Free Market Capitalism: Miracles, Magic, and Mental Illness

 

Free market economics promised magic.
We got the Hustle instead.

The Miracle-That-Isn’t

This year’s State of the Union Address featured an “economic miracle,” citing economic growth, decreased unemployment, and a soaring stock market. There’s nothing miraculous about any of that. It’s all on purpose. The U.S. economy is doing exactly what it’s designed to do — promote capitalism for capitalists — and it’s hitting on all cylinders.

Capitalists are people and companies with access to capital: the corporate nation-states and the people who own and manage them; the entrepreneurs who start them; and the financial firms who trade their securities. U.S. economic policy provides structural support for the massive amount of worldwide capital: low corporate taxes leave more profits in the companies’ coffers, and low capital gains taxes generate higher returns for those who provide the capital.

Since the new USA tax policy went into effect after the 2016 election, corporations have been using their profits to buy back their own securities in record amounts. Stock buybacks are easier to predict than corporate quarterly performance and dividends; instead, you get cash payouts on schedule. As for the shares that remain, when a company takes some of its shares off the market, the ones left are worth more – same numerator, smaller denominator. That’s good for the remaining shareholders and for executive compensation, which is largely based on share value. Stock buybacks have become what Goldman Sachs called the “dominant” reason for stock market demand.[1] Again, all of that is by design, and if you’re a corporation or investor, the Miracle-That-Isn’t is working just fine for you.

How’s all this working for the non-capitalists?

The Magic That Isn’t

Google “state of the union economic miracle,” and the results are predictable. The right crows over robust growth, the left nitpicks over percentage points, and neither side mentions that non-capitalists aren’t benefiting from the economic Miracle-That-Isn’t – none of that robust economic growth gets to them.

Non-capitalists don’t make money from capital, they work for a living, and their ranks include small businesses and self-employed individuals — your local tech consultant, plumber, florist, bookstore owner, micro-brewer. They aren’t capitalists. They’re not entrepreneurs either. Starting a business on a credit card, pledging your home as collateral, spending your savings to pursue a dream… those things don’t make you a capitalist.

All these working people were supposed to benefit from the same “free market” economic theory that’s powering the economic Miracle-That-Isn’t. This was supposed to happen because benefits at the top would “trickle down” to those below. (The term “trickle down” has been around since the 80’s. We don’t seem to notice that it’s condescending and stingy.) This theory was championed by Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics:

“The core of [the school’s teaching on the free market] was that the economic forces of supply, demand, inflation and unemployment were like the forces of nature, fixed and unchanging. In the truly free market imagined in Chicago classes and texts, these forces existed in perfect equilibrium, supply communicating with demand the way the moon pulls the tides

“Just as ecosystems self-regulate, keeping themselves in balance, the market, left to its own devices, would create just the right number of products at precisely the right prices, produced by workers at just the right wages to buy those products — an Eden of plentiful employment, boundless creativity and zero inflation.[2]

As we’ve seen previously, although Friedman and his colleagues characterized their capitalist vision as science, it wasn’t; it was instead a belief system, promoted with religious zeal. The belief was that “trickle down” would happen automatically, like magic. All you had to do was give capitalists free reign — cut taxes, provide trade protection and other incentives — and the economy would grow, the capitalists would get rich, and everybody else would be better off, too.

That’s the theory. Has it worked?

U.S. economic policy has given free market economics its best shot for four decades, including that most recent all-in super-size of the current administration. We now have the empirical data Friedman & Co. didn’t. What it shows is that the policy truly works at the top, but there’s no trickle down.

Trickle-down doesn’t happen magically.
It happens deliberately.
It happens when it’s part of the plan.
And when the plan is carefully executed.

Intentional trickle down policies need to work both sides of the ledger – income and expenses. For example, you could collect tax revenues on some of that newly-created economic “miracle” wealth and spend it for the benefit of the Public (which includes the capitalists). Trouble is, as we’ve seen previously, free market economics has eliminated the Public from policy-making. That leaves low unemployment as the best chance to move money to the pockets of the people who work for a living. But that’s not effective either, because not all jobs are created equal.

Jobs for the Poor

Free market economics’ belief that low unemployment is the best way to benefit non-capitalists has made jobs a sacred cultural norm. Young? Just starting out? Poor? Can’t make ends meet? Get a job! Jobs are morally right – they build character, they’re how you make your way in the world. Public goods and social safety nets are evil, but jobs are everlastingly good. If you don’t work (at a job), you don’t deserve to eat. (That’s in the Bible; [3].it’s also in Lenin’s The State and Revolution.) If unemployment is low, that means there are plenty of jobs to go around, and the slackers have no excuse.

Right?

Wrong.

The capitalist Miracle-That-Isn’t is not creating the kind of jobs that pay a living wage to full-time employees. The jobs are not full time, and the workers aren’t employees. Instead, the jobs are part of the new gig economy. The workers are self-employed contract labor, temporary and short-term. And since there is no Public good anymore, these new gig jobs have to pay enough to cover self-employed FICA and benefits, as well as living costs. That’s not happening, which means we now have something that sounds like a dance craze, but isn’t. We have…

The Hustle

The Hustle is what non-capitalists do when the Miracle-That-Isn’t creates gig jobs.

“Doing my taxes this year, I noticed that the W4 form has transformed into a somewhat confusing jumble of tables and boxes. In one of these boxes, you’re meant to identify if you’re working another job to make ends meet, like freelancing or picking up Instacart shifts. Basically, the form wants to know: “Are you hustling?”

“For most people I know, the answer is a resounding yes. A friend of mine is a talented videographer who bartends and takes odd jobs on the side. I know a preschool teacher who also babysits and moonlights as a Lyft driver. Two employees in my company run a side company and create content on Twitch. A fellow writer on Medium works a nine-to-five, then freelances in the evening. And me? I’m no different. I write, freelance in graphic design, and build websites to provide for my family.

“We’re hustling to make ends meet, ‘building our brand,’ ensuring our startup doesn’t tank, or dreaming about the day our side hustle takes off and we can walk into the office and give everyone the bird.

“Some of the things exacerbating Hustle Life™ are out of our control. I live in Austin, Texas, where the cost of living has skyrocketed in the past few years. Between 2017 and 2018, the cost of living rose by $20,000 per person, about a 33% increase. Also, the average CEO’s salary has grown by 940% since 1978, whereas their workers’ wages have grown by just 12%. It stands to reason, then, that most of us are hustling because we literally have to in order to survive.”[4]

The Hustle means living from paycheck to paycheck, with nothing left over for savings, home ownership, and other out-of-ordinary costs.

