working on an app that will relay all biometric feedback during sex such as heart-rate, sweat level, speed, and even calories burned. One will not be able to fake an orgasm or lie to their partner of how they were ‘surely the best’.23 Major market forces have every reason to push the limits of algorithms and A.I. to the extreme, the American economy is amoral, there are no ethical restraints on the prowess of innovation.

The French Revolution and Us

The French Revolution, like many other topics in this work, has infinite angles to be approached. For the sake of this work, I will merely focus on the philosophical-economical factors with major attempts to avoid political philosophy. The French Revolution focused on the regalian powers and the centralized state, it did not however, devise a proper response to wealth, income, and property distribution. The reason for bringing up the French Revolution is because in France, centralized wealth and power reached a tipping point that enabled pseudo terrorists like Napoleon to rise and allowed bands of rebels to publicly execute the state officials. Certainly in our modern and enlightened state we would hope just prosecution of economic and political injustice will be handled more civilly. In France, the tri-functional society divided into clerical-religious, noble-warrior, and labor-working classes disintegrated and centralized wealth was not redistributed, it was merely transferred from noble rulers to private individuals. Though sources are not perfectly accurate, it is safe to say that in 1780, the upper noble class represented only 1.5% of the population but owned 50% of all the land, and a more liberal calculation will yield a reading as high as 60%.24 I encourage you to pause and reread that fact; 1.5% of the people owned 60% of the land; without intervention, we cannot be dazed by the fact that the populace would not tolerate such economic injustice. After the revolution the share of land owned by the higher classes dropped between a tenth and a fifth, fluctuating in the meantime, this is still grossly unacceptable. As noted, the revolutionaries did not successfully devise a wealth redistribution plan, and wealth concentration and inequality prevailed until the eve of World War One, here the statistics are more accurate, and thus more depressing. On the eve of World War One in Paris alone, the top centile (the top 1%) owned 65% of all property.25 This is more unequal than the conditions that birthed the revolution. Historians are left to debate if the two world wars were not somewhat a result or a byproduct of such glaring wealth inequality.

The reason I believe it is important for us to review the French Revolution and Belle Époque Europe (1880-1914) in general is to see if patterns might share some wisdom with the modern day American predicament. If 50-60% ownership of land and wealth played a major role in birthing a violent and bloody revolution, what is to be said of Piketty’s graphs depicting the top decile share of total income to be hovering around 47%, just 3% away from that of France almost 150 years ago.26 I am not such an ignoramus to argue that history is so bland to the point that I believe we are on the cusp of a revolution- though that is not out of the picture- but that we are on the brink of utter economic collapse. The French Revolution had more philosophical factors at play than just an economically distressed lower class, though the economic injustices were still major. If world wars and revolutions might even possibly be a bi-product from such glaring wealth inequality, what might be America’s fate, something similar, worse, or no fate at all, just a continuous decline into poverty? We cannot grow too distracted from these disparities, and though the situation might feel hopeless, inaction is what enables oligarchies to flourish. Studying social and economic results from other hyper unequal societies should serve as valiant wake up calls for your friends and family members who believe that Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other incalculably rich individuals ‘worked for’ and ‘deserve’ their wealth as a reward for their upstanding citizenry.

American Capitalism as Oligarchy

Scottish political economist, Adam Smith authored Wealth of Nations which placed notions of capitalism into the common vernacular and economic philosophy. I have stated before that philosophies might predate their language and practical implications; capitalism, socialism, tyranny, and genocide have all certainly taken place before humans developed the language to articulate these ideas. However, when capitalism became a solidified economic philosophy, America had its blueprint for the way forward. I hesitate to give any subtle praise to capitalism prior to the 20th century as it was soaked in racism, laissez faire exploitation, imperialism, and prior to the emancipation of the slaves, unrealistic working hours in the form of slavery. However, for a brief moment after the Second World War, it seemed that capitalism really would save America and defeat her enemies. Egalitarianism was proliferating, suburbs were expanding, Jim Crow and racism was moving to de facto forms, and the inequality in America was refreshingly low. In 1950-1990 the top 1% owned 12-13% of total income, which although is high, is some of the lowest inequality in America’s history. But in the span of a meager thirty years, the top centile’s share rose to well over 18%. This rise was interestingly mirrored by the fall of growth in America’s economy. Recall that it was during this time that the top tax rate fell from an average 72% to 35%, a fact that we shall not overlook as correlative, or even causational.27

With the tax rates extremely low for the largest fortunes, access to education at an alarmingly low level, massive corporations controlling proxy competing companies to acquire wealth in competing sectors, massive companies buying up thousands of units of real-estate and moving from an ownership model to a rental model for tenants only one question is helpful: Are we still capitalist? There are many contradictions and complexities to capitalism, one is highlighted by Piketty in his earlier work, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He notes that the return on capital, r, is typically higher than the rate of growth, g. This means that those who hold vast degrees of capital in the forms of properties for rent, stocks, bonds, interest accumulating loans, etc. will yield higher profits than those who possess mere labor capabilities.28 The reality of r>g is a contradiction to capitalism because general laws of capitalism can be simplified in terms of harder work=higher gains. This begs my previous question: are we capitalists or oligarchs? Is the billionaire an entrepreneur or a rentier, who no longer works, but absorbs profits at a rate faster than economic growth can account for? If America, and much more the world, cannot reverse the low growth rates and high income rates, anarchy is destined to follow. Economic growth might never see the 4-5% a year rates after World War Two, and might be destined to 1-1.5%, and the promises of capitalism will not be fulfilled. I argue that our economic display resembles an oligarchy more than an egalitarian capitalist utopia.

