Could happen - pendulums at work and the policy pendulum is certainly too far right at the moment. Most of us must live, work and play in the middle. Solving for low income would be a start for more people to make use of what's left of a capitalist system. Many low income people are quite capable of watching what the wealthy do vs what they say. Many wealthy rarely interact meaningfully with low income people outside the "help" they hire or the errant family member who happens to be in constant need. This seems to translate into prescriptive policies from either side that consistently fail to address low income. I have an adult son in the trades and another in the executive ranks of a prestigious university. The efforts the son in the trades must go to, to earn a living that provides enough for food/shelter/transportation/healthcare/etc. is exhausting. He works for rich people to survive economically. Now retired, I owned two RIAs (Registered Investment Advisory) firms, a tax practice, with a specialty in divorce financial divisions. My work experience confirms that people without enough income is a primary reason for many societal ills and eventually crappy policy.
Regarding trades careers, they seem to be a desirable choice these days. With AI on the heels of many white collar jobs, and many tradespeople making good incomes (HVAC techs, plumbers, electricians) many parents are encouraging their children to consider that path over college. What are your thoughts on that. Not only rich people need trades services.
Everyone needs a plumber, HVAC, etc. It can be a desirable choice economically. I'm showing my bias here but at least some trades people work there because they reject cubicle life and much of the lifestyle that comes with it. Anecdotally, from my sons friends/colleagues group, they aren't interested in a tract home, working for a corporation or even marrying. They express wanting to live in nature (luckily many of the rich have decided to build there), grow their own food, basically more of an analog life of work, play. So I think everyone needs trades people but you might get a different level of care from a self-employed craftsman, the owner of the franchise/company who employs tradespeople or the employee of the owner . . . Those income levels are likely to be very different too. Over time, the craftsman may enjoy good income as will the owner (sometimes the same person) but the employee may see much less unless he's a surge electrician (i.e. data center builds). The equation that might work better when low income is an issue is for the wealthy or the company owners to give up some wealth/profit to ensure low income rises. The win for the wealthy is more economically stable community neighbors in those tradespeople. How do you see it?
Great post, David. I think about this constantly: why aren't more moderate voices proposing reforms that preserve capitalism by restoring competition and opportunity? Complicity in capitalism’s worst excesses, or a refusal to confront the current structural failures and pursue reform, ensures that socialism is the only available remedy.
I teach film at NYU, and I hear my students' frustrations. As an elder Millennial in an industry b besieged by AI threats and merger hype, I feel them, too. Ladders have been pulled up while the cost of living keeps rising. It’s a dreadful, drowning feeling.
I still believe there's a middle path, but we will need our wealthier people to join the fight for it. Enforcing antitrust laws, holding executives criminally accountable for financial crimes, and overturning Citizens United would be meaningful steps. I'm also intrigued by Elizabeth Joyce's proposal to structure certain companies as public benefit corporations. I recently interviewed her in Underexposed about her campaign to buy Letterboxd, and the structure she proposes is compelling: early investors still get a profitable exit, but ownership gradually transitions to the employees and community who actually use and care about the platform, rather than another profit-maximizing owner, who inevitably bleeds it dry.
I usually enjoy your perspectives, but not with this essay. Too much corruption has be enabled and accepted - Politicians becoming wealthy once they are in office, the Trump Bros becoming super-wealthy due to Father’s no-bid contracts, the secret dealings with tech billionaires… so on and so on - this country is ripe for a revolution. MAGA, irresponsible republicans and the vilification of social programs has destroyed this country. The absolute power of the billionaire class is immoral and is devastating our democracy. True capitalism cannot exist amongst all this corruption.
I agree with you about Trump/MAGA. I am anything but a fan. However, I see a mirror image danger with the far left. I’m advocating neither. Reform not revolution.
“Accordingly, I see an increased risk that anti-capitalism will take hold. Inequality might then be “solved” not by raising some people up but by tearing everyone down. That would be a terrible thing.” Great observation. People think that’s what they want, but have not idea what they are asking for. We have much room for improvement, but capitalism is what has made America what it is today.. the good parts. Eschewing that will destroy ambition, the American dream. Pendulum swings will continue until we can somehow find some middle ground that works.
The astonishing thing, and a clear sign of deliberate or unconscious ignorance and misinformation, is when people act as if there was „THE" capitalism.
They don't talk about the CONTENT of economics, only the FORM.
Any question about what the "poor" or "the middle class" gain from having "economics" for its own sake, without any regard for CONTENT, is ignored.
Thus, any consideration of whether and how "economics" could or should change, if its content were to change, or if critical examination were to become the norm and enter the public consciousness, is also overlooked.
If "dependent employees" received a higher share of the profits from what they help produce, but the product itself was junk and garbage, then it would remain garbage.
And "dependent employees", supposedly "exploited" would be just as sickened by the products they produce as the "producers", the "employers."
This **actual equality** never even entered the focus of these discussions.
Rather, "movements" like "OWS" execute the very same greed they accuse the "rich" of.
Therefore, they will inevitably do NOTHING "better" if given the opportunity.