“It seems like everyone is just trying to make ends meet.

“One of the latest hashtag games making the rounds on Twitter TWTR, -4.31% invites social media users to provide pithy and honest answers to this open-ended statement: ‘With my next paycheck I will…’

“While these games generally draw amusing memes and witty zingers, many of the responses trending under #WithMyNextPayCheckIWill early Tuesday morning were pretty bleak, with ‘still be broke’ being the general consensus.

“This reflects just how many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

“Depending on the survey, that figure runs from half of workers making under $50,000 (according to Nielsen data) to 74% of all employees (per recent reports from both the American Payroll Association and the National Endowment for Financial Education.) And almost three in 10 adults have no emergency savings at all, according to Bankrate’s latest Financial Security Index.” [5]

Poor Becomes the Norm

When robust economic growth doesn’t tickle down, the gap widens between capitalists at the top and the poor at the bottom – this is the economic inequality that dominates economic news – and then the middle class falls into the gap and joins the poor. According to a 2017 Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report,

“Measured by the By the Official Poverty Measure (OPM), more than 95 million Americans (nearly 30 percent of the total population) are either in poverty or considered ‘low-income’ (living below twice the poverty line) … That number rises to 140 million people (43.5 percent) when using the (SPM) [Supplemental Poverty Measure].”[6]

What do we mean by “poor”?

“The OPM was adopted in the mid-1960s and has garnered widespread criticism because it measures pretax income and food-purchasing power, updated yearly to account for inflation. That methodology, experts say, fails to capture many people struggling financially in modern society.

“The Census Bureau responded with the SPM, which since 2011 has measured after-tax income, food costs and other necessities such as clothing, housing and utilities. The SPM accounts for geographic variations in the cost of living, includes welfare benefits such as food stamps and housing subsidies, and subtracts child-care expenses.”[7]

Therefore, “poor” officially means you struggle with food, housing, utilities, and childcare. But what if you can’t come up with $500 to cover an unexpected expense[8] –does that count as a necessity? Or what about a car, washer and dryer, TV, air conditioning…maybe even home ownership, a shot at upward mobility, or relief from the insecurities of the gig economy? Are those necessities?

We have now landed squarely in the center of the necessity vs. luxury debate, which apparently will endure until the seas all melt, and to which the most reliable answer seems to be, it depends on what socio-economic level you’re talking about. For the middle class and up, things like a reliable car, smart phone, high-speed wireless, home ownership, savings… plus the occasional night out… are givens. As for the poor,

“There is a moralistic presumption that poor people, especially those receiving benefits, should not be spending money on anything but the bare essentials, denying themselves even the smallest ‘luxury’ that might make their lives less miserable.”[9]

If 32% – 43.5% of Americans are living at the official poverty line, the USA has truly become what one writer calls “the world’s first poor rich country.”[10] That means look left, look right, and one of you:

  • Does not plan for the future in the press of making ends meet right now;
  • Makes money and purchases stretch as far as possible;
  • Is shadowed by the what if? of emergencies and other unplanned costs;
  • Regularly opts out of social engagements for lack of funds;
  • Relies on unreliable transportation to get around;
  • Constantly sacrifices this in order to do and have that;
  • Does not ask for help because it’s too embarrassing and shameful.[11]

Things get worse when the poor become impoverished. Poor is lack of money, the inability to make ends meet. Poverty goes beyond poor: it is a mindset and belief system that drags the poor into a pit of mental ill health.

Why do the poor make so many dumb decisions?

The poor don’t, not necessarily. But the impoverished do. People use “poor” and “poverty” interchangeably, but not everyone who’s poor is also impoverished. The poor are poor because they lack money, but poverty goes further: it’s a chronic, grinding, demeaning, despairing condition that generates a specific outlook and way of approaching life. When that condition is shared, it becomes a culture. You might not know it when you’re around poor, but you definitely know it when you’re around poverty.

Poverty is institutionalized economic mental illness.

The Lost War on Poverty

“In the sixties we waged a war on poverty and poverty won.”

Ronald Reagan

Poverty is a “personality defect.”

Margaret Thatcher

That’s true: poverty won the war against it. But it’s also true that the poor lost.

The Gipper was referring to LBJ and his Great Society, but he got it wrong:  the Great Society failed to eliminate poverty because it never got all the way to dealing with it. Instead it took a more politically acceptable path focused on education and community involvement — not bad things, but there’s a difference.

As for the Iron Lady, there’s actually some truth in what she said, but almost certainly not in the way she probably meant it. She was more likely voicing the common attitude that the poor are intellectually impaired, morally flawed, prone to bad lifestyle choices, and criminally inclined, and therefore worthy of only the most grudging kind of help. That attitude and the Great Society reputed loss of its War on Poverty[12] explain a lot about today’s lack of safety nets for the poor – which, remember, refers to 40+ percent of Americans.

Rutger Bregman[13] tackles this subject in his book Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There (2017). (As smart and creative as he is, he still uses “poor” and “poverty” interchangeably. I wish he wouldn’t.):

“A world without poverty– it might be the oldest utopia around. But anybody who takes this dream seriously must inevitably face a few tough questions. Why are the poor more likely to commit crimes? Why are they more prone to obesity? Why do they use more alcohol and drugs? In short, why do the poor make so many dumb decisions?”

He continues with more tough questions:

“What if the poor aren’t actually able to help themselves? What if all the incentives, all the information and education are like water off a duck’s back? And what if all those well-meant nudges [toward self-help and away from government assistance] only make the situation worse?”

He then profiles the work of Eldar Shafir, a psychologist at Princeton, and Sendhill Mullainathan, an economist at Harvard, who formulated a theory of poverty based on the concept of “scarcity mentality.” Their research shows that the chronic poor are really good at scrambling after short term solutions, but tend to be inept at sustainable long-term thinking. It’s a matter of mental bandwidth: today’s urgency gets all the attention, leaving other matters to go begging (sometimes literally). In fact, their research estimates that poverty costs a person about 13-14 IQ points. In other words, living in a chronic state of being poor can eventually rewire the human brain to the point where clear thinking and prudent behavior are challenged. Hence the grain of truth in Margaret Thatcher’s comment that the poor have a “personality defect”: having your brain rewired by chronic poverty is a personality defect in the same way that a “personality disorder” is a mental illness.