Plato was an outstanding thinker, however I do not believe he was infallible. I found book eight of The Republic to be one of the most useful and reflective chapters. In book eight, Plato examines various forms of socio-political states and how they arise from one another. In Plato’s theory, Lacedaemonian timocracy precedes oligarchy, then after oligarchy comes a ‘state full of evils’, democracy, and then out of democracy arises tyranny.29 This order very might well have been the order observed by Plato in his day and with his limited knowledge of human history and sociology. However, I do not subscribe to his theory of particular states rising out of others. We have seen democracies arise out of tyrannical states through just revolution, communism arise out of democracies, and democracy arise out of communism through economic reforms. We have seen oligarchies arise out of communism (as is the case in modern Russia), and communism arise out of oligarchies (as is the case in the modern Chinese Communist Party). Plato was an intellectual revolutionary and these are not ample reasons to criticize the philosophy of the young thinker. One thing Plato did observe accurately was the nature of such states. Whereas Plato believed democracy arises out of oligarchy, I argue in America we are observing an oligarchy arising out of a democracy (or a republic). Plato describes oligarchy states as having a constant internal war, between the poor and the rich. When Plato’s Socrates is asked to define an oligarchy, he responds, ‘A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it.’ Plato is evergreen when he outlines how an oligarchy arises. He argues it is birthed out of individuals who accumulate vast swaths of gold and treasure and develop either legal or illegal forms to maintain and grow that wealth. Other rich men then feel in competition and exploit the economy further to compete. Through this acquisition of mass fortunes, an important aspect of humanity is erased: virtue.30 There are near infinite valuable observations to be gleaned from book eight of The Republic, but one interesting and relevant observation is that the rich are consistently developing de jure forms of maintaining their wealth and exploiting the poor. A crossover between Piketty’s work and Plato’s is that of neo-propertarianism in which only those who own property can have a worthwhile position in politics. Plato asks a brilliant question with a depressing observation, why are we electing politicians based on their wealth (either knowingly or subliminally) whereas we would not choose a pilot, a carpenter, or an engineer based on such metrics?31

There are a few notable culprits in the land of the free that come to mind when pondering our oligarchy state but one in particular has been a major focus of mine: Amazon. Amazon is notorious for subverting democracy and manipulating our understanding of the ‘checks and balances’ controlling capitalism. Though there are a myriad of companies worthy of a case study, Amazon is one that has found itself to be what I call, an unnecessary necessity. The reason I give Amazon this paradoxical name is because when I question people regarding their loyalty to the company, they all answer in one way or another as being unable to relinquish two day (in some cases same to one day) shipping. I am confused because this convenience is very new to our society which moves faster than ever. When I was growing up, anytime I wanted something off the internet I would have to order, wait a day for my order to be processed, and then it would be shipped with a 2-3 week wait. I was never bothered by this nor did I find that I could not sustain myself while I waited for my new gizmo. Now, we even have shortcuts to expedite the mere checkout experience. I am very much in favor of progress in our infrastructure and lives, however what is the cost of this progress. I want my new lego sets, books, and electronics to arrive at my house in two days as much as anyone else does, but do I need this? The laziness of Americans has been astonishing lately, yet ironically fast and expedited. We cannot appreciate a face to face interaction with a barista, instead we go through a drive through, more diluted individuals will now have their coffee Door-dashed to their location. It seems we cannot even go to the store for groceries anymore, rather we go through Amazon and have them delivered to our door. I felt it was very new and strange to see people placing orders for groceries online, driving to the store, and having the bags ready to pick up upon arrival. Now, any system of acquiring goods that makes you leave your couch is archaic and barbaric. This philosophy of always being faster has left us mindless. I reflect on my experience with Sam Harris’ meditation app, Waking Up. Waking Up has been a life changer to me, and the meditations are infinitely more than mere exercises, they are realizations. They help myself and thousands of others realize that time is not the most precious resource, attention is. We can waste time by wasting attention, interestingly, we can have the most productive and liberating span of 30 seconds by noticing our experiences and appreciating our state of being, and later we waste 30 minutes being mad in traffic or watching TikTok, which of those two series of time was the most life giving? We do not need our items faster and quicker, we need to slow down our consumption and demand for such items.