That is why all "socialism" has completely failed and is doomed to failure: as the self-proclaimed "heir of the bourgeoisie,“ „Socialism" merely copies the same garbage as ("convenient") "capitalism", only much worse, since any incentive for innovation, improvement, and achievement is eliminated - indeed even gets punished.
"Capitalism," on the other hand, doesn't make enough of the opportunities it undoubtedly possesses. There are too many beneficiaries who "earn good money" and wonder why they should change anything, why they should bother with better products, when the money keeps flowing.
Here, the intellectual poverty of those who supposedly want to achieve a "better life" meets the intellectual poverty of those who have the means to produce better things but choose not to out of laziness: another **actual equality**.
Capitalism, however, doesn't make enough of the opportunities it certainly has. we hear stances such as "It won't catch on“, "People don't want it,“ "Nobody will buy it" as „excuses", just as "the poor" and "addicts" always invent excuses for supposedly having "no chance," that "there's nothing better," and that they "only have enough money for the bare necessities“.
If you know (many) "poor," "exploited," or "underprivileged" people, however, you notice that they spend a lot of money on rubbish—such as a poor diet—even though better options would often be not just cheaper and actually less expensive; „but“ they require effort, reflection, and a heightened awareness.
In the long run, eating better doesn't just make you feel healthier; the process of developing this awareness broadens your horizons and makes life more fulfilling overall.
„But" it can lead to becoming alienated from one's "familiar environment“, viewing those around you more critically, and no longer finding the "familiar" way of life desirable.
One fears the prospect of ending up „alone".
So, one „conforms".
No "evil rich people" play a part in these processes.
The responsibility lies with each individual.
That´s the hardest part, including that it can make everything familiar seem stale, alien, and undesirable.
Yet, these are precisely the kind of irresponsible "employees" and "consumers" that most "rich people" want: they are compliant, don't think too much, and simply do "their job."
That is why „The“ Capitalism looks the way it does.
Also because "the masses“ —the „informed", "mature" "voters“, „We The People“— follow those who make false promises of "more money" but never want to discuss the actual *substance* of production or of capitalism itself. That would be framed „individualism“, never regarding that critically thinking individuals will be a benefit for all of the whole „society“.
It might well reflect critically back on the „promising“ Sanders, AOCs or Mamdummies: revealing that the agitators of „The People“ don't actually want a better life for "the masses" but merely "more votes"—secured in the cheapest and most "effective" way possible, just as supposedly "greedy capitalists" try to do.
Follow Adam Smith on taxes. And realize it's 99.998% vs tippy top .002%.
Could happen - pendulums at work and the policy pendulum is certainly too far right at the moment. Most of us must live, work and play in the middle. Solving for low income would be a start for more people to make use of what's left of a capitalist system. Many low income people are quite capable of watching what the wealthy do vs what they say. Many wealthy rarely interact meaningfully with low income people outside the "help" they hire or the errant family member who happens to be in constant need. This seems to translate into prescriptive policies from either side that consistently fail to address low income. I have an adult son in the trades and another in the executive ranks of a prestigious university. The efforts the son in the trades must go to, to earn a living that provides enough for food/shelter/transportation/healthcare/etc. is exhausting. He works for rich people to survive economically. Now retired, I owned two RIAs (Registered Investment Advisory) firms, a tax practice, with a specialty in divorce financial divisions. My work experience confirms that people without enough income is a primary reason for many societal ills and eventually crappy policy.
Regarding trades careers, they seem to be a desirable choice these days. With AI on the heels of many white collar jobs, and many tradespeople making good incomes (HVAC techs, plumbers, electricians) many parents are encouraging their children to consider that path over college. What are your thoughts on that. Not only rich people need trades services.
Everyone needs a plumber, HVAC, etc. It can be a desirable choice economically. I'm showing my bias here but at least some trades people work there because they reject cubicle life and much of the lifestyle that comes with it. Anecdotally, from my sons friends/colleagues group, they aren't interested in a tract home, working for a corporation or even marrying. They express wanting to live in nature (luckily many of the rich have decided to build there), grow their own food, basically more of an analog life of work, play. So I think everyone needs trades people but you might get a different level of care from a self-employed craftsman, the owner of the franchise/company who employs tradespeople or the employee of the owner . . . Those income levels are likely to be very different too. Over time, the craftsman may enjoy good income as will the owner (sometimes the same person) but the employee may see much less unless he's a surge electrician (i.e. data center builds). The equation that might work better when low income is an issue is for the wealthy or the company owners to give up some wealth/profit to ensure low income rises. The win for the wealthy is more economically stable community neighbors in those tradespeople. How do you see it?
All good points.
“I fear that our current gilded age will end not by reform but by ill-considered, radical policies that severely harm our economy”
As opposed to the current administration’s ill-considered, radical policies?
Great post, David. I think about this constantly: why aren't more moderate voices proposing reforms that preserve capitalism by restoring competition and opportunity? Complicity in capitalism’s worst excesses, or a refusal to confront the current structural failures and pursue reform, ensures that socialism is the only available remedy.