Mental Illness On A Societal Level

But mental illness is not limited to impoverished individuals. It seems that economic policy may have created an entire “Generation of Sociopaths” of policy-makers and the people who elect them. That’s the premise of a book with that title.[14]

“What happens if a society is run by people who are, to a large degree, antisocial? I don’t mean people who are ‘antisocial’ in the general sense, the sort who avoid parties and hide from the neighbors, I mean people who are antisocial in the clinical sense: sociopaths. Could a sociopathic society function? Unfortunately, this is not a thought experiment or an investigation into some ramshackle dictatorship in a distant land; it is America’s lived experience. For the past several decades, the nation has been run by people who present, personally and politically, the full sociopathic pathology: deceit, selfishness, imprudence, remorselessness, hostility, and the works. Those people are the Baby Boomers, that vast and strange generation born between 1940 and 1964, and the society they created does not work very well.

“The goal of American politics has been, until the advent of the Boomers, the creation of a ‘more perfect Union’ and the promotion of the ‘general Welfare’ to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.’ The Constitution promises as much, and over time America generally made good on that promise, first to a few, then to many. By the twentieth century, constitutional abstractions had taken concrete form, and ‘Blessings’ in the modern vernacular were understood to mean the creation of an ever larger and more affluent middle class. If the middle was not doing well, neither was America. James Carville, the operative who brought Bill Clinton to power as the first Boomer president, understood that modern politics boiled down to ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ And the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) has made clear how to evaluate that economy: the ‘well-being of the middle class and those working to get into the middle class… is the ultimate test of an economy’s performance.’ [Citing the 2015 Economic Report of the President] Measured against the Constitution’s noble imperatives of the more prosaic words of Carville and the CEA, America generally made a great success of things for two centuries. Since the Boomer’s ascension to power, American has accomplished far too little, and in many important ways has slid backward.”

The book ticks through the diagnostics on the clinical sociopathic checklist — e.g. risk seeking, breakdown of relationship, lack of long-term thinking and short-term gratification – and cites a 1991 report[15] issued by the National Institute of Health” compiling the work of UCLA, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Washington, and Duke universities, using DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria that found higher levels of antisocial personality disorder in the Boomer cohort. The result goes beyond poverty-related individual mental illness, to systemic cultural mental impairment. (I’ll be looking further at all of this in upcoming posts.)

Why Poverty Matters to Capitalists (or Should)

Capitalists are sometimes characterized as unsympathetic to the poor, but it’s clearly in their best interests not to be: a sustainable economy needs consumers to buy the stuff they make. The rich can only buy so much, then it’s up to the rest of us, but we can’t do our part if our gig income is gone too soon. Ironically, the neglected middle class will have the last laugh. But by then nobody will be laughing.

“The fundamental law of capitalism is: When workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers—not rich businesspeople—the true job creators. A thriving middle class isn’t a consequence of growth—which is what the trickle-down advocates would tell you. A thriving middle class is the source of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies.

“Our economy can be safe and effective only if it is governed by rules. Some capitalists actually don’t care about other people, their communities, or the future. Their behavior, if left unchecked, has a massive effect on everyone else.

“The danger is that economic inequality always begets political inequality, which always begets more economic inequality. Low-wage workers stuck on a path to poverty are not only weak customers; they’re also anemic taxpayers, absent citizens, and inattentive neighbors.

“Economic prosperity doesn’t trickle down, and neither does civic prosperity. Both are middle-out phenomena. When workers earn enough from one job to live on, they are far more likely to be contributors to civic prosperity—in your community. Parents who need only one job, not two or three to get by, can be available to help their kids with homework and keep them out of trouble—in your school. They can look out for you and your neighbors, volunteer, and contribute—in your school and church. Our prosperity does not all come home in our paycheck. Living in a community of people who are paid enough to contribute to your community, rather than require its help, may be more important than your salary.

“Prosperity and poverty are like viruses. They infect us all—for good or ill.

“An economic arrangement that pays a Wall Street worker tens of millions of dollars per year to do high-frequency trading and pays just tens of thousands to workers who grow or serve our food, build our homes, educate our children, or risk their lives to protect us isn’t an expression of the true value or economic necessity of these jobs. It simply reflects a difference in bargaining power and status.

“Inclusive economies always outperform and outlast plutocracies. That’s why investments in the middle class work, and tax breaks for the rich don’t. The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. Those at the top will forever tell those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

“Some of the people who benefit most from that explanation are desperate for you to believe this is the only way a capitalist economy can work.

“The trickle-down explanation for economic growth holds that the richer the rich get, the better our economy does. But it also clearly implies that if the poor get poorer, that must be good for our economy. Nonsense.” .[16]::

What IS Magical and Miraculous

One thing that truly is miraculous about all this is that Americans persist in debating what’s a necessity and what’s a luxury. Why wouldn’t we want everybody to have as much as possible? Instead we concede luxuries to the capitalists but begrudge them to non-capitalists.

Similarly, Americans also persist in debating whether money can buy happiness, when we all know that of course it can, because it can buy things that make us happy – things like food, clothing, a place of our own, clean water to drink and take a shower in, safety and health, a chance to improve ourselves, a net to catch us if dreams don’t come true… all those things that used to be considered part of the Public Good. Countries that still provide those things for their citizens are the happiest in the world.[17] Countries that don’t – like the USA and the former Soviet Union – turn their citizens into a mob of stressed, afraid, hustling, poverty-avoiders who cast our sociopathic votes to elect sociopathic representatives who perpetuate more of the same.

Why?

  • Why wouldn’t we want all those things for ourselves, and for the people around us?
  • Why wouldn’t we think that having all those things is a sign that the human race is making progress, that we’re improving our lives, our world?
  • Why do we instead cling to the self-righteous and self-defeating notion that moral character requires suffering with unmet needs, poverty, and jobs that don’t pay the bills?
  • Why do we want our lives to be precarious and unhappy instead of secure and joyful?

And you know what else is miraculous?

That nobody notices the contradictions and double standards, how we perpetuate cultural norms that work against our own best interests, or that both economic growth and trickle down can’t happen without economic policies that favor both capitalists and non-capitalists.

  • The capitalists don’t notice.
  • The capitalist policy-makers don’t notice.
  • The non-capitalists don’t notice;
  • The former middle class — now the new poor — don’t notice.
  • The voters don’t notice.

The impoverished and the sociopaths don’t notice either, but we wouldn’t expect them to.

But wait — I guess it’s not quite true that nobody notices. I mean, the people quoted in this article notice, and they’re not nobody. But still…

I think we need a longer list of people who notice. A much longer list.