Danny Caine writes the quick read How to Resist Amazon and Why. Caine owns a small bookstore called The Raven which has grown particularly well in wake of his books, however Caine and I both worry about other local bookstores that have not been so lucky. Amazon has many integral problems that extend far beyond this reach of this writing. Instead of allowing workers to rest, Amazon installed vending machines that distribute pain killers.32 Instead of allowing unions to acquire more worker rights, Amazon deployed Pinkerton spies.33 Instead of paying workers a fair wage, they created a system of utilizing third party unites for delivery so as to not offer benefits and coverage.34 Amazon somehow manages to sell products below wholesale value, not below retail, but wholesale.35 These claims only scratch the surface to the hyper unethical and anti-democratic nature of Amazon. But what do all these claims have to do with oligarchy in American democracy, and what are its effects on mass wealth inequality? Josh Dzieza gives the chilling remark that ‘It’s harder for regulation to grasp a company that, rather than monopolizing a market, has become the market itself.’36 Companies like Amazon coupled with American economic-political practices regarding lobbying ensure that proper regulation avoids Amazon. Plato’s account of the rich instituting laws that ensure the security of their wealth is echoed in America’s lobbying practices. Amazon has swallowed up countless businesses, local bookstores being just a small example. In a capitalist society, business can compete amongst one another often developing unique, beneficial, and progressive evolutions. However, in an Amazon dominated economy, there is little to no ground to stand on to even enter the market, much less compete.

Another aspect regarding our stagnating oligarchy is the manipulation of both the middle-upper and the lower class to believe that the current economic system is functioning as the majority would intend it to. To the lower class, a narrative about laziness, lack of skill, and overspending is given. To the upper class, a narrative of enjoying the fruits of ‘labor’, fairness, and free will is given. Both of these narratives have glaring contradictions and faults.

The lower class is accused of buying too much avocado toast by millionaires like Tim Gurner who did not toil in the factory for their share, but rather exploited a vulnerable housing market with multiple properties and high rent.37 Gurner does not redeem himself when he brings up a point I echoed earlier in this work. As if catering to the exact project of Piketty, Robert Reich, and even myself, Gurner points out that relief will come to those who ‘inherit’ wealth through inheritance via the baby boomers.38 Doubtless, people of Gurner’s stock will find this ‘fair’ and ‘just’. The sad reality for many in the younger generations is that not buying avocado toast, lattes, and a beer will not get you much closer to buying a home or starting a business. 1% of rent in America is between $500-700 while the average rent is $1,000-1,700 at 34%.39 The U.S. Census Bureau has an excellent published document detailing many of the statistics regarding income, wealth holding, wealth growth, and inequality which is linked to this footnote.40 It states that the median income for an American is roughly $34,000, this is before taxation. Another very impressive database calculating cost of living is found at numbeo.com where accurate statistics regarding everyday grocery items, utilities, transportation, childcare, clothing, etc., are all factored in to declare the average cost of living for a single American is roughly $1,200 before rent.41 If the average rent is roughly $1,400 and the cost of living is $1,200, and the average income is $34,000 before taxes, then the average American exists with a taxable $8,000, this is my rough estimates, however numbeo states the average American nets only $4,500 before taxes. If someone is already losing $30,000 of their $34,000 salary to mere existence, it is hard to convince them that not buying a commodity will do much to help them. This is the narrative the lower class has learned to tell itself and the upper class has learned to tell. I am not against smart savings, cutting out mindless spending, and living a more minimalist and less consuming life, however to distract young Americans from the perils of an unjust system to maintain vast swaths of wealth cannot be tolerated.

The amoral cogs of our oligarchy-capitalist economy churn in the way of least resistance, chasing growth and profits. In a depressing and almost Aldous Huxleyian manner, the unhealthy deadly vices and opioids of the masses follow the poor wherever they go. Our economic system has found the most profitable locations of liquor stores, fast-food restaurants, nicotine and vape stores, and strip clubs to be found in low-income neighborhoods. These addictive substances consume thousands of dollars from the lower class and create intense dependencies. The mindless working hours of the lower class create a dangerous mental toll which they seek to escape by any means. Any chance of saving money and investing well is squashed by these addictions which are plastered on every corner of the low income neighborhoods.

The upper class tells themselves a much more generous narrative. That if they were able to amass such mountains of wealth through their own hard work, free will, and determination, then any of the lower peasants of society could do the same. More so, one of the most harmful and damaging narratives that I was fed constantly as a child was that the poor want to be poor, they choose that life. If they did not want to live on the street or in a shack of a home, they would work harder, they would invest, they would save more instead of going to their local liquor store. These narratives are pervasive and make the oligarchies seem more noble and fair than they truly are. Much of this sociological-economic narrative debate will be expounded later in this work on the topic of free will. Free will, unchosen circumstances, and opportunity equity are essentially at the core of the philosophical discussion regarding the internal stories told by those of the upper and lower classes.

