Rebooting the American Dream - 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country: Back to the Future
Monday 08 November 2010
by: Thom Hartmann, Berrett-Koehler Publishers | Book Excerpt
Truthout is proud to bring you an exclusive series from America's No. 1 progressive radio host, Thom Hartmann. Starting today, we'll be publishing weekly installments of Hartmann's acclaimed new book, "Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country." We invite Truthout readers to join us over the next 12 weeks as, chapter by chapter, we explore these groundbreaking ideas for national transformation. We begin today with the book's introduction.
-----------------------------
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820
On April 14, 1789, George Washington was out walking through the fields at Mount Vernon, his home in Virginia, when Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, showed up on horseback. Thomson had a letter for Washington from the president pro tempore of the new, constitutionally created United States Senate, telling Washington that he’d just been elected president and the inauguration was set for April 30 in the nation’s capital, New York City (1).
This created two problems for Washington.
The first was saying goodbye to his 82-year-old mother, which the 57-year-old Washington did that night. She gave him her blessing and told him it was the last time he’d see her alive, as she was gravely ill; and, indeed, she died before he returned from New York.
The second problem was finding a suit of clothes made in America. For that he sent a courier to his old friend and fellow general from the American Revolutionary War, Henry Knox.
Washington couldn’t find a suit made in America because in the years prior to the American Revolution, the British East India Company (whose tea was thrown into Boston Harbor by outraged colonists after the Tea Act of 1773 gave the world’s largest transnational corporation a giant tax break) controlled the manufacture and the transportation of a whole range of goods, including fine clothing. Cotton and wool could be grown and sheared in the colonies, but it had to be sent to England to be turned into clothes.
This was a routine policy for England, and it is why until India achieved its independence in 1947 Mahatma Gandhi (who was assassinated a year later) sat with his spinning wheel for his lectures and spun daily in his own home. It was, like his Salt March, a protest against the colonial practices of England and an entreaty to his fellow Indians to make their own clothes to gain independence from British companies and institutions.
Fortunately for George Washington, an American clothing company had been established on April 28, 1783, in Hartford, Connecticut, by a man named Daniel Hinsdale, and it produced high-quality woolen and cotton clothing as well as items made from imported silk (2). It was to Hinsdale’s company that Knox turned, and he helped Washington get—in time for his inauguration two weeks later—a nice, but not excessively elegant, brown American-made suit. (He wore British black later for the celebrations and the most famous painting.)
When Washington became president in 1789, most of America’s personal and industrial products of any significance were manufactured in England or in its colonies. Washington asked his first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, what could be done about that, and Hamilton came up with an 11-point plan to foster American manufacturing, which he presented to Congress in 1791. By 1793 most of its points had either been made into law by Congress or formulated into policy by either President Washington or the various states, which put the country on a path of developing its industrial base and generating the largest source of federal revenue for more than a hundred years.
Those strategic proposals built the greatest industrial powerhouse the world had ever seen and, after more than 200 successful years, were abandoned only during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton (and remain abandoned to this day). Modern-day China, however, implemented most of Hamilton’s plan and has brought about a remarkable transformation of its nation in a single generation.
Hamilton’s 11-point plan for “American manufactures” is a primary inspiration for this book (see sidebar). It was part of a larger work titled Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures: Made in His Capacity of Secretary of the Treasury.
Alexander Hamilton’s 11-point Plan for “American Manufactures”
A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected.…In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are—
I. Protecting duties—or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged.
Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors.…[I]t has the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue. Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation; and, except where they fill on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the country.
II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions.
This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures;…Of duties equivalent to prohibitions, there are examples in the laws of the United States…but they are not numerous.…[I]t might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.
III. Prohibitions of the exportation of the materials of manufactures.
The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen, and, where the article is either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation.…It is seen at once, that its immediate operation is to abridge the demand and keep down the price of the produce of some other branch of industry, generally speaking, of agriculture, to the prejudice of those who carry it on; and though if it be really essential to the prosperity of any very important national manufacture, it may happen that those who are injured in the first instance, may be eventually indemnified, by the superior steadiness of an extensive domestic market depending on that prosperity: yet in a matter, in which there is so much room for nice and difficult combinations, in which such opposite considerations combat each other, prudence seems to dictate, that the expedient in question ought to be indulged with a sparing hand.
IV. Pecuniary bounties.
This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is in some views the best; though it has not yet been practised upon by the government of the United States, (unless the allowance on the exportion of dried and pickled fish and salted meat, could be considered as a bounty,) and though it is less favoured by public opinion than some other modes, its advantages are these—
1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts.
2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces it to a less degree; either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article, according to the nature of that object); the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the foreign article converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of two per cent. exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised, in the one case, in the proportion of one per cent; in the other, in that of two per cent. Indeed, the bounty, when drawn from another source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price; because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market.
3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity.…
4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only proper expedient, for uniting the encouragement of a new object.…
The true way to conciliate these two interests, is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures, of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty by way of bounty, either upon the production of the material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon both.…
[P]ecuniary bounties are in most cases indispensable to the introduction of a new branch.…Bounties are especially essential, in regard to articles, upon which those foreigners who have been accustomed to supply a country, are in the practice of granting them.
The continuance of bounties on manufactures long established, must almost always be of questionable policy; because a presumption would arise in every such case, that there were natural and inherent impediments to success But in new undertakings, they are as justifiable, as they are oftentimes necessary.…
V. Premiums.
These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from them in some important features.
Bounties are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or manufactured, or exported, and involve a correspondent expense—Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general effort.…
VI. The exemption of the [raw] materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly in reference to new establishments, is obvious.…Of a nature, bearing some affinity to that policy, is the regulation which exempts from duty the tools and implements, as well as the books, clothes, and household furniture of foreign artists, who come to reside in the United States; an advantage already secured to them by the laws of the Union, and which it is, in every view, proper to continue.
VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures.…
[S]uch drawbacks are familiar in countries which systematically pursue the business of manufactures; which furnishes an argument for the observance of a similar policy in the United States; and the idea has been adopted by the laws of the Union, in the instances of salt and molasses. It is believed that it will be found advantageous to extend it to some other articles.
VIII. The encouragement of new intentions and discoveries, at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly, those which relate to machinery.
This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. The first must be employed, according to the occasion, and the utility of the invention, or discovery. For the last, so far as respects “authors and inventors,” provision has been made by law.…
It is customary with manufacturing nations to prohibit, under severe penalties, the exportation of implements and machines, which they have either invented or improved.…As far as prohibitions tend to prevent foreign competitors from deriving the benefit of the improvements made at home, they tend to increase the advantages of those by whom they may have been introduced; and operate as an encouragement to exertion.
IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities.
This is not among the least important of the means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is, indeed, in many cases one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home, and exporters to foreign countries—to improve the quality and preserve the character of the national manufactures…
X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place—
Is a point of considerable moment to trade in general, and to manufactures in particular; by rendering more easy the purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper, which is to be expected from the institution lately established, will be a most valuable mean to this end.
XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
Improvements favouring this object intimately concern all the domestic interests of a community; but they may without impropriety be mentioned as having an important relation to manufactures. There is perhaps scarcely any thing, which has been better calculated to assist the manufacturers of Great Britain, than the meliorations of the public roads of that kingdom, and the great progress which has been of late made in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stand much in need…
These examples, it is to be hoped, will stimulate the exertions of the government and citizens of every state. There can certainly be no object, more worthy of the cares of the local administrations; and it were to be wished, that there was no doubt of the power of the national government to lend its direct aid, on a comprehensive plan. This is one of those improvements, which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the whole, than by any part or parts of the Union.…
The following remarks are sufficiently judicious and pertinent to deserve a literal quotation: “Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers, by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of a town. They are upon that account, the greatest of all improvements.”…
It may confidently be affirmed, that there is scarcely any thing, which has been devised, better calculated to excite a general spirit of improvement, than the institutions of this nature. The are truly invaluable.