[1] See, for example: Share Buybacks Could Approach Record Levels In 2020 After 2019 Fell Short, S&P Global Market Intelligence (Feb. 13, 2020); Stocks To Buy For Buybacks, Forbes (Jan. 17, 2020); Buybacks Are The ‘Dominant’ Source Of Stock-Market Demand, And They Are Fading Fast: Goldman Sachs, MarketWatch (Nov. 9, 2019).

[2] The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2017)

[3] “If any man does not work, neither let him eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10

[4] Sledge, Benjamin, We’ve Embraced the Hustle Life, and It’s Making Us Miserable, Medium (Mar. 5, 2020).

[5] A shocking number of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, MarketWatch (Jan. 11, 2020).

[6] Joe Biden apparently got his math wrong when he said half of Americans are poor – see Fact Checker: Joe Biden’s Claim That ‘Almost Half’ Of Americans Live In Poverty, The Washington Post (June 20, 2019). Right-leaning Ballotpedia also corrected Biden’s math, concluding that only 32% of Americans are technically poor. On the other hand, progressive Common Dreams is sticking with one-half.

[7] Again from The Washington Post’s Fact Checker:

[8] A $500 surprise expense would put most Americans into debt, CBS New Money Watch (Jan. 12, 2017).

[9] Standing, Guy, Basic Income:  A Guide For the Open-Minded, Guy Standing (2017).

[10] Hague, Umair, Why America is the World’s First Poor Rich Country, Medium (May 23, 2018).

[11] Everyday Things Poor People Worry About That Rich People Never Do, Everyday Feminism (May 7, 2015),

[12] Not everyone agrees that we lost the War on Poverty. See this article that considers both sides.

[13] Rutger Bregman is a historian and author. He has published five books on history, philosophy, and economics. His book Utopia for Realists was a New York Times Bestseller and has been translated in 32 languages. The Guardian called him “the Dutch wunderkind of new ideas.”’

[14] Gibney, Bruce Cannon, A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America (2018). “Sure to be controversial,” Fortune said about the book, and it certainly is that.

[15] Psychiatric Disorders in America,

[16] A Wealthy Capitalist on Why Money Doesn’t Trickle Down, Yes! Magazine (Sept. 10, 2019).

[17] While free market indoctrinated Americans seems to have a bad case of being right instead of being happy, the social democracies that feature the public good routinely score the highest in The World Happiness Reporta list dominated by the Scandinavians:Finland again takes the top spot as the happiest country in the world according to three years of surveys taken by Gallup from 2016-2018. Rounding out the rest of the top ten are countries that have consistently ranked among the happiest. They are in order: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada and Austria. The US ranked 19th dropping one spot from last year.”

Horatio Alger is Dead, America Has a New Class Structure, and it’s Not Your Fault

horatio alger

January 23, 2020

The member of the month at the gym where I work out is a guy who looks like he’s in his early 20’s. One of the “get to know me” questions asks “Who motivates you the most?” His answer: “My dad, who taught me that hard work can give you anything, as long as you can dedicate time and effort.”

The answer is predictably, utterly American. “Hard work can give you anything” — yes of course, everybody knows that. Parents tell it to their kids, and the kids believe it. America is the Land of Opportunity; it gives you every chance for success, and now it’s up to you. “Anything you want” is yours for the taking – and if you don’t take it, that’s your problem, not America’s.

Except it’s not true, and we know that, too. We know that you can work really, really hard and dedicate lots and lots of time and effort (and money), and still not get what you want.

Why do we keep saying and believing something that isn’t true? Why don’t we admit that things don’t actually work that way? Because that would be un-American. So instead we elevate the boast: America doesn’t just offer opportunity, it gives everybody equal opportunity — like Teddy Roosevelt said:

“I know perfectly well that men in a race run at unequal rates of speed.
I don’t want the prize given to the man who is not fast enough to win it on his merits, but I want them to start fair.”

Equal opportunity means everybody starts together. No, not everybody wins, but still… no matter who you are or where you’re from, everybody has the same odds. None of that landed gentry/inherited wealth class system here.

Except that’s not true either, and we know that, too.

But we love the equal opportunity myth. We love the feeling of personal power – agency, self-efficacy – it gives us. It’s been grooved into our American neural circuits since the beginning:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the .pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[1]

We’re all equals here in America, divinely ordained to pursue the good life. That’s our creed, and we – “the governed” — declare that we believe it.

Even if it’s not true.

Equal opportunity is a foundational American cultural belief. Cultural myths are sacred – they’re afforded a special status that makes them off limits to examination. And national Founding Myths get the highest hands-off status there is.

Never mind that the Sacred doesn’t seem to mind being doubted – it’s the people who believe something is sacred you have to watch out for. And never mind that history and hindsight have a way of eventually outing cultural myths – exposing them as belief systems, not absolute truths. But it’s too late by the time history has its say: the fraud is perpetrated in the meantime, and attempts to expose it are shunned and punished as disloyal, unpatriotic, treasonous.

If we can’t out the myth, what do we do instead? We blame ourselves. If we don’t get “anything you want,” then we confess that we didn’t work hard enough, didn’t “dedicate the time and effort,” or maybe we did all that but in the wrong way or at the wrong time. Guilt, shame, embarrassment, frustration, depression… we take them all on as personal failings, in the name of preserving the myth.

You may have seen the Indeed commercial. (Go ahead, click it – it’s only 30 seconds.)

Indeed advert

It brilliantly taps the emotional power of the equal opportunity myth.

“With no choice but to move back home after college, they thought he’d be a little more motivated to find a job.”

The kid is glued to his phone, and it’s driving his parents crazy. He’s obviously a slacker, a freeloader. Household tensions mount. The phone dings at the dinner table. Dad snatches it up.

“Turns out, they were right.”

He’s using it to find a job! Faith and family harmony restored! That’s our hard-working boy!

Heartwarming, but still untrue.

But What About the Strong Job Numbers?

Yes, unemployment is low. But consider this analysis of those numbers[2], just out this month:

“Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its Employment Situation report (better known as the ‘jobs report’) to outline the latest state of the nation’s economy. And with it, of late, have been plenty of positive headlines—with unemployment hovering around 3.5%, a decade of job growth, and recent upticks in wages, the report’s numbers have mostly been good news.

“But those numbers don’t tell the whole story. Are these jobs any good? How much do they pay? Do workers make enough to live on?

“Here, the story is less rosy.