The Productivity Paradox

Our wealth inequality is staggering, but one theory attempts to combat the lower class’ living standards: productivity. Productivity in America has in fact brought good things to our way of life. Most homeless people somehow have smart phones and access to charging them, most low income households have air conditioning in one way or another, and most low income homes can acquire food through shelters, donations, or affordable options. Phones, air conditioning, and access to food used to all be seen as luxuries of the middle class and up, but are now accessible to even homeless people. The government summarizes productivity roughly as getting more out than what we put into labor hours.42 We all intuitively believe more productivity is a good thing, but why? We aim to be more productive in our days, our workplaces, our hobbies, and more, but what are the benefits of higher productivity? Regarding one’s hobbies, they might find more fulfillment, more experiences, and more time doing what they love. In one’s day, they might be able to exercise and live a healthier lifestyle that is spent bettering themselves. But the work place is somewhere most Americans wish they did not have to visit for forty hours a week, so why be more productive as an individual, or as a society at large? Productivity has lied to us, manipulating us into thinking the more our society progresses and develops, the less work there is for us to do. This happens at both the individual level, and the macro-economic level as well. Amazon returns to be a depressing example of how productivity has lied to us. There is a strict standard of speed in the Amazon warehouse, and the GPS and pace marker on the Amazon worker notes how much time is spent not working, too much time not scanning and moving will result in a termination.43 This speed is set to ensure ‘realistic’ but also maximized productivity, so one question to ask is, when is enough productivity enough to ever slow down? That question might seem quite strange and alien to our consumerist mindset, another way to ask it is, are there every acceptable moments to mark quarterly earnings as lower without a problem, or times when a company will say, ‘this is a fine speed and we are as big as we feel we need to be’? Compared to our brutish ancestors 750,000 years ago, we have progressed through the power of productivity to build a world they would fine alien and daunting. How would our almost million year old ancestors feel if they found out that in this alien world, we still work roughly 40-50 hours a week with no plan on stopping? This is a strange phenomenon and the very concept of accepting less productivity from our workforce sounds like laziness, anti-progress, and uneducated. When our cars fly, our trucks are driven by bots, and our planes fly at the speed of sound will we still work the same amount? Some countries have managed to answer these questions, or at least attempt to. France and Germany have managed to reduce the average work week to 30-35 hours while at great benefit to the people both high and low in the company. France and Germany work about 400 hours less a year than Americans and about 300 less than those in the U.K. ensuring a shorter work week and extended vacations.44 It is well known that without proper national legislation on behalf of the entire labor force, it is historically rare to see decreases in working hours. Piketty points out the obvious when he writes, ‘As productivity rises, it is natural to work fewer hours to spend more time with family and friends, to discover the world and other people, and to seek entertainment and culture.’45 Piketty does not attempt to answer the questions regarding working hours and productivity, but we can see if the common sense notion of less working hours and more liberties for the populace is reflected in the progressive productivity of America. In the abstract of Robert Gordon’s extensive project for the National Bureau of Economic Research, he states, ‘The statistical trend for growth in total economy LP (labor productivity) ranged from 2.75 percent in early 1962 down to 1.25 percent in late 1979 and recovered to 2.45 percent in 2002.’46 The highest our productivity has ever been is now due to the implementation of technology into the labor force. We have to pay less people who now do less tasks to accomplish a project, however, the hours have remained relatively the same. Despite the growth ranging from 2.75% to 1.25% a year, there has been little to no reduction in hours worked nor have the profits seen appropriate redistribution. The failure of productivity and the questioning of it as a religious dogma in the American oligarchy system is noticed in the statistics regarding low and high income rates in 1960-2015 America. In 1970 the bottom 50% of people earned on average $15,200 a year while the top 1% averaged $403,000. Before we confront the modern rate of income, we should recall Gordon’s rate of increased productivity. If the workers are now producing more for society and a company is able to expand, we should hope to see more egalitarianism and less wealth inequality, oh how wrong we are to assume. As of 2015, the bottom 50% earn on average $16,200 while the top 1% earns about $1.3 million.47 The ratio of wealth inequality expanded from 1:26 to 1:81, it appears the unchecked American economic system as allowed hyper productivity to raise the lowest of wages by about $1,000 while the highest wages have nearly tripled.

Virtue Signaling in ‘Capitalism’