In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?
All which is humbly submitted.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Secretary of the TreasuryNote: This excerpt has been edited for length by the author, eliminating Hamilton’s debate with Jeff erson over an industry- versus agriculture based economy. The italics are Hamilton’s.
Source: http://www.archive.org/details/alexanderhamilt00caregoog
Hamilton looked at the nation and determined what needed to be done to rebuild the country after the Revolutionary War had devastated it and subservience to England’s Tudor Plan “free trade” policies had left Americans without any significant domestic industrial base.
In the same tradition, this book goes through 11 steps we can take today to rebuild our country in the wake of the devastation of 30 years of Reaganomics and how we can recover the industrial base we’ve lost to the “free trade/flat earth” idiocy of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush era.
Eleven Ways
Chapter 1, “Bring My Job Home!” covers how economies work and why we need to heed Alexander Hamilton’s advice. It points out that simply moving money around or creating a service economy (“Do you want fries with that?”) doesn’t produce long-lasting wealth in a country; only manufacturing does. Political economist Adam Smith pointed out that it’s the application of human labor to raw materials—his example was turning a tree branch into an axe handle—that fuels a growing economy. We’ve gone from more than 20 percent of our economy being based on manufacturing before Reagan to around 11 percent now. This has left us in the precarious position of being unable to make a missile or an aircraft carrier that we may need if we have to defend Taiwan from China without parts from the communist dictatorship of China. These “free trade/flat earth” policies are stupid on national security grounds as much as anything else, but their major impact has been to dismantle the American middle class and consequently put our democracy itself at risk.
Chapter 2, “Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts,” points out how when top income-tax rates on millionaires and billionaires are above 50 percent, not only does the gap between the very rich and the working poor shrink but the nation’s economy stabilizes and grows. One of the most interesting features of this chapter is a little-known study done by the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, which found that Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s tax cuts actually stimulated the growth of the size of government, whereas the higher taxes that had preceded Reagan and the increased taxes under Clinton (passed into law without a single Republican vote) actually shrunk the size of government.
Chapter 3, “Stop Them from Eating My Town,” covers the ground of monopoly- and crony-capitalism, an economic system born and bred when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. From too-big-to-fail to too-big-to-allow-competition, oligarchic corporations have come to dominate virtually every major sector of the American economy; the result has been the devastation of local economies and the prevention of new entrepreneurial small ventures. In the 200 years before Reagan, the downtowns and the business districts of every city in this nation were unique—and locally owned and operated. There was a certain inefficiency associated with it, but that inefficiency guaranteed healthy local businesses and communities. Only when we roll back Reagan’s hands-off policies on Big Business and re-embrace “trust-busting” practices of Republican Theodore Roosevelt will we see a revitalization of Main Streets across America.
Chapter 4, “An Informed and Educated Electorate,” begins by showing how badly our news media has deteriorated, how it only caters to what people want and not to what they need, and how important it is that we take our media back from the profit-hungry corporations that have abandoned the public-service mission of media. This chapter also tells the story of Thomas Jefferson’s dream—made explicit when he founded the University of Virginia as this nation’s first free college—that every American, regardless of birth or station, should be able to get an education from primary school through postgraduate university programs—at no cost. Spending on the education of young people pays back handsomely when they go on to make the society richer and, because of their higher incomes, provide higher income-tax revenues. When Reagan took a budgetary axe to the University of California and ended its free admissions policy, he handed to the countries of Europe and Asia the opportunity to overtake us in everything from patent applications to doctor-to-patient ratios to excellence in engineering and invention. And they’ve taken that opportunity. We need to take it back.
Chapter 5, “Medicare ‘Part E’—for Everybody,” points out how a nation that liberates its citizens from worrying about getting proper medical care is a nation of entrepreneurs, innovators, and stress-free families. It’s also a nation that can successfully compete internationally for manufacturing work, when companies are free of health insurance burdens. Instead of handing off trillions of dollars to for-profit health insurance companies—which are forbidden by law in every other industrialized nation on earth from providing basic health insurance—we have attached giant corporate leeches to our own backs. The salt we need to pour on them is a national single-payer health insurance system—simply by expanding Medicare to include all Americans and plugging the loopholes in it that have been drilled by corporate lobbyists and their wholly-owned prostitutes…er…politicians.
Chapter 6, “Make Members of Congress Wear NASCAR Patches,” tackles the problem of our private money–fueled electoral system and all the havoc it has wreaked. We need to fix—seal, really—the revolving door between government and industry; repair our monetary, investment, and banking systems; and change how we finance campaigns in this country. The idea of public financing of campaigns has recently been made very problematic by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled in 2010 that corporations are “persons” with full “free speech” rights under the First Amendment. This chapter offers some workarounds, and chapter 10 takes on the problem of the Court’s decision directly.
Chapter 7, “Cool Our Fever,” shows the incredible problems that arise from our own addiction to oil, especially in transportation, and it calls out the corporations and the billionaires who are making fortunes by pumping carbon into our atmosphere, putting all life on earth at risk—including us. The solutions include a carbon tax, but we must act soon.
Chapter 8, “They Will Steal It!” is based on one of the greatest foreign policy insights I’ve ever gotten, shared with me by activist and comedian Dick Gregory at around 3:00 A.M. as we were well into our third glass of wine and about five miles above the Atlantic Ocean on our way to Uganda. It is about how we cannot force other countries through military might to adopt our values of democracy and an open society—and how they will steal our ideas and our values if we engage them constructively so they can see how they can benefit from those ideals. It’s high time that America became less dependent on the military by cutting back our defenses, by bringing back the draft, and by returning to a functional democratic republic like our Founders envisioned and most of the developed countries of the world enjoy.
Chapter 9, “Put Lou Dobbs out to Pasture,” addresses the problem of what’s popularly referred to as “illegal immigration,” when, in reality, it is a problem of economics and illegal hiring by American companies. The problem started in 1986, when Reagan granted a blanket amnesty to millions of people who’d come into this country illegally, declared war on unions, and broke down the main barrier to entry to the workforce for people here without citizenship. The result has been more than 10 million non-citizens flowing across our borders (from countries all over the world—many come in on tourist or student visas and simply stay after their visa has expired), producing a massive dilution of the labor market. Add to that incendiary mixture a few right-wing racists pointing out the immigrants and telling frightened American workers, “Those brown people want your jobs!” and you have explosive brew. We can fix all of this by cracking down on companies illegally hiring “undocumented workers” and by tightening the labor market to shore up wages for American workers.
Chapter 10, “Wal-Mart Is Not a Person,” tells the story of how back in the 1880s corporations—then the railroad corporations, the giants of the Robber Baron Era—turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to give them human rights under the Constitution. Although the Court didn’t actually do that, the court reporter wrote that they did, and for 130 years we’ve seen the creeping encroachment of the corporate form into the house of rights our Founders fought and died for to give exclusively to humans. The pinnacle of this came in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and have political free-speech rights to spend millions, even billions, of dollars for or against political candidates and ballot initiatives. The result—if not fixed soon—will be the complete transformation of this country from a democracy into a corporate plutocracy. We need to block the Court in this superactivist behavior by amending the Constitution to say that only people are people.
Chapter 11, “In the Shadow of the Dragon,” tells the story of a visit to the Mondragon Corporation headquarters in the town of the same name in the Basque region of Spain in late 2009. We saw one of the world’s largest worker-owned businesses, with more than 90,000 employees turning over more than $14 billion a year worldwide. There are alternatives to the traditional top-down investor-owned corporate form, and people around the world are increasingly embracing these alternatives because they are better for local communities, better for the workforce, and better for the environment. The only losers are billionaires, particularly those who own most of our media and thus never tell you that every corporation in Germany, for example, must have at least 50 percent of its board of directors coming directly from the ranks of labor.