“In a recent analysis, we found that 53 million workers ages 18 to 64—or 44% of all workers—earn barely enough to live on. Their median earnings are $10.22 per hour, and about $18,000 per year. These low-wage workers are concentrated in a relatively small number of occupations, including retail sales, cooks, food and beverage servers, janitors and housekeepers, personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants), and various administrative positions.

“Just how concerning are these figures? Some will say that not all low-wage workers are in dire economic straits or reliant on their earnings to support themselves, and that’s true. But as the following data points show, it would be a mistake to assume that most low-wage workers are young people just getting started, or students, or secondary earners, or otherwise financially secure:

      • Two-thirds (64%) of low-wage workers are in their prime working years of 25 to 54.
      • More than half (57%) work full-time year-round, the customary schedule for employment intended to provide financial security.
      • About half (51%) are primary earners or contribute substantially to family living expenses.
      • Thirty-seven percent have children. Of this group, 23% live below the federal poverty line.
      • Less than half (45%) of low-wage workers ages 18 to 24 are in school or already have a college degree.

“These statistics tell an important story: Millions of hardworking American adults struggle to eke out a living and support their families on very low wages.”

When the kid got a text at the dinner table, it was about one of these jobs. Mom and Dad better get used to the idea that he’ll be around for awhile. Even if he gets that job, it won’t offer benefits, could end at any moment, and won’t pay him enough to be self-sustaining. That’s not how Mom and Dad were raised or how things went for them, but that’s how the economy works nowadays.

Economics Begets Social Structure

The even bigger issue is that the equal opportunity myth has become a social norm: uber-competitive free market economics controls the collective American mindset about how adult life works, to the point that it’s become a nationalist doctrine.

The Chicago School of Economics – the Vatican of free marketism — believed so ardently in its on doctrines that its instructional approach took on the dynamics of fundamentalist indoctrination:

“Frank Knight, one of the founders of Chicago School economics, thought professors should ‘inculcate’ in their students the belief that economic belief is ‘a sacred feature of the system,’ not a debatable hypothesis.’”[3]

Free market ideology preaches that capitalism promotes both economic and social opportunity. It has had the past four decades to prove that claim, and has failed as spectacularly as Soviet-style communism failed to benefit the workers it was supposed to redeem. Instead, free market ideology has given America what it wasn’t ever supposed to have: a stratified socio-economic class system that skews rewards to the top 10% and leaves the rest in the grip of the dismal statistics listed above.

But we don’t see that – or if we do, we don’t say anything about it, we just keep reciting the “trickle down” mantra. Member of the month and his Dad and the parents in the Indeed commercial and most Americans still believe the myth. Ironically the ones who see through it are the top 10% members who got in before they closed the gates. Meanwhile, the lower 90% — the decimated middle class, the new poor, the hard-working wage-earners – keep blaming themselves.

Even though it’s not their fault. If the kid in the commercial can’t find a job to support himself, it’s not his fault.

“I can’t pay my bills, afford a house, a car, a family. I can’t afford healthcare, I have no savings. Retirement is a joke. I don’t know how I’ll ever pay off my student loans. I live paycheck to paycheck. I’m poor. But it’s not my fault.”

Try saying that to Dad at the dinner table.

But unlike “anything you want,” “it’s not your fault” is true: current economic policy and its companion social norms do not deliver equal opportunity. Horatio Alger is dead, but the equal opportunity myth lives on life support as we teach it to our children and elect politicians who perpetuate it, while all of us ignore the data.

Horatio Alger is Dead

There’s no more enduring version of the upward mobility ideal than the rags-to-riches story codified into the American Dream by Horatio Alger, Jr. during the Gilded Age of Andrew Mellon, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and the rest of the 19th Century Robber Barons. If they can do it, so can the rest of us, given enough vision, determination, hard work, and moral virtue — that was Alger’s message. Except it never worked that way, especially for the Robber Barons – opportunists aided by collusion and chronyism carried out in the absence of the antitrust and securities laws that would be enacted under the New Deal after history revealed the fraud.[4]

But never mind that — according to Roughrider Teddy and politicians like him, government’s job is to guarantee equal opportunity for all, then get out of the way and let the race to riches begin. Thanks to our devotion to that philosophy, a fair start has become is a thing of the past — so says Richard V. Reeves in his book Dream Hoarders.

Reeves begins by confessing that his disenchantment over the demise of the Horatio Alger ideal will no doubt seem disingenuous because he didn’t grow up American and is now a member of the economic elite himself:

“As a Brookings senior fellow and a resident of an affluent neighborhood in Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of DC, I am, after all, writing about my own class.

“I am British by birth, but I have lived in the United States since 2012 and became a citizen in late 2016. (Also, I was born on the Fourth of July.) There are lots of reasons I have made America my home. But one of them is the American ideal of opportunity. I always hated the walls created by social class distinctions in the United Kingdom. The American ideal of a classless society is, to me, a deeply attractive one. It has been disheartening to learn that the class structure of my new homeland is, if anything, more rigid than the one I left behind and especially so at the top.

“My new country was founded on anti-hereditary principles. But while the inheritance of titles or positions remains forbidden, the persistence of class status across generations in the United States is very strong. Too strong, in fact, for a society that prides itself on social mobility.”

Reeves also wrote a Brookings Institute monograph called Saving Horatio Alger: Equality, Opportunity, and the American Dream, in which he said the following:

“Vivid stories of those who overcome the obstacles of poverty to achieve success are all the more impressive because they are so much the exceptions to the rule. Contrary to the Horatio Alger myth, social mobility rates in the United States are lower than in most of Europe. There are forces at work in America now — forces related not just to income and wealth but also to family structure and education – that put the country at risk of creating an ossified, self-perpetuating class structure, with disastrous implications for opportunity and, by extension, for the very idea of America.

“The moral claim that each individual has the right to succeed is implicit in our ‘creed,’ the Declaration of Independence, when it proclaims ‘All men are created equal.’

“There is a simple formula here — equality plus independence adds up to the promise of upward mobility — which creates an appealing image: the nation’s social, political, and economic landscape as a vast, level playing field upon which all individuals can exercise their freedom to succeed.

“Many countries support the idea of meritocracy, but only in America is equality of opportunity a virtual national religion, reconciling individual liberty — the freedom to get ahead and “make something of yourself” — with societal equality. It is a philosophy of egalitarian individualism. The measure of American equality is not the income gap between the poor and the rich, but the chance to trade places.