This section returns to the false and (for lack of a better term) weird narratives that members of the upper class tell themselves and others regarding their rise to wealth. Charlie Kirk is a right wing talking head who argues capitalism intersects and is supported by Biblical theology.48 Capitalism is not just a mere amoral economic philosophy to the most aggressive adherents, it is a moral good that cares about the poor, the betterment of society, and our prosperity. It is a good that needs to be enforced without question regardless of its effects. I shall not note that I believe capitalism is the best economic model we have seen practiced and any state that cares about its own survival should ensure that the laws regarding the market are upheld. However, the deification of property and capitalism as a whole, coupled with the earlier mentioned sociological effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union, have caused us to become cynical and incapable of looking forward to the next economic model that might be an improvement. Capitalism is seen as holding a moral texture and alternatives to capitalism are infected with ‘sin’, selfishness, and malicious intent. Eugene McCarraher is the author of The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity. McCarraher notes that the prospects of market value, profit, productivity, and financial expansion were present even in the age of Puritan settlers. A premiere promoter of colonization in America, Richard Hakluyt was sure to maintain religious brainwashing by combining market potential with the Great Lord Almighty. Hakluyt ensured others that God was prosperous to the industrious, especially in the material sense. Noting that we often forget that ‘Godlinesse is great riches, if we first seeke the kingdome of God, al other things will be given unto us.’49 Hakluyt’s God appears to have maintained the markets in the new world and also aided in the discovery of the Northwest Passage as a biblical reward. Another early settler who echoed moral justifications to capitalism was Thomas Morton who instead of committing justice by helping displaced farmers from greedy landlords rather saw fruition in giving liquor and muskets to the natives in exchange for profitable furs. Puritan William Bradford did not take kindly to this and rightly accused Morton of idolatry and ‘covetousness.’50 After some development in America, capitalism gained even more moral texture. A strange court case in 1819 Dartmouth College solidified corporations as immortal entities, giving them a soul in a sense. The Justices in the Santa Clara case were not able to defend their declaration, as the idea that lifeless, for-profit, amoral entities (like modern day Walmart and Amazon) so clearly do not possess souls and intentions, even if their boards and workforce members do.51 Quickly, the work to deify these immortal entities began in the form of architecture. In the brutalist skylines of today, we do not envision skyscrapers as being anything of beauty, but to those who predated the Industrial Revolution, the new and uncharted land of industrialization was enchanting to say the least. The immortal and deified business of modern capitalism needed ‘temples’ and ‘shrines’, simple paper work was not enough to uphold their deity. G. Lowes Dickinson in 1908 captures this strange architectural philosophy well with his notes. He used theologically heavy language to describe the New York skyline. He wrote about ‘blazing basilicas’ that ‘outshined the firmament of stars’. He called the skyline ‘divine somehow in its potentialities.’52 Into the present age, capitalism continues to undermine its amoral reality and is repeatedly deified. Capitalism has transcended from science and economics to theology. Whereas other religions want us to cut the heads off of chickens to ensure that rain comes, or journey across the Earth to inherit an unknown utopia after we die, or blow ourselves up on a school bus to indulge in seventy two virgins, capitalism asks us very simply invest in our deified entities to gain pleasure and riches in the here and now. Capitalism has proven to be a worthwhile religion as it has managed to uphold many of its promises. As with any other religion, there are charges of blasphemy to be vetted out to heretics. Those who question the work ethic (or luck) of multi-millionaire and billionaires are deemed lazy, ignorant, and beta. They are not fit to inherit the Heaven of capital gains.

Why is this relevant to wealth inequality? In this sense, wealth inequality is not a bad thing; our deified capitalism is separating the wheat from the chaff, exonerating those who have fought the good fight and have finished the race. Although in the religion of capitalism, the race is never quite over. The sin of greed does not allow one to be content with $1,000,000, for they have just scratched the surface of the potentials of capitalism, why have 1 million when you can have 10 after investing in government bonds or ETFs. Those who want to waste away their potential getting degrees in post-marxists trans revolutionary ideology, music, or philosophy simply have no place in the market economy and are destined to receive the justice of inequality. The hyper-capitalists of today (note, they are not always conservative) have managed to ignore the problems of wealth inequality by upshifting its diagnosis from problem to beautiful justice.

Free Will, Modern Psychology, and Charles Whitman’s Tower Shooting

Long avoided but central to our discussion of wealth inequality is the topic of free will. For capitalism to maintain its moral texture, agency is required among its participants. If the poor are mere accidents of birth, nature, and chemicals, then we might just have a moral obligation to ensure that scenarios that breed homelessness are limited; but if the poor are lazy heretics to capitalism who do not want a job and lack the backbone to make it in the workforce, we can turn our gazes up and allow capitalism’s justice to do its magic. The more detailed debate of free will is well out of the range of my limited liberal arts mind, I allow the STEM academics to handle that. However, the debate is not inaccessible and there is a role us laymen can have in it.

Those who know me are aware that I walk a fine tightrope on this debate. I believe autonomy lies on a spectrum and at a given moment we have more or less autonomy. Examples of factors that can limit our capabilities on the spectrum are sexual arousal, alcohol, drugs, sleep, environment, and evolutionary adaptive responses. I am always pleased to know that some academics share this spot with me, however I must also note that I am overwhelmed and sometimes might be known to shy away from the arguments against free will. I will proudly declare that I have examined these arguments and find many of them compelling, however I am comfortable setting them aside for my position as they all extend from a philosophy of materialism. However, even once one admits that materialism is not sufficient for our agency and that we might in fact have an immaterial entity that dictates our choices (our souls), we must then confront that we did not choose our souls, and are therefore not wholly responsible for the nature of our souls. One potential flaw in this line of reasoning is linking opportunities to agency. I am not lacking free will because I cannot fly, although I might desire to. I am not lacking free will because I was not born in Hawaii, although I might wish I was. Furthermore, believing the soul (if there is such a thing) as responsible or not responsible for its own development is well beyond the reach of even our most esteemed philosophers. Regardless of my position, one thing we must all come face to face with, is that whether or not an immaterial entity or soul is initiating our chemical reactions and causing our actions, almost all of our physical movements and choices are the results of said chemical-biological forces. The simplest example I believe is found in Charles Whitman.