The conclusion, “Tag, You’re It!” is about tried-and-true methods—most that we’ve used before in this country and all that we’ve at least flirted with—that can bring back a strong middle class and restore America to stability and prosperity without endangering future generations. It’s straightforward, easily understood, and the only obstacle to implementing virtually every chapter’s suggestion is the power of vast wealth (usually corporate wealth). Past presidents—most famously Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt—have openly challenged this corporate power, and the time has come for the current or next president (and Congress) to do the same. But they won’t if We the People don’t demand it.
Here’s an outline to lay down the demands. Good luck!
1. Benson J. Lossing, Our Country (1877), http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/georgewas_bfb.html.
2. This section taken from Rosemary E. Bachelor, Washington’s American Made Inaugural Clothes, http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/washingtons-american-made-inaugural-clothes.
Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his program. He is also now has a daily television program at RT Network. You can also listen to Thom over the Internet.
Copyright Thom Hartmann and Mythical Research, Inc. Truthout has obtained exclusive rights to reprint this content. It may not be reproduced, and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Want a copy of the book? Receive "Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country" as a thank-you gift with a donation of $35 or more to Truthout.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Thom Hartman for President!
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 06:09 — Deborah Rosen (not verified)Thom Hartman for President! I am an avid listener, and although I have to strive to make sense of all the economic jargon, I understand Thom's message about what our forefathers fought for. Thom wrote in regards to awakening our economy that, "The only losers are billionaires, particularly those who own most of our media and thus never tell you that every corporation in Germany, for example, must have at least 50 percent of its board of directors coming directly from the ranks of labor." We need to bring back industry to our nation. I believe we the people do matter and it is time to stand up for our rights, instead of blindly watching them go away.
So now it's the Progressives
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 07:32 — Anonymous (not verified)So now it's the Progressives who get to strut around with the "Take Our Country Back!" signs.
Back to where? The same old corporate dominated racist capitalism that after 250 years has lead us to here. Let's keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. Maybe one day we'll get a positive result. That way we can insure our Progressive opportunists can continue to make bank preaching the politics of perennial reform with capitalist mythology like "the middle class," "two-party politics" and "alternative corporations."
Or we could try something completely different. We could start by recognizing the racist and class based society democratic capitalism fosters is neither natural nor inevitable. We could recognize there is only one two-faced political party in this country representing the minority ruling elite. We could recognize the morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt nature of the current capitalist system and work to establish the political independence of the working class on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program.
We don't need to take anything back. We need to build something new.
"Well" (to quote the
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 09:58 — Vic Anderson (not verified)"Well" (to quote the Gipper), NO More Raygun AMNESTIES! And for Performance IMPROVEMENT, even in private practice, this could be remedied with a strict meritocracy, providing EVERY Worker with living necessities (including single-payer HEALTH) and luxuries based solely on excellence of performance! Just(ly) imagine your superlative "super" on his sailing sloop; while exceptionally derelict Obummer raids Michele's "vegetable garden" for state dinner fixin's (if Not FIRED, outRight!).
This is an excellent
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:32 — Caleb (not verified)This is an excellent combination of superb insights into what ails America and what can fix it!
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and recently our history has been uniquely destructive. Thom goes back to when it worked and in a common sense fashion advises us to make use of those same, proven approaches.
I'm 2/3's through the book now and recommend it most highly to anyone who is seriously interested in helping this country return to its strong and compassionate roots.
Yours,
Caleb
I don't agree that we should
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:00 — Dana (not verified)I don't agree that we should reinstate the draft. The Thirteenth Amendment clearly states that involuntary servitude is forbidden. I should think involuntary military service falls into that category. Up til now the Supreme Court has not agreed with me, but then again, we just saw them rule that corporations are persons. I don't look to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means.
I agree with the other commenter who said that what we need is to build something new. But that's going to take time. We have to fix the mess this country is in NOW. There's no reason we can't do that *and* figure out the "something new" at the same time--Americans, at our best, are very good at innovation.
Yes! So now it's the
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:31 — GrogMyzer (not verified)Yes! So now it's the Progressives...
We have been yelling we want our country back for almost 30 years. We almost got it back during the Clinton years, but so-called "Free Trade" and other enormous failed experiments were implemented even then. Clinton was a really good Republican, not democrat as he ran on the ticket. The shift to the right in the US has caused a lot of term drift. What was once a good republican ideal is now called Socialist by the new Right. We have lost control of our education, and Bush may have put the nail in that coffin. We need to reboot education, and in particular, history. Read up in an older school textbook and see how similar we are to the Pre-WWII Germany. I want my country back!
Sounds like a great book. I
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:33 — Anonymous (not verified)Sounds like a great book. I like the points in the article about bringing back laws that regulate oligarchic mega-corporations, national health insurance, and free education. These are the things that make a democracy great, and unfortunately are three things that America doesn't have but sorely needs.
Can we go back to
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:18 — drwu (not verified)Can we go back to manufacturing?
Manufacturing is over for this country! The decline of the manufacturing sector starting in the 1970's--no longer making the kind of money it was making in the post-war period-the jobs and industry went to low cost countries.
With the aid of anti regulatory forces, the profit center nowadays is the financial sector--50 % of corporate profits!
This sector produces very little in the way of material goods but speculates like crazy. In the old days you had folks like Henry Ford, his huge car assembly plants and his huge workforce; now you have oil speculators who sit behind computers all day, betting on oil futures and making as much as 100 million a year. There are not many oil speculator jobs.
Since the financial sector contributes heavily to both parties we're mired in a no-jobs growth landscape.
We can't go back to agriculture os the dominant economy of America and we can't go back to manufuring either.
Conclusion--the privates won’t invest in manufacturing and jobs--perhaps the government might but they are too controlled by Wall Street and the Corporates. Hopefully, this downward spiral for the rest of us will change.
Of course, speculation has
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:31 — Don (not verified)Of course, speculation has always been regarded as a quicker way to get rich than either agriculture or manufacturing, and was present at conception. War debt from the Revolution was another huge problem for the Founders. How did they pay the war debt down? Not by getting a taxable manufacturing or agrarian base going, but by appropriating native lands and selling those lands to speculators - a huge incentive to national expansion, and all effected on the backs of natives. So the financial sector has been there from the start too, skewing priorities and creating inequities as always.
Only when existing anti-trust laws are enforced, progressive income and corporate taxes are restored, workers get representation on corporate boards and fair trade policies are instituted will we refocus on making things rather than making killings.
Once again, I find myself in
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:47 — erich von Freemason (not verified)Once again, I find myself in a position to have to refute a gross misunderstanding of history (or outright lies) on a web site with the word "truth" in its title.
You start with a quote by Thomas Jefferson and then launch into support of Hamiltonian mercantilism, which Jefferson fought against throughout his entire political career. He, along with Madison, led a coalition, which became the Democratic-Republican Party, AGAINST Hamilton and his philosophy. The quote in the article is SPECIFICALLY a renunciation of Hamilton's philosophy (protective duties, import/export prohibitions, etc. do not give the "ultimate powers of the society [to] the people themselves," it takes those powers from them and gives the powers to politicians and bureaucrats (do you have more or less power if you want to sell to/buy from someone in a foreign country and the government, thru force of law, says that you can't?).
To the extent that prohibitions were enacted, they were ignored. To the extent that subsidies and other incentives were enacted, they produced nothing but corruption, monopolies and price-gouging. Hamilton's plan, far from seeing "200 successful years," was partially dismantled as quickly as it was adopted, making anemic, partial come-backs in the 1830s and 1840s by the Whig Party and after the 1854 by the Republican Party.