“The problem is not that the United States is failing to live up to European egalitarian principles, which use income as a measure of equality. It is that America is failing to live up to American egalitarian principles, measured by the promise of equal opportunity for all, the idea that every child born into poverty can rise to the top.”

There’s a lot of data to back up what Reeves is saying. See, e.g., this study from Stanford, which included these findings:

“Parents often expect that their kids will have a good shot at making more money than they ever did…. But young people entering the workforce today are far less likely to earn more than their parents when compared to children born two generations before them, according to a new study by Stanford researchers.”

The New American Meritocracy

Along with Richard Reeves, philosopher Matthew Stewart and entrepreneur Steven Brill cite the same economic and related social data to support their conclusion that the new meritocrat socio-economic class has barred the way for the rest of us. I’ll let Matthew Stewart speak for the others[5]:

“I’ve joined a new aristocracy now, even if we still call ourselves meritocratic winners. To be sure, there is a lot to admire about my new group, which I’ll call—for reasons you’ll soon see—the 9.9 percent. We’ve dropped the old dress codes, put our faith in facts, and are (somewhat) more varied in skin tone and ethnicity. People like me, who have waning memories of life in an earlier ruling caste, are the exception, not the rule.

“By any sociological or financial measure, it’s good to be us. It’s even better to be our kids. In our health, family life, friendship networks, and level of education, not to mention money, we are crushing the competition below.

“The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we’re playing, everybody loses badly in the end.

“So what kind of characters are we, the 9.9 percent? We are mostly not like those flamboyant political manipulators from the 0.1 percent. We’re a well-behaved, flannel-suited crowd of lawyers, doctors, dentists, mid-level investment bankers, M.B.A.s with opaque job titles, and assorted other professionals—the kind of people you might invite to dinner. In fact, we’re so self-effacing, we deny our own existence. We keep insisting that we’re ‘middle class.’

“One of the hazards of life in the 9.9 percent is that our necks get stuck in the upward position. We gaze upon the 0.1 percent with a mixture of awe, envy, and eagerness to obey. As a consequence, we are missing the other big story of our time. We have left the 90 percent in the dust—and we’ve been quietly tossing down roadblocks behind us to make sure that they never catch up.”

Two Stories, One Man

In a remarkable display of self-awareness and historical-cultural insight, Stanford professor David Labaree admits that his own upward mobility story can be told two ways — one that illustrates the myth and one that doesn’t, depending on your point of view.[6]

“Occupants of the American meritocracy are accustomed to telling stirring stories about their lives. The standard one is a comforting tale about grit in the face of adversity – overcoming obstacles, honing skills, working hard – which then inevitably affords entry to the Promised Land. Once you have established yourself in the upper reaches of the occupational pyramid, this story of virtue rewarded rolls easily off the tongue. It makes you feel good (I got what I deserved) and it reassures others (the system really works).

“But you can also tell a different story, which is more about luck than pluck, and whose driving forces are less your own skill and motivation, and more the happy circumstances you emerged from and the accommodating structure you traversed. As an example, here I’ll tell my own story about my career negotiating the hierarchy in the highly stratified system of higher education in the United States. I ended up in a cushy job as a professor at Stanford University.

“Is there a moral to be drawn from these two stories of life in the meritocracy? The most obvious one is that this life is not fair. The fix is in. Children of parents who have already succeeded in the meritocracy have a big advantage over other children whose parents have not. They know how the game is played, and they have the cultural capital, the connections and the money to increase their children’s chances for success in this game.

“In fact, the only thing that’s less fair than the meritocracy is the system it displaced, in which people’s futures were determined strictly by the lottery of birth. Lords begat lords, and peasants begat peasants. In contrast, the meritocracy is sufficiently open that some children of the lower classes can prove themselves in school and win a place higher up the scale.

“The probability of doing so is markedly lower than the chances of success enjoyed by the offspring of the credentialed elite, but the possibility of upward mobility is nonetheless real. And this possibility is part of what motivates privileged parents to work so frantically to pull every string and milk every opportunity for their children.”

Pause for a moment and wonder, as I did, why would the new meritocrats write books and articles like these? Is it a case of Thriver (Survivor) Guilt? Maybe, but I think it’s because they’re dismayed that their success signals the end of the American equal opportunity ideology. You don’t trample on something sacred. They didn’t mean to. They’re sorry. But now that they have, maybe it wasn’t so sacred after all.

The new socio-economic class system was never supposed to happen in America. We weren’t supposed to be like the Old World our founders left behind. But now we are, although most of us don’t seem to know it, and only a few brave souls will admit it. Meanwhile the Horatio Alger mansions are all sold out, and the gate to the community is locked and guarded. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen in America.

Until it did.

[1] The Declaration of Independence.

[2] Low Employment Isn’t Worth Much if the Jobs Barely Pay, The Brookings Institute, Jan. 8, 2020.

[3] The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2017).

[4] The best source I’ve found for the American history we never learned is Americana: A 400-Year History of American Capitalism, Bhu Srinivasan (2017).

[5] Matthew Stewart is the author of numerous books and a recent article for The Atlantic called The 9.9 Percent is the New American Meritocracy. Steven Brill is the founder of The American Lawyer and Court TV, and is the author of the book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall–and Those Fighting to Reverse It and also the writer of a Time Magazine feature called How Baby Boomers Broke America. The quoted text is from Stewart’s Atlantic article.

[6] Pluck Versus Luck, Aeon Magazine (Dec. 4. 2019) –“Meritocracy emphasises the power of the individual to overcome obstacles, but the real story is quite a different one.”

Ideologies at War

Discourse:  Formal and orderly
 and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

Merriam-Webster

I finally figured out why there’s no discourse in economics. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

I started researching and writing about economics and the workplace three years ago. Right away, I noticed the topic was as polarized as everything else these days. I confess, I was surprised — I was a newbie, idealistic about my new course of study. I figured everybody would want to talk about it. But the pros? No. They talked past each other, nobody convincing anybody of anything they didn’t already believe.

And now I know why.

At first, I thought the divisions — right vs. left, capitalism vs. socialism, conservative vs. progressive, free market vs. Keynesian intervention, etc.  — were the result of opinions logically and studiously debated. Three years later, I can see it’s not so — those opposing positions are rationalizations after the fact, justifying prior beliefs grounded in ideology. When a topic — any topic — is dominated by competing ideologies, a fundamentalist dynamic takes over. Fundamentalism has no place for “formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought.” Instead, it stifles discussion, damns doubt, brutalizes dissent. If you’re not with us, you’re against us — so choose sides, and the other side can talk to the hand.