Charles Whitman was a 25 year old ex-marine veteran who one day thought it worthwhile to murder his family, grab a rifle, go to the 25th floor of a tower at the University of Austin, and shoot and kill 14 innocent people. Though there are certainly more productive things to do in life than murder innocent people, Charles Whitman revitalized a curious debate on the nature of autonomy, for he left us a strange psychological puzzle to solve. Before his killing spree, Whitman wrote a letter that confessed he in fact did not want to do what he was about to do, he urged that once his body was retrieved, an autopsy be done on his brain to find what was wrong with him. Sure enough, after the police terminated him and conducted the autopsy, behold, a ping-pong ball sized tumor took up some prime real-estate on Whitman’s amygdala, the brain region associated with moral deliberation. With 15 dead people, others wounded, and even more traumatized, the only thing we have is one powerful question: how much control did Charles Whitman have over his actions? The evidence and logic lead us to believe that he either had no control, or in the language of my theory, his capacity for control on the autonomy spectrum was drastically low. So what does a psychotic mass shooter have to do with wealth inequality?

Charles Whitman is an extreme case, but we scale down his major tumor and imagine ourselves as having hundreds of small tumors, quirks, or discharges in our own minds. We might impulsively choose to drop out of school, commit a crime, invest in Nvidia, or buy up thousands of real-estate properties after the 2008 financial collapse. There is no simple answer that I can provide regarding how responsible individuals are for their actions, but we can begin to understand the context which actions are taken within. One holds no control on if their parents will teach them the value of education and provide them a warm bed every night, or if they would rather find it fruitful to use a child as a human heroine suitcase. One holds no control on if they are gifted in math and science or if they are more proficient in baseball or law. One may argue that it is ‘determination’ that stays up all night and studies, but does that mean we choose our own levels of determination, if so, why do we not all choose to maximize it? And if there is a cost to maximizing our determination, say it is ‘will power’, do we control how much of that we possess? These psychological interrogations can continue ad infinitum. In A.C. Grayling’s philosophy textbook, Philosophy 1, David Papineau’s essay on philosophical methodology is explored along with the context of questioning free will. Papineau claims, ‘The only reason some philosophers doubt the existence of free will is because they think there is an underlying requirement for an action to be free, namely, that it not be determined by past causes, and because, moreover, they doubt that any human actions are not so determined. Any such philosopher will reply to the paradigm case argument for free will as follows: ‘Maybe ordinary people are happy to apply the term “free will” to such actions as drinking a cup of coffee or buying a new car. But this is only because they are implicitly assuming that these actions are not determined by past causes. But in fact they are wrong in this assumption. All human actions are determined by past causes. So there is really no free will, and everyday people are just making a mistake when they apply the term “free will” as they do.’'53 In this sense, the chemical-biological factors in our brains are creating the actions we do that in turn determine our position in the wealth inequality regime. Likewise, outside factors also play an obvious and significant role. Being born into a civil war yields a quite different life to being born to a Saudi Arabian oil prince. Being born as a woman in Somalia is a little different than being born a math wizard in Switzerland. Papineau does not factor in the possibility of immaterialism which is gifted to philosophers from religion and metaphysics, but this is not something one can criticize Papineau over, for unobservable and non-replicable phenomena are not welcomed in genuine science. Psychologist Paul Bloom is the author of Against Empathy, whose thesis I have used to explore (and mildly pioneer) the topic of Christian Utilitarianism. Paul Bloom confronts a case similar to Whitman’s, that of a Virginia man who had real joyful and unproductive infatuation with child pornography. Tumor Man, as he is named, had a large tumor on his brain, the tumor was removed and it seemed the love child porn was removed with it. Unfortunately, the tumor grew back, and (un)surprisingly so did the fascination with child porn.54 Bloom uses this case to advance his thesis that we take up too much mental real-estate with the concept of empathy and not nearly enough with rational compassion. And this culminates to my point in this work.

We should learn, practice, and implement rational compassion into the economic machine as well as our economic practices. A deified oligarchy does not account for the human element, nor does it look kindly on those who would rather park investments in hospitals over weapons manufacturers. We might not be able to control the internal biological factors that limit one’s capacity for free will in the economy, but we can control the system they operate in. One does not determine if they are born with severe down syndrome or diabetes, but one can determine an economic model that provides free speech therapy and insulin, or one that charges unethical amounts for profit. The deification of our crooked and perverted economic system has caused many of the downtrodden to be overlooked and neglected, in worse cases they are judged and condemned. An economic model, whether it be capitalism, socialism, or authoritarian marxism, that does not factor in the valuable concept of ‘luck’ will be inherently unjust, and from a philosophical perspective, immoral.