As an example of prohibitions being ignored, incentives causing corruption and monopoly, and how free enterprise and competition results in lower prices for consumers, let's take a look at Cornelius Vanderbilt. In the early 1800's Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston were granted, after much bribe money had exchanged hands, a monopoly (and a subsidy) on ferry service in New York, and became very rich. Vanderbilt, despite being handicapped by being an illegal business and not having a subsidy, offered lower prices and put a big dent in their business running from New York to New Jersey. His partner, Thomas Gibbons, took legal action against the monopoly, fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won (the case is still considered by business historians as a landmark ruling and the basis for much of the prosperity the United States later enjoyed). In 1834, Vanderbilt competed on the Hudson River against a steamboat monopoly (also bought with bribe money) between New York and Albany (the Supreme Court ruling only applied to interstate monopolies, not intrastate monopolies). Again, he offered lower prices, and free meals on some ferries, and put such a dent in his competition that they eventually offered to buy out his operation.
If Hamilton were alive today he'd be supporting Halliburton's no-bid contracts and government subsidies to the rich, and wouldn't care that the tax burden to pay for it would be put on the backs of the working class.
Erich, Of course, Vanderbilt
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:57 — Don (not verified)Erich,
Of course, Vanderbilt himself then became a monopolist and a corruptor of government for his own gain. He's hardly an example of the superior virtue of a "free" market.
You might as well say that if *Vanderbilt* "were alive today he'd be supporting Halliburton's no-bid contracts and government subsidies to the rich, and wouldn't care that the tax burden to pay for it would be put on the backs of the working class."
Sorry; It's too late. The
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:07 — Bob (not verified)Sorry; It's too late. The corporations have total control, they own the politicians & or the representatives think like they do. They own the court, nuff said. The people are dumbed down & it would take generations to develop an educated mass able to do critical thinking. The majority of churches collude with the rich on a level not seen since the middle ages. Catastrophic Climate Change is here now or near hear now & we are at or near the feedback tipping point & nothing substantive is being done outside Europe so buy AC stocks & Defence Industry stocks because wars & the temperature will be increasing. If I see signs, Speed Limit 120K on the interstate I might have some hope for the Dinosaur but I'm not holdin my breath!
Is Thom Hartmann going to be
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:48 — Anonymous (not verified)Is Thom Hartmann going to be invited to respond to these comments? It would be nice.
"Is Thom Hartmann going to
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:55 — dc2257 (not verified)"Is Thom Hartmann going to be invited to respond to these comments? It would be nice."
-yes, it sure would. Consider THIS an invitation. Especially to respond to erich and Bob. Then I may REALLY get a lesson.
Greed is the problem.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 23:23 — Eric (not verified)Greed is the problem. American greed for things we don't need. We root around in a land filled with junk that rots our bodies and minds. There is little thirst left for ideas, knowledge and physical adventures. We have become fat, drooling, drunken lakidazicals who scream our righteousness into the face of the world with absolutely no self reflection. The pig must be fed and kept happy and until we our forced to face the truth we are doomed to eat ourselves to death, bringing the world down around our ears as we choke on printed, worthless paper. We should step away from the table and think for ourselves. Finally.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:57 —
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:15 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:57 — Don (not verified)
Erich,
"Of course, Vanderbilt himself then became a monopolist and a corruptor of government for his own gain. He's hardly an example of the superior virtue of a "free" market."
Sure he is. He built his fortune competing against companies that not only had legal monopolies, but often, government subsidies. Hamilton's philosophy was based on the false assumption that it wouldn't be possible to do what Vanderbilt did. His later use of bribes to obtain monopolies doesn't negate that.
The U.S. Episcopal Church
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:17 — JadeQueen (not verified)The U.S. Episcopal Church asked its parishes not to use biocides. I do not know about other denominations for sure, but others may have done the same. Some in the Episcopal Church are still on the wrong side of the drug war, but inner-city clergy appeared with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition on the right side of the drug war. There are pockets of bright fight going on here and there against the Machine. Paul Hawken listed some of this in Blessed Unrest. The last I looked at the Economist's poll on genetic modification, the No's were winning, and Forbes sort of took back some good stuff it said about the Monstranto. Maybe we're in that part where it is darkest before the light.
I am not sure what is
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:48 — Oscar Weird (not verified)I am not sure what is progressive about this. I think Mussolini would have agreed with most of this.
"I am not sure what is
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 01:41 — Anonymous (not verified)"I am not sure what is progressive about this. I think Mussolini would have agreed with most of this."
Like it or not this is what built our nation into a superpower, and straying from it is killing our economy.
I'm a degreed economist by the way, from one of the best econ/business programs in the world.
This course of action is excellent for growing economies, but terrible for the acquisition of wealth by those at the top, and it has the drawback of making things slightly more expensive at home, but the long-term gains are beyond worth it.. unless you like the idea that korea, japan, and china are the ones making the chips in our smart bombs and weapons systems.
"He built his fortune
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 01:43 — Anonymous (not verified)"He built his fortune competing against companies that not only had legal monopolies, but often, government subsidies. Hamilton's philosophy was based on the false assumption that it wouldn't be possible to do what Vanderbilt did. His later use of bribes to obtain monopolies doesn't negate that."
wait long enough, and random organic molecules will become life. I'm sorry, but this is called a "statistical outlier". They are generally dropped from data sets for scientifically valid studies.
Thom received a letter from
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:03 — Anonymous (not verified)Thom received a letter from me concerning my status as a senior citizen losing my retirement due to a corrupt mortgage system.I asked for feedback. He never responded to me at all. Other people did, such as Elizabeth Warren,two attorney general offices and a governor's office,plus the President's office.Also one other alternative journalist who has documentary films out about the problem contacted me and asked to use my story.Thom I guess has his own agenda to follow...
NOT ONE DIME FROM ME. ASK
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:11 — AnonymoHOGORINA (not verified)NOT ONE DIME FROM ME. ASK YOUR COMMIE FRIENDS WHO CONTROL THE SOFT WARE FOR SUPPORT. ONE CLASS IS ALWAYS BUMMING TO SURVIVE FROM THOSE OF WHOM PRODUCE ALL THE WEALTH. EDUCATED BUMS SHOULD FIND A JOB AND QUIT PLAYING ON THE DEAD FROM THE PAST FOR A FAST FIX IN ORDER TO FIND SAFETY FROM ENCROACHING SOCIALISM
HOG
Hey Hog, Hit your caps lock
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:24 — Anonymous (not verified)Hey Hog,
Hit your caps lock and take yourself to the slaughterhouse where you belong.
HEY HOG, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 13:12 — Chris (not verified)HEY HOG, WE CAN HEAR YOU. Those who 'produce' all the wealth can't do it without those in the lower class. That's how capitalism works. Unfortunately they never seem to see an equitable return on the wealth they helped to create.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 06:43 —
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 14:14 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Tue, 11/09/2010 - 06:43 — Anonymous (not verified)
'I'm sorry, but this is called a "statistical outlier"'
It is one example of hundreds, or even thousands, that I could provide. It most certainly is not an outlier (I'm a mathematician who has been writing statistical analysis software for 25 years; I know a valid data point when I see one). You would be hard pressed to find counter-examples. The SC's Gibbons v. Ogden ruling, which took away states' authority to grant monopolies, has been called, "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce," due to the boom in business which resulted from it. "Gibbons v Ogden had the effect of further enabling the growing commercial enterprises in the years following the War of 1812. By asserting national supremacy over commercial intercourse, business competition was expanded without the fear of state regulations that favored exclusive treatment" (John J. Patrick and Richard C. Remy, "Lessons on the Constitution"). You could also look at the early American railroad industry. Government built or subsidized railroads had a high bankruptcy rate and were almost always unsafe and built to low safety standard. Many were bought by private parties and turned into high quality, safe successes.