We’ve seen, for example, how the Mont Pelerin Society and the Chicago School of Economics pursued their capitalist free market beliefs with fundamentalist zeal, and how the Democratic Socialists of America party has responded in kind. This, and other similar ideological standoffs have banished discourse from the field of economics.

The Berlin Wall fell because Soviet communism failed as a fundamentalist belief, leaving American capitalism the winner of the Cold War. Since then, political leadership in the U.S. and the U.K. has supercharged capitalism into its current hyper- competitive, hyper-privatized form, to the point that free market ideology has become not just economic policy but a cultural norm, and supporting it has become a patriotic duty.

Now in its fourth decade, the post-Cold War model of capitalism has failed in the same way Soviet communism failed before it:  it has neglected and alienated the “Public” — the res publica, the things that belong to the people, the things that assure citizens the basics of life and health, satisfying work, opportunity for educational, social, and economic betterment, and the sense of meaning, purpose, and well-being those things engender.

Fundamentalist ideologies wage war, and win at all costs. When free market economics became a fundamentalist ideology, it went to war. One of my daughters recently gave me a book published in 2007, at the height (depth?) of the Great Recession. The copyright date made me inclined to dismiss it as outdated. Now, as I read it, I wonder, how it is that we never knew these things, and most of us still don’t? This is from the book blurb:

“In this groundbreaking alternative history of the most dominant ideology of our time, Milton Friedman’s free-market economic revolution, Naomi Klein challenges the popular myth of this movement’s peaceful global victory. From Chile in 1973 to Iraq today, Klein shows how Friedman and his followers have repeatedly harnessed terrible shocks and violence to implement their radical policies.”

The Shock Doctrine:  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2007)

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges wrote about the cultural dynamics of war in War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2014). As you read the following, substitute your ideology of choice — political, economic, religious, etc. — in place of war as armed conflict:

“War, in times of malaise and desperation, is a potent distraction.

“The cultivation of victimhood is essential fodder for any conflict. It is studiously crafted by the state. All cultural life is directed to broadcast the injustices carried out against us.

“The goal of such nationalistic rhetoric is to invoke pity for one’s own. The goal is to show the community that what they hold sacred is under threat. The enemy, we are told, seeks to destroy religious and cultural life, the very identity of the group or state.

“Patriotism, often a thinly veiled form of collective self-worship, celebrates our goodness, our ideals, our mercy and bemoans the perfidiousness of those who hate us.

“War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought.

“Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuring suffering as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seeks not only happiness but also meaning. And tragically war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning.

“Before conflicts begin, the first people silenced — often with violence — are [those who] question the state’s lust and need for war. These dissidents are the most dangerous. Such voices are rarely heeded.

“Once we sign on for war’s crusade, once we see ourselves on the side of the angels, once we embrace a theological or ideological belief system that defines itself as the embodiment of goodness and light, it is only a matter of how we will carry out murder.”

Thus the Public has been “murdered” by economic policy as carried out under the current model of capitalism.

When the Public dies, so does public discourse.

It takes moral strength to dissent. The Business Roundtable recently took a step in that direction. According to its website, “Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of America’s leading companies working to promote a thriving U.S. economy and expanded opportunity for all Americans through sound public policy.”

We’ll look at what the CEOs have to say next time.

Economic Fundamentalism

We saw last time that the goal of Chicago School free market economics was to promote “noncontaminated capitalism,” which in turn would generate societal economic utopia:

“The market, left to its own devices, would create just the right number of products at precisely the right prices, produced by workers at just the right wages to buy those products — an Eden of plentiful employment, boundless creativity and zero inflation.”

The Shock Doctrine:  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2017)

To the School’s free market advocates, these ideas were pure science:

“The starting premise is that the free market is a perfect scientific system, one in which individuals, acting on their own self-interested desires, create the maximum benefits for all. If follows ineluctably that if something is wrong with a free-market economy — high inflation or soaring unemployment — it has to be because the market is not truly free.”

The Shock Doctrine

Scientific method requires that theories be falsifiable:  you have to be able to objectively prove them wrong.

“The philosopher Karl Popper argued that what distinguishes a scientific theory from pseudoscience and pure metaphysics is the possibility that it might be falsified on exposure to empirical data. In other words, a theory is scientific if it has the potential to be proved wrong.”

But Is It Science? Aeon Magazine, Oct. 7, 2019.

But how do you prove an economic theory based on “uncontaminated capitalism” in an economically contaminated world?

“The challenge for Friedman and his colleagues was not to prove that a real work market could live up to their rapturous imaginings…. Friedman could not point to any living economy that proved if all ‘distortions’ were stripped away, what would be left would be a society in perfect health and bounteous, since no country in the world met the criteria for perfect laissez-faire. Unable to test their theories in central banks and ministries of trade, Friedman and his colleagues had to settle for elaborate and ingenious mathematical equations and computer models.”

The Shock Doctrine

Mathematical equations and computer models aren’t the same as empirical data collected in the real (“contaminated”) world. If falsifiability is what separates scientific knowledge from belief-based ideology, then Friedman’s free market theory is the latter. Some scientists are worried that this spin on scientific theorizing has become too prevalent nowadays:

 “In our post-truth age of casual lies, fake news and alternative facts, society is under extraordinary pressure from those pushing potentially dangerous antiscientific propaganda – ranging from climate-change denial to the anti-vaxxer movement to homeopathic medicines. I, for one, prefer a science that is rational and based on evidence, a science that is concerned with theories and empirical facts, a science that promotes the search for truth, no matter how transient or contingent. I prefer a science that does not readily admit theories so vague and slippery that empirical tests are either impossible or they mean absolutely nothing at all…. For me at least, there has to be a difference between science and pseudoscience; between science and pure metaphysics, or just plain ordinary bullshit.”

But Is It Science?

The Chicago School believed so ardently in the free market theory that its instructional approach took on the dynamics of belief-based indoctrination:

“Frank Knight, one of the founders of Chicago School economics, thought professors should ‘inculcate’ in their students the belief that economic belief is ‘a sacred feature of the system,’ not a debatable hypothesis.’”

The Shock Doctrine

This dynamic applies to every ideology that can’t be falsified — verified empirically. The ideology then becomes a fundamentalist belief system:

“Like all fundamentalist faiths, Chicago School economics is, for its true believers a closed loop. The Chicago solution is always the same:  a stricter and more complete application of the fundamentals.:

The Shock Doctrine

Journalist Chris Hedges describes the dynamics of “secular fundamentalism” in I Don’t Believe in Atheists. (The book’s title is too clever for its own good — a later version adds the subtitle “The Dangerous Rise of the Secular Fundamentalist.”)