Philosophy in Economics

Throughout this work I have drawn heavily from my background in philosophy but only to advance other particular points. In this final section I want to explore the ethical framework that an economic model should be shaped after. As I noted in the beginning of this work, I am no professional economist, though I am quite well read on the subject, so I will not be attempting to put forth any definitive claims or a strict manifesto on what our economic model should look like. Any number put forth is subject to change and is merely meant as a theoretical place holder for more academic and enlightened minds to deliberate over. Some certainties I do own regarding the future economic model are as follows.

The model shall be flexible enough to allow someone born with the lowest degree of ‘luck’ the capacity to live with essentials and access to life gratifying experiences.
The model shall have a moral texture and the most ‘efficient’ choice shall always be the most ‘moral’ choice. Efficiency will not be associated with productivity, but utilitarian moralizing.
The model shall do all it can to be ‘unhackable’ as the current model is. No unethical tax havens, unjustified tax cuts, or neglect of workers’ health and wellbeing.
The model shall allow private individuals who freely choose to establish an alternative model within the nations’ borders to do so. However, standards regarding economic or market institutions shall remain.

These points should seem obvious on an ethical and moral plain, and I shall restate that these are my preferences and this is not a manifesto. These points reflect my moral realizations and are a direct result of my observations of moral philosophy bleeding together with economic utopias.

Economic models should always be a deduction from liberal values and the current realizations of objective morality. Modern economic liberalism is modeled after the philosophical work of John Rawls, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. Others contributed but these three are all unique and provide definitive declarations and essays regarding political economics. Rawls, like myself, finds justice to be the first virtue of all social institutions. In the same way that truth is the aim of science, justice shall be the aim of politics and economics.55 Rawls provides us with an excellent thought experiment. We are to imagine a group of people in a fair situation accepting various forms of justice. The people stand behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, not knowing their age, sex, race, talents, and so on. In a way, imagine creating a video game world where upon entering you may take on a role within various groups, but beforehand you get to decide how each group is structured, how they vote, how they police, and how their economic system works. Because you do not know which group you would join, you are likely to create all groups fair.56 However, this is difficult to make practical, but it does give us a vision of the philosophical texture that economics and politics should possess. John Stuart Mill also provides us with some wisdom regarding political institutions and to a lesser degree, economics. Mill, building off the wisdom from Jeremy Bentham, helped bring the philosophy of utilitarianism to the common philosophical vernacular. Mill argues in Utilitarianism, that the philosophy essentially seeks pleasure and avoids pain to the greatest number of people. In wake of the modern day language associating ‘pleasure’ with hedonistic and sexual tendencies, I believe a reliable and more accurate substitute to the word is ‘wellbeing’, and for the remainder of this work, any mention of ‘pleasure’ by Mill will be replaced with ‘wellbeing’. Mill argues that ‘wellbeing’ and ‘utility’ were never meant to be contradistinguished but seen as married to one another.57 Essentially, what is always most efficient is what is most ‘good’. Utilitarianism is an effective political-economic philosophy to undergird a new model as it factors in concepts of will, hard work, and justice, while also accounting for liberty, equal opportunities, and discipline. Utilitarianism represented in an economic model might appear to have a stronger emphasis on welfare support, wider coverage for healthcare, easier access to education, and a more interventionist model for countries in distressing situations such as famine, civil war, or suffering from major natural disasters. However, just as with John Rawls’ approach, this might be too utopian and fictional to practically conceptualize. Mill knew this, writing, ‘If the view adopted by the utilitarian philosophy of the nature of the moral sense be correct, this difficulty will always present itself, until the influences which form the moral character have taken the same hold of the principle which they have taken of some of the consequences- until, by the improvement of education, the feeling of unity with our fellow creatures shall be (what it cannot be denied that Christ intended it to be) as deeply rooted in our character-’. Mill was aware that humans do not always act in accordance with the highest moral good, however this should cause us to pause and reflect on all the statistics, anecdotes, and philosophy covered in this work. It appears the oligarchy style capitalism of America does not solve the problem of human evil, but rather amplifies it, and this amplification is, in my estimation, stronger than if there were to be tighter market regulation regarding wealth. This point is brought front and center by Naomi Klein in two of her works: This Changes Everything, and The Shock Doctrine. The former analyzes modern capitalism’s effect on the environment, a debate mind you, that has created market enhancing propaganda from oil tycoons. Regardless of if the climate is in danger or not, which rest assured I believe it is, though not in an alarmist sense, we cannot ignore how capitalism enables faulty statistics to plague our information channels. This means, if a corporation does not profit off our declining climate status, they will certainly profit off the lies of the debate itself. However, my point that the current oligarchy style capitalism of America fuels the immoral aspects of human nature is best shown in The Shock Doctrine. This work dissects the gruesome subject of ‘disaster capitalism’. Disaster capitalism is the act of profiting and benefiting from disasters using the capitalist economic model. Some quick culprits come to mind: Halliburton during the Iraq War, Dow Chemical Company who made the infamous Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, and the entire American healthcare system which booms in our current obesity and mental health epidemic. A more specific example of capitalism flexing its muscles during disaster is observed in Klein’s work, that of ‘shock therapy’ during the transition of Poland to a capitalist economy from a communist one. Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros partnered with the U.S. government, along with the global organization, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) to convince the anti-authoritarian Solidarity government of Poland to embrace the liberating free-market in wake of its communist collapse. As a pro-interventionist myself, I see nothing wrong with this, nor do I find an inherent wrong in allowing private individuals to help and aid struggling countries. But as we explore this situation, we are given front row seats to observe what happens when important philanthropic tasks are given to private individuals, with their own private desires, rather than be conducted by a publicly observed and accountable government entity. In the collapse of communism, the country was under immense shock, Orwellian police forces, 600 percent inflation, and $40 billion in debt did not make for a easy life in Poland.58 Solidarity became convinced to move many of the public market entities to be worker controlled such as mines, shipyards, etc. The United States (obviously) holds the largest stake in the IMF and it is no surprise that when Solidarity came to the IMF to help alleviate the debt with aid, the for-profit capitalist who had their toes in the IMF saw a juicy opportunity. Jeffery Sachs began working as an economic advisor for Solidarity, devising a shock therapy ingeniously named ‘the Sachs Plan’.59 The plan held the Solidarity government to some requisites, in order to gain the beautiful debt relief of the IMF and other governments, Poland had to sell off mines, shipyards, and factories to the private sector. It did not take long for the economy to plunge into further disaster while the new private industrial companies flourished with profits. This situation is summed up in Friedman’s Crisis Theory: ‘the disorientation of rapid political change combined with the collective fear generated by an economic meltdown [is] to make the promise of a quick and magical cure- however illusory- too deductive to turn down.’60 Bringing this all back to philosophy, we must confront the reality that human nature left to its own private regulation and discipline is too malicious to be in the hands of hundreds of billions of dollars, influence over nations, and the power to begin wars. The deification of capitalism in America went hand-in-hand with the demonizing of alternative economic models, not always badly put. Communism, fascism, authoritarian socialism, Leninism, and others all have their fair share of mass graves, civil wars, and overcrowded prisons, but is capitalism so exempt? Polish historian Adam Michnik who was present for the collapse of Poland remarked, ‘the worst thing about Communism is what comes after.’ I shall reiterate, that I believe the free market works best and has certainly brought, as Yuval Noah Harari points out, ‘delivered promises’, but to ignore the moral and ethical downfalls of our current system in America while demonizing the killing fields of systems hundreds of years old not only spits in the face of notions like human progress, but also human ingenuity. We have flown to the moon, launched deep galactic probes, devised universal currencies, can fly faster than the speed of sound, and split the atom. The only people still left believing we have no economic progress to make are the ones making massive personal progress on the suffering of others.