Another good example would be post-WW2 Germany. Their economy was a basket case after the war, but, in 1948 they dismantled much of the wartime restrictions, price controls and regulations, and eliminated rationing. The result was not only a growing economy, but one that grew faster than Brittan's, despite Brittan getting the lion's share of Marshall Plan assistance.
Or, you could look at India before and after they dismantled their massive regulatory bureaucracy in the early 1990s. The period since that time is called "the Indian Miracle." Their corrupt bureaucrats have been shown the door (well... most of those in the bureaucracies that controlled business were), their wage scale has skyrocketed, their poverty rate declined drastically, and they show no signs of being in a bubble.
Hog, have someone read the
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 14:54 — Bryan (not verified)Hog, have someone read the article to you. (Of course, that supposes that there is someone literate in your chosen cave.)
do you mean "inventions" in
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 18:08 — pendragon (not verified)do you mean "inventions" in article viii of Hamilton's principles? right now the statement reads, "intentions."
I heard today on Spanish
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 18:19 — Anonymous (not verified)I heard today on Spanish radio that protective measures were the cause of WWII, is that what the US wants to cause now, as well as the Global Crisis caused by outsourcing all producting to China?!!!
The rich do not give the
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 19:10 — Anonymous (not verified)The rich do not give the workers jobs, It is the workers
that make the rich.
"It is one example of
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 22:51 — Anonymous (not verified)"It is one example of hundreds, or even thousands, that I could provide. It most certainly is not an outlier"
There are over 300 million americans right now, and this is several hundred years of american history.
Even "examples" numbering the tens of thousands of people who have miraculously risen from rags to riches across american history only represent a tiny fraction of a percent, and are not statistically significant.
Don't believe me, let's count the number of people who have managed to rise from rags to riches in stalinist russia and communist china from 80 years ago to present and compare?
"The rich do not give the
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 22:55 — Anonymous (not verified)"The rich do not give the workers jobs, It is the workers
that make the rich."
I will go further:
Business owners and their businesses are separate legal entities.
Tax the owner, and he will "claim less income" and keep his wealth in his business (i've watched my family do this). The result, expansion and hiring with no negative effect to the owner's net worth.
For CEO's, cut taxes on securities which tie them to the companies they lead.. make stock options the best compensation option, and they will have millions of very good reasons not to cook their books.
Taxing the rich creates jobs and encourages corporate responsibility.
"Another good example would
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 22:59 — Anonymous (not verified)"Another good example would be post-WW2 Germany. Their economy was a basket case after the war, but, in 1948 they dismantled much of the wartime restrictions..."
Funny how you ignore the fact that in 1945-46 their entire infrastructure, down to basic tenenments, was quite literally leveled with explosives. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that a large amount of reconstruction had happened between 1945 and 1948.
Protip: when you go from piles of rubble to factories, that kind of eclipses the impact of regulations or trade barriers.
"Or, you could look at India
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 23:03 — Anonymous (not verified)"Or, you could look at India before and after they dismantled their massive regulatory bureaucracy in the early 1990s. The period since that time is called "the Indian Miracle." "
When the wealthiest nation in the world offers to sell out their own people's economy to your country, would you refuse?
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 03:51 —
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:52 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Wed, 11/10/2010 - 03:51 — Anonymous (not verified)
"It is one example of hundreds, or even thousands, that I could provide. It most certainly is not an outlier"
'Even "examples" numbering the tens of thousands of people who have miraculously risen from rags to riches across american history only represent a tiny fraction of a percent, and are not statistically significant.'
You're missing the entire point and confusing two different data sets. My examples weren't meant to show instances of individual prosperity compared to the entire population; they were meant to show how free markets provide a system that encourages business expansion that allows for prosperity for ALL (that was the author's reason for favoring Hamiltonian mercantilism). It's about the effect of free market business compared to the effect of government-protected business, and free markets are a clear winner, any time and any place in history that you look. The winner wasn't just Vanderbilt... it was everybody who took the ferry, as it cost less and there was more variety (times, locations, etc.) in the ferry business. Those thousands of examples (millions, really, as everybody who has a successful business operating in a free market can only do so by having customers who value the product more than they value the price that it costs them [i.e., they are better off after having made the purchase]) have raised the standard of living of EVERYBODY in the country. Even America's poor are considered middle class by most of the rest of the world.
On the other side of the coin is what? Name a business that is given a monopoly, subsidy, or other government treatment meant to shield it from competition, that has made the economy, overall, better off. Good luck. And, if you could name one, THAT would be the statistically insignificant anomaly, as there are currently 2+ million separate businesses in this country operating in a more-or-less free market without any protection from the government. Hamiltonian mercantilism can lead to only one end: a few politically-connected wealthy people and the masses in poverty, with no freedom to lift themselves out. Think Haiti under the Duvaliers, India before 1991, the Philippines under Marcos. You can't take away people's economic freedom without taking away their social and political freedom as well, as people with social and political freedom will demand economic freedom.
PS. Last post, 'Brittan' should be 'Britian.' Late, tired, oh well.
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 04:03 —
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 14:34 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Wed, 11/10/2010 - 04:03 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Or, you could look at India before and after they dismantled their massive regulatory bureaucracy in the early 1990s. The period since that time is called "the Indian Miracle." "
"When the wealthiest nation in the world offers to sell out their own people's economy to your country, would you refuse?"
Huh??? We (or our evil capitalist CEOs) didn't offer India anything. They dismantled their huge business-suffocating bureaucracies and their economy grew. We (and our evil capitalist CEOs) had nothing to do with it. Sure, jobs went to India, but not because we 'offered to sell out our own people's economy' (whatever that means), but because production moves to wherever it is most efficient, just as water runs down hill or electricity takes the path of least resistance. Alway has. Always will. There's no evil plot of rich people responsible, any more than there was an evil plot to give us the world's highest standard of living. I know everybody loves to hate the business owners, but the cause is the customer, who, given two identical products, will always buy the cheaper one (look around your house. do you own anything that was the most expensive of several identical, competing products?). Efficiency, in both producing and consuming, is good for the economy, and outsourcing is not the cause of our current mess, it's the result of it... we're not the most efficient producer any more. We've been outsourcing jobs as fast as we can for 50 years, and our unemployment rate has been more-or-less constant, with a few periods of high unemployment that have had nothing to do with outsourcing. But, that's another topic.
Your turn to provide
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 14:40 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Your turn to provide evidence of your assertion: show me a few (or just
one) example from any time or place in history where Hamiltonian
mercantilism has benefited an economy (i.e., created improved goods and
services at a lower cost, encouraged innovation and invention, and created
jobs).
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 03:59 —
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 15:47 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Wed, 11/10/2010 - 03:59 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Another good example would be post-WW2 Germany. Their economy was a basket case after the war, but, in 1948 they dismantled much of the wartime restrictions..."
"Funny how you ignore the fact that in 1945-46 their entire infrastructure, down to basic tenenments, was quite literally leveled with explosives. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that a large amount of reconstruction had happened between 1945 and 1948."
I wasn't ignoring it. Their rapid reconstruction is exactly what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that it didn't really take off until the wartime controls were removed. Unlike Britain, which kept controls in place longer and rebuilt slower, despite getting the lion's share of Marshall Plan money.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 06:41 —
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 15:54 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Tue, 11/09/2010 - 06:41 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Like it or not this is what built our nation into a superpower, and straying from it is killing our economy.
I'm a degreed economist by the way, from one of the best econ/business programs in the world."
