Hi Tommy:
It’s good to debate the issues, but there are a number of inaccuracies in your characterization of my history and views.
-
AFSC is not a “Marxist” organization, it is a faith-based group with a long history (Quakers) of aiding people in crisis. Yes, it is anti-war. Given Ron Paul’s (for example) disavowal of our current wars, labeling Quakers as “Marxist” because they are anti-war is quite a stretch.
-
As I have mentioned on several occasions I attended the University of Hawaii. One again, it isn’t adding much to the discussion to broad-brush someone for attending UC Berkeley (even if he didn’t).
-
I don’t recall setting up the Cato Institute as the “enemy.” That is your characterization, not mine. I have probably linked to some of their papers. On tax issues, I might have disagreed, or agreed, depending on their specific stance. The top 1/10 of 1% have seen their tax burdens drop below “middle class” tax rates. Do you think that is “fair”? On what basis? Why do you think the tax rates for those (the top 1%) who own 60% of the financial wealth of the nation have dropped? Could the buying of political influence have something to do with it? I am in favor of those who make $10 M a year paying the same rate as I do making $45K a year. Do you disagree with this? On what basis? Please research tax rates actually paid (not nominal rates) over the past 50 years, with an eye on the rates paid by the top 1% and by those in the upper-middle tax brackets. You will find the super-wealthy are paying lower rates than the “middle class.” If you support this, what is your basis for doing so?
-
If you consider Glenn Beck a public intellectual, then it’s OK with me. He is certainly raising important issues and perhaps I have misjudged his ideas.
-
I am routinely accused of being liberal and conservative in the same week. This refusal to accept various dogmas really bothers some people and it’s easy to see why. If you buy into one ideology or another, then the “correct answers” flow from that belief system. I see very little actual difference in policies under the two ideologies currently on the menu. Both support a global Empire, various active wars, a welfare state (the only disagreements are over who gets more or less Savior State largesse) and corporate cartels. Neither one offers any recognition that demographics have already doomed their entitlement “solutions.” Neither one has any response to Peak Everything except to borrow more money and hope it all goes away. That is hardly a strategy or ideology that offers anything positive.
-
I think you have misread my writing on Capitalism. I have repeatedly drawn the distinction between “real capitalism” which requires investment of capital and the taking on of risk, and Crony Capitalism which relies on State contracts and management of the economy, and which transfers risk to the taxpayers. (See 'too big to fail" etc.) Marx failed to offer a workable alternative but his critique of capitalism remain insightful if we read his work in the context of when it was written, the late 19th century.
For example, he noted capitalism’s tropism toward monopoly and cartels. Most of the mainstream media in the US is now controlled by 5 or 6 corporations. This is effectively a cartel. Most of the “healthcare” system is owned or controlled by a handful of large companies. Smaller firms who try to compete in that space find that they are up against a state-supported series of cartels.
I have built businesses from scratch, done millions of dollars in revenues and created jobs for dozens of people. I think that qualifies me for a “working” knowledge of capitalism.
My critique is simple: BOTH State capitalism (the Chinese model) and the Neoliberal (profits are private, losses are for taxpayers, etc.) model of global capitalism have failed on fundamental levels. That this is not yet apparent–well, let’s give it 4 years and see how either model is doing.
I am in favor of “real capitalism” (accumulating capital, investing it, taking a risk for a future gain) and against crony/cartel capitalism. There is a difference.