Where Do We Go From Here???

In the last section I looked very briefly at John Rawls and John Stuart Mill. Adam Smith also makes contributions, however none of these individuals seem extremely practical, however wise, to the modern day economic issues. Thomas Piketty has by far been the most valuable and used source for this work, but Piketty only places hypotheticals and a call for a conversation at our feet, he does not provide us with an active manifesto for a new economic model. Naomi Klein shows the ravages of capitalism (oligarchies) when left to the devices of private actors, but also possesses faults when putting forth a new system. Robert Reich endorsed Piketty and also served as the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, his beautiful documentary, Inequality for All portrays the history and faults of our present economic model, but his final words are meager encouragement to keep up the fight, not the biggest moral booster after a dreary and exhausting analysis of wealth inequality.61 The future does not look quite rosy, but a phoenix must burn before it rises from the ashes. Being positioned so near the same economic disparity that was present on the eve of the French Revolution might just prompt a drastic response. Being aware of wealth inequality and the overhead meta narratives we tell ourselves is essential to fighting the trend. Often I look at my bamboo straw and realize that billions of other straws will find their way into landfills. I don’t shop at Amazon and avoid mega corporations that perpetuate wealth inequality, however billions of others continue using the services and stores. I attempt to rally others to my shopping habits all to no avail. So why do I keep doing it? Why should you pick up the trash in your neighborhood when Taylor Swift and the Kardashians fly their jets for 10 minute trips? Because underlying all our activism and desires, is the concept of ‘principle’. Despite us not yielding the effects we truly desire from our activism and habits, we do it out of principle. There is a deep profound experience in cleaning up your sector of the neighborhood, being able to admit that you contributed little to child slavery and worker exploitation with your wardrobe and gizmos, to claiming you’re at least doing your part in the moral system of wealth inequality. Coming from a position of faith, I believe one day we will all give an account of how we stewarded our money, time, and energy here on Earth, I hope we will have something good to say.

This work was a passion project, but also a grievance generated by the exhaustion of wealth inequality. I do this work for free, and though Substack will present the ability to pay me, it is not expected. I ask you to take this work seriously, provide feedback in the comment section, and share with friends and family. I remain open to criticism and am willing to retract any points made if proven wrong. Thank you for your valuable attention.

Veridical

Discussion about this post