Care to explain how telling a guy with a boat that if he charges people $1 to get across the river (competing with a guy who's not only charging $2, but getting a $0.50 taxpayer subsidy per passenger) that you'll throw him in jail is good for the economy.
I'm sorry, but if you don't see that free market societies have always been the wealthiest (or that the Hamilton dream never really happened in this country) you most certainly didn't go to a good econ school, much less the best in the world.
Make that Britain.
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 15:56 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Make that Britain.
If corporations are people,
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 19:59 — Anonymous (not verified)If corporations are people, then make them serve in the military! 4 years for each of their brass, and 4 for each member of management.
"Your turn to provide
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 00:34 — Anonymous (not verified)"Your turn to provide evidence of your assertion: show me a few (or just
one) example... where Hamiltonian
mercantilism.. created
jobs)."
How about from the time of hamilton until the US was a full blown superpower with navies touring the world in exhibition of her might?
Protectionism and a wholesale flouting of international patent and copyright regimes led to the rise of the oldest, largest, and most innovative companies in the history of the country, from dupont to ford to colt.
Granted it also led to the rise of dead weight like standard oil, but that's nothing good old fashioned anti-trust laws, properly enforced (that's the operative term, ENFORCED) can't fix.
"I'm sorry, but if you don't
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 00:38 — Anonymous (not verified)"I'm sorry, but if you don't see that free market societies have always been the wealthiest (or that the Hamilton dream never really happened in this country) you most certainly didn't go to a good econ school, much less the best in the world."
This spoken by a so-called "statistician" who doesn't understand what an outlier is, then cherry picks examples using specious logic and careful omission to serve his own personal dogma. Sounds like a certain very biased news network I know.
By the way, if you don't know what "free trade" between nations which don't have socio-economic parity does to the wealthier nation's populace, and especially if you don't understand multi-part game theory as it applies to offshoring, you don't have a right to declare a thing about economics.
" Efficiency, in both
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 00:43 — Anonymous (not verified)" Efficiency, in both producing and consuming, is good for the economy"
This is a leap of logic, and untrue. Why is it untrue? What is the most efficient share of cost of production allocated to labor?.. it's zero. There's a reason the south fought so hard.
Economics does not have a "goal" of efficiency. It is a science, like chemistry, or physics. Saying efficiency alone is good for the economy is like saying energy per pound of material used is all that matters in applied physics. (never mind that whole.. irradiating the earth thing)
Taking efficiency to it's end, you have slaves/serfs and lords. The economy is INCREDIBLY efficient, production booms, and society rots.
"they were meant to show how
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 00:47 — Anonymous (not verified)"they were meant to show how free markets provide a system that encourages business expansion that allows for prosperity for ALL "
Stop holding up the select few super-rich as an example of "prosperity for all" then?
By your own definition of what you were trying to prove, you have provided outliers. You have to provide blocs of millions of people in every generation in which your chosen (laughable) theories that making the rich richer at the expense of 95% of the population somehow makes "everyone" propserous.
"On the other side of the
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 00:54 — Anonymous (not verified)"On the other side of the coin is what? Name a business that is given a monopoly, subsidy, or other government treatment meant to shield it from competition, that has made the economy, overall, better off. "
Nice try in attempting to shift the conversation from protective measures for ALL domestic business to special interest pieces most commonly connected to republicans these days.
Tariffs at the borders do not protect one domestic company over another. Anything which warps those trade barriers to favor one domestic company over another is called 'corruption' and should be weeded out, but NEVER confused with the concept of general protectionism.
The benefits of protectionism: strong domestic industry and employemnt.
The penalty of protectionism: slightly higher prices for goods.
History has shown that penalty to be worth it, because slightly higher expense is still bearable when you HAVE A JOB instead of joe-bollywood in india.
I won't name a single
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 01:04 — Anonymous (not verified)I won't name a single business, but i'll name an industry which is the most obvious (but all low-skill industries like it are the same).
In every other industrialized nation (and many unindustrialized ones) they have socialized medicine. Because of this, their automotive sectors are able to produce with considerably lower labor margins (they don't have to pay for medical on their workers).
They are subsidized by socialized medicine, and are trouncing the living crap out of the american automotive sector which doesn't have these protections.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:34 —
Sat, 11/13/2010 - 11:40 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:34 — Anonymous (not verified)
Can you support your position with evidence, or are you operating on the assumption that correlation equals causation?
Oh, Hamiltonian mercantilism led to much more than the Standard Oil monopoly (which would have happened even in the absence of mercantilism, as SO was the first to develop more efficient methods of extracting/refining/delivering petroleum products). Mercantilism led to non-stop military aggression against Central/South America, Asia, Africa, and the American Indians.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:38 — Anonymous (not verified)
I'm not cherry-picking examples and I know what an outlier is. ANY business that doesn't rely on subsidies, government-forced monopolies, or other government actions that limit competition can be a success ONLY if it provides value to its customers (i.e., if the customer values the product more than the money used to buy the product). Provide evidence that mercantilism is good for the economy and that there are more businesses, operating under mercantile protection, benefiting the economy than there are free-market businesses. And, if my logic is specious, then demonstrate where the flaw is. You can't. Your counter-argument is nothing more than claiming that I'm wrong; it's the Monty Python "Argument Sketch."
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:43 — Anonymous (not verified)
A) Explain why American rice farmers have a higher standard of living than Cambodian rice farmers. Show your work.
B) Slavery would have been abandoned in the south even without the Civil War, as slavery was not the most efficient system. You seem to be assuming that slaves and paid workers have the same level of output. If slavery was so efficient, the south would not have stayed the poorest part of the country, it would have rose to become the wealthiest.
C) Economics is nothing like the sciences of chemistry or physics. If it were, there would be no disagreements over fundamental principles. Economics is a branch of descriptive anthropology. And I didn't claim that efficiency was the "goal" of economics (economics is a field of study, the goal of which is to understand and explain how economies function), I said that economies, in the absence of a countering force, trend towards more efficient methods of production.
D) If, in an efficient economy, "production booms" and the bulk of the population is reduced to "slaves/surfs," who is consuming all the things produced in the boom?
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:47 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Stop holding up the select few super-rich as an example of "prosperity for all" then?"
Read what I wrote again; that's not what I'm doing.
"By your own definition of what you were trying to prove, you have provided outliers."
Read what I wrote again; that's not what I'm doing, unless you think that millions of businesses are outliers. The examples I provided were just that: examples. Do I need to list every single successful business on the planet that's not being propped up by government?
"...your chosen (laughable) theories that making the rich richer at the expense of 95% of the population somehow makes "everyone" propserous."
It's the author of this article, who favors Hamiltonian mercantilism, who has chosen the laughable theory that making the rich richer at the expense of 95% of the population somehow makes everyone prosperous. My position is that economic freedom will encourage more efficient methods of production, which, in turn, will raise the average standard of living. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout history, without any exceptions.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:54 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Nice try in attempting to shift the conversation from protective measures for ALL domestic business to special interest pieces most commonly connected to republicans these days."
I'm not shifting anything. Much of Hamiltonian mercantilism WAS protective measures for select businesses. You seem to be confusing what Hamilton wrote about his plan with how it was actually implemented. And, to the extent that it was protective of American business as a whole, all it did was drive up prices and reduce exports, which hurt the average person, not help him. The last half of the 19th century, when mercantilism was declining, saw the average standard of living in this country QUADRUPLE.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 06:04 — Anonymous (not verified)
If you think that foreign automotive companies don't pay for health care, you are mistaken. Where, then, does all that health care money come from? Claiming that unsustainable social benefit schemes, which are currently dragging those economies into depression, are examples of economy-boosting mercantilism, is doing more to prove my case than it is doing to prove yours.