“Fundamentalism is a mind-set. The iconography and language it employs can be either religious or secular or both, but because it dismisses all alternative viewpoints as inferior and unworthy of consideration it is anti-thought. This is part of its attraction. It fills a human desire for self-importance, for hope and the dream of finally attaining paradise. It creates a binary world of absolutes, of good and evil. It provides a comforting emotional certitude. It is used to elevate our cultural, social, and economic systems above others…. The core belief systems of these secular and religious antagonists are identical.”

Thus we have Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously saying, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself” — a statement entirely in keeping with the Mont Pelerin  Society’s idealistic Statement of Aims, which we looked at last time.

And thus we also have Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz countering with his thoughts about economics in a contaminated (“pathological”) world:

“The advocates of free markets in all their versions say that crises are rare events, though they have been happening with increasing frequency as we change the rules to reflect beliefs in perfect markets. I would argue that economists, like doctors, have much to learn from pathology. We see more clearly in these unusual events how the economy really functions. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, a peculiar doctrine came to be accepted, the so-called ‘neoclassical synthesis.’ It argued that once markets were restored to full employment, neoclassical principles would apply. The economy would be efficient. We should be clear: this was not a theorem but a religious belief.”

As we also saw last time, historical socialism and communism join free market capitalism in their fundamentalist zeal. In fact, some think that economics in general has become today’s dominant cultural form of belief-based thinking. More on that next time.

The Free Market and the New Socialism

Mont Perlerin

The historic Mont Pelerin castle/hotel.

In 1947, economists  Friedrich HayekFrank KnightKarl PopperLudwig von MisesGeorge Stigler and Milton Friedman convened the Mont Pelerin Society in a castle/hotel overlooking Lake Geneva, with the express intent of displacing the Keynesian economic model that prescribed government intervention and spending to pull America out of the Great Depression and install the New Deal. The Society’s founding Statement of Aims is forcefully idealistic:

“The central values of civilization are in danger.  Over large stretches of the Earth’s surface the essential conditions of human dignity and freedom have already disappeared.  In others they are under constant menace from the development of current tendencies of policy.  The position of the individual and the voluntary group are progressively undermined by extensions of arbitrary power.  Even that most precious possession of Western Man, freedom of thought and expression, is threatened by the spread of creeds which, claiming the privilege of tolerance when in the position of a minority, seek only to establish a position of power in which they can suppress and obliterate all views but their own.”

The Statement goes on to carefully position the Society’s purpose as fostering intellectual inquiry, not the advancement of a new economic “orthodoxy.” In time, however, Milton Friedman did precisely that, championing capitalist free market economics through the Chicago School of Economics.

“The core of [the school’s teaching on the free market] was that the economic forces of supply, demand, inflation and unemployment were like the forces of nature, fixed and unchanging. In the truly free market imagined in Chicago classes and texts, these forces existed in perfect equilibrium, supply communicating with demand the way the moon pulls the tides

“Just as ecosystems self-regulate, keeping themselves in balance, the market, left to its own devices, would create just the right number of products at precisely the right prices, produced by workers at just the right wages to buy those products — an Eden of plentiful employment, boundless creativity and zero inflation.

“For this reason, Chicagoans did not see Marxism as their true enemy. The real source of the trouble was to be found in the ideas of Keynesians in the United States, the social democrats in Europe, and developmentalists in what was then called the Third World. These were believers not in a utopia but in a mixed economy, to Chicago eyes an ugly hodgepodge of capitalism for the manufacture and distribution of consumer products, socialism in education, state ownership for essentials like water service, and all kinds of law designed to temper the extremes of capitalism.

“The Chicagoans declared war  of those mix-and-match economists. What they wanted was not a revolutions exactly but a capitalists Reformation:  a return to uncontaminated capitalism.”

The Shock Doctrine:  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2017)

Compare that vision to that of the Democratic Socialists of America we met last time, whose Constitution unreservedly advances their own counter-orthodoxy:

“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. “

Thus the free market and socialism champions have planted their flags at the poles of the economic ideological spectrum. In between, however, are those whose perspective and goals are more immediate and  pragmatic, such as greater economic equality, improved public access to healthcare (see endnote below[1]) and education unencumbered with government-financed debt.

“Socialism historically has been associated with the concept of public or collective ownership of property and natural resources and has long been associated with Marxism and communism. In 1949, with the Chinese Communists just having taken control of China, and with the Communist Soviet Union creating fear of an aggressive effort to spread their ideology around the globe, Americans’ view of the term embraced the classic elements bound up in these types of movements.

“Now, almost 70 years later, Americans’ views of socialism have broadened. While many still view socialism as government control of the economy, as modified communism and as embodying restrictions on freedoms in several ways, an increased percentage see it as representing equality and government provision of benefits.”

The Meaning of “Socialism” to Americans Today, Gallup Polling Matters (Oct. 4, 2018)

Meanwhile, Millennials’ interest in this more temperate version of socialism is increasingly putting their free market elders in an awkward position:

“Perhaps the most significant thing about the rise of millennial socialism in the US is that it is forcing conservatives to articulate what exactly is so bad about a more equal system – often with results that are beyond parody.

“A writer for the ultra-conservative website the Daily Caller, for example, recently attended an Ocasio-Cortez rally and reported, completely straight-faced: “I saw something truly terrifying. I saw just how easy it would be … as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.

“Kids deserving healthcare, imagine that! It’s a slippery slope, it really is.”

Socialism Is No Longer A Dirty Word In The US – And That’s Scary For Some, The Guardian (July 29, 2018)

What is going on, that a parent would say something like that? Digging deeper reveals a dynamic at work that is more powerful than a generation gap, polarized ideologies, or campaign issues such as healthcare. We’ll look into that next time.

[1] For those leaning toward socialism’s new version, the leading issue is healthcare. See also these Gallup survey results announced November 12, 2019:  “More than 13% of American adults — or about 34 million people — report knowing of at least one friend or family member in the past five years who died after not receiving needed medical treatment because they were unable to pay for it… Dovetailing with these results is a rising percentage of adults who report not having had enough money in the past 12 months to ‘pay for needed medicine or drugs that a doctor prescribed’ to them. This percentage has increased significantly, from 18.9% in January 2019 to 22.9% in September. In all, the 22.9% represents about 58 million adults.”