• Stagnant wages
• Business Profits
• Tax laws
“These and other factors have contributed to the most radical redistribution of wealth that the United States has ever seen. Since the late 1970s, the country’s assets and income have moved steadily from “average” Americans to the richest Americans”
-Henry Blodget, Business Insider
Wow. That is a heck of a claim. Redistribution. Let’s take a look at what redistribution actually is. The term literally means distributing again – so in effect, taking something that has already been distributed, and distributing it differently a second time. Or more clearly stated, taking something from one group or individual and giving it to another group of individuals. I can’t fathom that anyone really wants to claim the wealthy have raided the accrued earnings and personal assets of the “average” Americans and given it to owners and senior management. It is one thing to say that the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the average, median, or mean income of working Americans has increased since the 1970’s. That would be a claim that could possibly be substantiated or refuted through data. But that is not at all what he alleges. His claim is much more sinister – one group of individuals is intentional taking from another, without justification, and arbitrarily giving to another. A claim that is purely argumentative.
He then comes right out with it. In the next paragraph, carefully avoiding using terms like “redistribution”, he proposes spending our way to a more vibrant economy. If only the businesses of America would give up some of the wealth, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, these businesses are shortsighted by not just distributing this money to other people, like Henry Blodget no doubt, who would better know how to spend it. Spend, don’t cut costs, he opines. Ironically, much later in his post, he makes a recommendation (which I agree with, by the way) that American consumers need to save more and spend less! He never reconciles these two conflicting view points.
“The benefits of our free-market capitalist system … are accruing disproportionately to owners, managers and customers, at the expense of everyone else.”
Disproportionate according to what? Are we back to the “I just think you should share more” argument? And who will decide how much to share and who should get it? I suppose the government, unless Mr. Blodgett will be so bold as to offer up his services to fairly split that pie up. Notice also customers are also lumped into that mix of individuals that are taking advantage.
“It’s everyone else who is getting hosed”
So, the “average” American is not also a customer? Who then, are these “customers”, and how will we make sure they aren’t getting unfair benefits from the free market capitalist system? Will we perhaps charge them more, maybe in the form of a tax, because remember, we don’t want the owners to make too much profit. Then we could take the tax and give it to the consumers so they can buy more stuff, which is critical to the robust economy as Mr. Blodgett envisions. But then, if prices were higher, wouldn’t the “average” American need even more money to be able to afford to make purchases? And again, who will make this decision?
Do you agree with the notion that somehow companies and owners are unfairly taking income and assets away from the “average” American? Or is it an unfortunate, pandering, political claim that demonizes those that are successful and reinforces a victim mentality on the “average” American?
In the coming days I hope to cover:
• Stagnant wages
• Business Profits
Let me know your thoughts.