"My position is that
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 03:30 — Anonymous (not verified)"My position is that economic freedom will encourage more efficient methods of production, which, in turn, will raise the average standard of living. "
Clearly flat wages for the past 2 decades of "free trade policy" culminating in a collapse similar to 1929 have proven you dead wrong. Efficient production means jack squat when people don't have the income to pay for the crap produced.
"This has been demonstrated over and over throughout history, without any exceptions."
The reagan/bush recession, the clinton recession, the second bush recession. They all facilitated the repression of wages and treaties with nations which did not have socio-economic parity or even human rights parity with the US, and the people paid for it until they couldn't pay anymore, and demand ratcheted down.
"The last half of the 19th
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 03:30 — Anonymous (not verified)"The last half of the 19th century, when mercantilism was declining, saw the average standard of living in this country QUADRUPLE."
yes, generally when the wealthy's avarice rises from generally well off to being carried around on peoples' backs like xerxes in the movie 300, it tends to raise the "average" standard of living. "average" being the operative word here rather than "median", which is reflective of main street. (factoid: the real median income hasn't shifted very much in the past 3 decades, the real cost of food and fuel however...)
"It's the author of this article, who favors Hamiltonian mercantilism, who has chosen the laughable theory that making the rich richer at the expense of 95% of the population..."
I didn't realize that protecting american industry with tariffs on nations which don't value human rights, crush unions under the tracks of tanks, and censor and randomly arrest their populations was "catering to the wealthy". You have a very perverse point of view if you believe this.
"If you think that foreign
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 03:34 — Anonymous (not verified)"If you think that foreign automotive companies don't pay for health care, you are mistaken. Where, then, does all that health care money come from? Claiming that unsustainable social benefit schemes, which are currently dragging those economies into depression, "
If such safety nets were the cause, the economies of the nations in question would be in shambles by now, as the programs have been in place for generations, and have had higher standards of living and lower corruption indexes than the US for generations.
Perhaps it's the "austerity measures" being put into place which are crushing their economies? History has proven time and again that pro-cyclical spending habits on the part of governments tend to exacerbate recessions. The proper course is to run a deficit during the busts and pay it off during the booms to act as a counter-weight to economic fluctuation.
"Slavery would have been
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 03:38 — Anonymous (not verified)"Slavery would have been abandoned in the south even without the Civil War,"
Yes, clearly it "would have", that's why it persisted for hundreds of years unabated, and the slaves were only freed when guns were quite literally put to the heads of the plantation owners. By the way, if you didn't count the slaves as the 2/3 of a person they were in the constitution, the south was the wealthiest part of the nation per capita. It was also a force to be reckoned with, and had to be choked into submission by a superior union navy, as the rebel ground forces outfought the union.
"Economics is nothing like
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 03:43 — Anonymous (not verified)"Economics is nothing like the sciences of chemistry or physics. If it were, there would be no disagreements over fundamental principles. "
Spoken like someone who knows jack about economics.
Economics is very impactful to government policy, and as such it is rife with disinformation and well funded anti-populist factions.
Remember tobacco and cancer? Remember global warming? The economists who have not sold their soul are pretty unified in what they say:
Reaganomics doesn't work, rolling back regulations and taxes on the wealthy does not create jobs or growth, it creates a wealth gap and breeds consumer abuse. Demand creates jobs, and allowing the rich to crush the wages of the poor does the opposite of creating demand.
Free trade will only work to the common man's benefit if the nations involved have socio-economic parity, otherwise the nation with lower worker standards will drain jobs from the wealthier nation until parity is met (generally at the expense of said nation's middle class)
"'Stop holding up the select
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 04:18 — Anonymous (not verified)"'Stop holding up the select few super-rich as an example of "prosperity for all" then?'
Read what I wrote again; that's not what I'm doing."
Exactly what are you espousing, then? You hold up rockafeller as a "shining example".
Millions of businesses? what millions of businesses? Farms en masse have been subsidized directly and by tariff for nearly all our national history, and when they weren't we suffered as a nation. Tariffs, much like corporate law, have protected the little guys as much as the behemoths we love to hate. They have nothing to do with the "favoritism" and corruption which keeps incumbent giants intrenched.
If anything, the corruption you describe has been WORSE now than in the periods of restricted trade, because suddenly the general protections for smaller firms are reduced, but the subsidies and warping of the law for the incumbents has remained or increased dramatically.
Please stop conflating special interest pandering with generalized economic protectionist measures.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 08:30 —
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 13:11 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Sun, 11/14/2010 - 08:30 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Clearly flat wages for the past 2 decades of "free trade policy" culminating in a collapse..."
Our flat wages were caused by the rest of the world catching up to us in competitiveness, which they lacked due to the destruction of their industry in WW2. The collapse was caused by the bubble: artificially low interest rates combined with inflated currency and government-encouraged speculation. Also, we don't have free trade. Our "free trade agreements," if you took the time to read them, are nothing more than protectionism and a better example of Hamiltonian mercantilism than free trade. If you don't understand the problem, what makes you think you understand the solution?
"Efficient production means jack squat when people don't have the income to pay for the crap produced."
Efficient production creates more jobs and higher wages. Again, explain why an American rice farmer has a higher standard of living than a Cambodian rice farmer (hint: one uses a tractor and one uses a water buffalo).
"The reagan/bush recession, the clinton recession, the second bush recession."
All caused by attempting to boost the economy using Enron accounting to try to deny the decrease in our relative competitiveness.
"...it tends to raise the "average" standard of living. "average" being the operative word here rather than "median", which is reflective of main street."
I stand corrected. Meant to say that the median standard of living doubled between 1820 and 1870, then doubled again between 1870 and 1910.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 08:34 — Anonymous (not verified)
"If such safety nets were the cause, the economies of the nations in question would be in shambles by now, as the programs have been in place for generations, and have had higher standards of living and lower corruption indexes than the US for generations."
Their economies ARE in a shambles. And you can't possibly believe that any other country has had a higher standard of living "for generations."
"Perhaps it's the "austerity measures" being put into place which are crushing their economies?"
When you're in a bubble, the only solution is the collapse of the bubble. Yes, it's painful, but it's less painful than the alternative.
"The proper course is to run a deficit during the busts and pay it off during the booms to act as a counter-weight to economic fluctuation."
The Great Depression lasted twice as long and was much more severe than ANY US recession before it. It was also the first time that the government tried to "fix" a recession with "stimulus" spending. Left to themselves, recessions run their course and the economy returns to normal. EVERY time that a government tried to reverse a recession thru spending, the recession returned as soon as the spending stopped. If Europe's and Asia's industrial base hadn't been bombed into ashes in WW2, we would not have seen recovery after the war, as our economic output would have been much less than it was.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 08:38 — Anonymous (not verified)
"...persisted for hundreds of years unabated, and the slaves were only freed when guns were quite literally put to the heads of the plantation owners."
The number of plantations using slave labor was already in decline before the war. Slave labor wasn't very efficient.
"By the way, if you didn't count the slaves as the 2/3 of a person they were in the constitution, the south was the wealthiest part of the nation per capita.
Citation needed.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 08:43 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Economics is nothing like the sciences of chemistry or physics. If it were, there would be no disagreements over fundamental principles. "
"Spoken like someone who knows jack about economics."
Then explain why there are disagreements, even among Nobel prize winning economists, over fundamental principles in economics, but not in chemistry or physics. Economics is a science in the same way that psychology is a science, not in the way that math is a science. It's nothing more than descriptive anthropology.
"Reaganomics doesn't work..."
Any real economist would know that Reaganomics was never implemented. Reagan got tax cuts, but continued to support massive spending, counter to his stated policy.
"Free trade will only work to the common man's benefit if the nations involved have socio-economic parity, otherwise the nation with lower worker standards will drain jobs from the wealthier nation until parity is met (generally at the expense of said nation's middle class)"
You seem to be under the delusion that "economic parity" means "income parity." The most efficient economy will have a much higher standard of living than a less efficient economy, even at parity. That's why the US became an industrial giant, and jobs didn't move overseas as soon as they were created.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 09:18 — Anonymous (not verified)
"Exactly what are you espousing, then? You hold up rockafeller as a "shining example"."
Do I have to explain it again? The "shining example" isn't the company owner, it's the consumer, who has a better product, more widely available, and at a cheaper price, compared with government subsidized businesses. And, I didn't hold up Rockefeller, altho I could have; he drove the price of kerosene down by 90%, and that had a huge positive impact on the average American's standard of living.
"Farms en masse have been subsidized directly and by tariff for nearly all our national history, and when they weren't we suffered as a nation."
Americans have been among the best-fed people on Earth since the beginning of our nation. And, for the first 140 years, subsidies and other government protectionist policies were very rare and very small, yet our agriculture industry rose to world dominance. All we needed was a mature futures market, which keeps potential large price swings in check.
We suffered under things like Hoover's Farm Board, which set price floors and bought wheat and cotton if market prices went below 80 cents a bushel for wheat and 20 cents a pound for cotton, with the hope of reselling it later for a decent price. The Farm Board had disastrous unintended consequences for almost everyone. For example, many farmers who typically grew other crops shifted to wheat or cotton because they were protected and now provided a secure income. The resulting overproduction forced down the prices of both crops below the price floors, so the government had to buy over 250 million bushels of wheat and 10 million bales of cotton.The costs of buying and storing these crops quickly used up the program’s allotted $500 million. After about two years of buying surpluses, the government finally just gave them away or sold them on the world market at huge losses. When Roosevelt became president, he also intervened in the farm business, but in a different way. He supported the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which dealt with the problem of oversupply by paying farmers not to produce. As for farm prices, they would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program, which of course meant an increase for consumers in the price of everything from bread to shirts. The New Deal had, for a time, provisions to use tax dollars to buy farm output and destroy it. Would you be better off if the government lowered your standard of living by taxing you, and then lowered it again by using the money to destroy food and raise the prices you pay for food?
Sheer idiocy to derive a
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:35 — john visher (not verified)Sheer idiocy to derive a plan of action based what was done 200 years ago. Manufacture is now done almost entirely by MACHINES! This kind of backward looking analysis is insanely dangerous to our present and future lives. We should be take to heart some really basic truths about where we are now. Fossil fuels have fed a vast explosion of human population. The infrastructures and systems of the modern world make no sense without easy access to abundant energy. The problem we are faced with now is how to distribute resources to people whose time and labour have little or no value in a society powered by fossil fuels? The problem we have in the future is how to care for the abundance of people when fossil fuels become scarce.
Strengthening manufacturing is NO WAY to benefit modern man. What do you want to manufacture? Who in hell wants to do hours of work a day doing what robots can do better? And even if we could do the labour intensive jobs in the US instead of China, we would only be in China's predicament of being economically dependent on the sale of, for the most part, useless tic-tac.
The caveman speaks...
I do not agree with
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 14:07 — cbemerine (not verified)I do not agree with everything you say Thom, however the more I fact check and research, the more I see the TRUTH in your words. Thank you for highlighting the sleight of hand lies of the two party system that is failing us. Obviously one party is failing us more than the other.
I can only hope that others will read your words and look into the facts for themselves. Once informed hopefully they will share the truth and help set all of us free.
I know one person can make a difference. Thankfully we are not alone!
To Anonymous & Erich von
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 15:50 — Just Listening In (not verified)To Anonymous & Erich von Freemason
It has been a delight to read both of your well informed and thoughtful deliberations. However, after going through all your posts, I'm a bit confused, and perhaps you can help me out? While I am no economist nor mathematician, I have read several of Thom's books and have listened to him for the last 3-4 years so I think I have a pretty good grasp of what he's trying to point out in this newest book. Thus, the cause of my dilemma, which is that I'm not sure what you both are arguing for or against?
Erich - you seem to be an advocate of "free markets" in terms of anti-monopoly policies and against government corruption and subsidies to business. However, I have not read (that I can recall) any point where you are also against government regulation of business or against (in Thom's words) government from providing the "rules of the game" as long as they are the rules for everyone in the game. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but it seems that way. With that said, I'd have to agree with you in those terms. Government should not pick the winners and losers of the game, but I would only apply that mostly when it comes to domestic business.
Anonymous, I also agree with everything you've said in terms of protecting domestic industries and providing a tax structure that creates incentives to build business and thus "We all prosper". I also have not read (that I can recall) that you believe government should be giving subsidies to businesses (perhaps other than farming which I would argue is different than a boating monopoly, but which also needs fixed since it has helped to decimate small farmers) or be picking winners or losers.
So, what am I missing? What is the argument exactly? It seems to be 2 sides of the same coin.
I know Hartmann's reasons for using Hamilton's 11 point plan are to show how a strong tariff system can protect domestic businesses, and create a disincentive to move businesses to other countries. He would never advocate for creating monopolies or advantages to select companies - whether or not that's what Hamilton was advocating for (as I'm no expert on Hamilton). Do either of you not agree with this?
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 20:50 —
Sat, 11/20/2010 - 08:02 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Thu, 11/18/2010 - 20:50 — Just Listening In (not verified)
"However, I have not read (that I can recall) any point where you are also against government regulation of business or against (in Thom's words) government from providing the "rules of the game" as long as they are the rules for everyone in the game. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but it seems that way."
I'm absolutely against most government regulation. All that's needed in the way of rules are laws against fraud and theft, and laws protecting property rights. Our massive regulatory bureaucracies are mainly needed because, once you water-down property rights (which our government has done), there is no market incentive to not violate those rights. If polluters needed the permission of the owners of the land that they planned on polluting, we wouldn't need the EPA, as they would have to pay a mutually-negotiated price to the land owner or would be legally barred from polluting the land. Ditto for most regulatory "protections." We only need protecting because the government has taken away our property rights, and every bureaucracy will grow to meet the needs of the bureaucracy. And, since nothing of economic value is created by bureaucracies, they are a drain on the economy and hurt our competitiveness.
Is this the same Thom who
Mon, 11/22/2010 - 22:41 — Gene (not verified)Is this the same Thom who told us Obama was going to be a dandy president? Funny how so many left wing pundits got that so wrong and still have their jobs today. We need to limit how much this country's political campaigns spend so the campaigns stop drowning out the voices of all opposition!
12/02/10 Your newsletter
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 23:11 — Paul Servizio (not verified)12/02/10
Your newsletter says, "Now you can read all of Thom Hartmann's "Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country" for free online. Truthout is publishing weekly installments over 12 weeks."
But Chapter 3 has NOT been available went you click on this link...
Read Chapter 3, "Stop Them From Eating My Town" (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=vtd6g7cab&et=1104017763744&s=59332&e=001lR_Svxba6er2Addl3PXyQPZfdj6Jlo8vcAsO-9anE7M15_MmmVJiJUuefJ2ZR1ijXGcy4oDuRb0B1_s_JSVG3c4B6MhfkM7EmBn64n0eslZ2TWs64aVaOZE0yRwewdGEc-FRHNH2HwNYGJuj_K_X1Dd_U2Qr9lgGc4ajWhYGyfneUz7MxaQOfA==) now.
abubbleshooter.info
Thu, 02/16/2012 - 21:43 — abubbleshooter.info (not verified)This article has been saved like a favorite :), I like your site!
ghd australia fncgqp
Mon, 02/18/2013 - 15:44 — Mandyewi (not verified)christian louboutin eiyqypjp christian louboutin norge zcouupfm