I teach film at NYU, and I hear my students' frustrations. As an elder Millennial in an industry b besieged by AI threats and merger hype, I feel them, too. Ladders have been pulled up while the cost of living keeps rising. It’s a dreadful, drowning feeling.
I still believe there's a middle path, but we will need our wealthier people to join the fight for it. Enforcing antitrust laws, holding executives criminally accountable for financial crimes, and overturning Citizens United would be meaningful steps. I'm also intrigued by Elizabeth Joyce's proposal to structure certain companies as public benefit corporations. I recently interviewed her in Underexposed about her campaign to buy Letterboxd, and the structure she proposes is compelling: early investors still get a profitable exit, but ownership gradually transitions to the employees and community who actually use and care about the platform, rather than another profit-maximizing owner, who inevitably bleeds it dry.
I usually enjoy your perspectives, but not with this essay. Too much corruption has be enabled and accepted - Politicians becoming wealthy once they are in office, the Trump Bros becoming super-wealthy due to Father’s no-bid contracts, the secret dealings with tech billionaires… so on and so on - this country is ripe for a revolution. MAGA, irresponsible republicans and the vilification of social programs has destroyed this country. The absolute power of the billionaire class is immoral and is devastating our democracy. True capitalism cannot exist amongst all this corruption.
I agree with you about Trump/MAGA. I am anything but a fan. However, I see a mirror image danger with the far left. I’m advocating neither. Reform not revolution.
“Accordingly, I see an increased risk that anti-capitalism will take hold. Inequality might then be “solved” not by raising some people up but by tearing everyone down. That would be a terrible thing.” Great observation. People think that’s what they want, but have not idea what they are asking for. We have much room for improvement, but capitalism is what has made America what it is today.. the good parts. Eschewing that will destroy ambition, the American dream. Pendulum swings will continue until we can somehow find some middle ground that works.
The astonishing thing, and a clear sign of deliberate or unconscious ignorance and misinformation, is when people act as if there was „THE" capitalism.
They don't talk about the CONTENT of economics, only the FORM.
Any question about what the "poor" or "the middle class" gain from having "economics" for its own sake, without any regard for CONTENT, is ignored.
Thus, any consideration of whether and how "economics" could or should change, if its content were to change, or if critical examination were to become the norm and enter the public consciousness, is also overlooked.
If "dependent employees" received a higher share of the profits from what they help produce, but the product itself was junk and garbage, then it would remain garbage.
And "dependent employees", supposedly "exploited" would be just as sickened by the products they produce as the "producers", the "employers."
This **actual equality** never even entered the focus of these discussions.
Rather, "movements" like "OWS" execute the very same greed they accuse the "rich" of.
Therefore, they will inevitably do NOTHING "better" if given the opportunity.
That is why all "socialism" has completely failed and is doomed to failure: as the self-proclaimed "heir of the bourgeoisie,“ „Socialism" merely copies the same garbage as ("convenient") "capitalism", only much worse, since any incentive for innovation, improvement, and achievement is eliminated - indeed even gets punished.
"Capitalism," on the other hand, doesn't make enough of the opportunities it undoubtedly possesses. There are too many beneficiaries who "earn good money" and wonder why they should change anything, why they should bother with better products, when the money keeps flowing.
Here, the intellectual poverty of those who supposedly want to achieve a "better life" meets the intellectual poverty of those who have the means to produce better things but choose not to out of laziness: another **actual equality**.
Capitalism, however, doesn't make enough of the opportunities it certainly has. we hear stances such as "It won't catch on“, "People don't want it,“ "Nobody will buy it" as „excuses", just as "the poor" and "addicts" always invent excuses for supposedly having "no chance," that "there's nothing better," and that they "only have enough money for the bare necessities“.
If you know (many) "poor," "exploited," or "underprivileged" people, however, you notice that they spend a lot of money on rubbish—such as a poor diet—even though better options would often be not just cheaper and actually less expensive; „but“ they require effort, reflection, and a heightened awareness.
In the long run, eating better doesn't just make you feel healthier; the process of developing this awareness broadens your horizons and makes life more fulfilling overall.
„But" it can lead to becoming alienated from one's "familiar environment“, viewing those around you more critically, and no longer finding the "familiar" way of life desirable.
One fears the prospect of ending up „alone".
So, one „conforms".
No "evil rich people" play a part in these processes.
The responsibility lies with each individual.
That´s the hardest part, including that it can make everything familiar seem stale, alien, and undesirable.
Yet, these are precisely the kind of irresponsible "employees" and "consumers" that most "rich people" want: they are compliant, don't think too much, and simply do "their job."
That is why „The“ Capitalism looks the way it does.
Also because "the masses“ —the „informed", "mature" "voters“, „We The People“— follow those who make false promises of "more money" but never want to discuss the actual *substance* of production or of capitalism itself. That would be framed „individualism“, never regarding that critically thinking individuals will be a benefit for all of the whole „society“.
It might well reflect critically back on the „promising“ Sanders, AOCs or Mamdummies: revealing that the agitators of „The People“ don't actually want a better life for "the masses" but merely "more votes"—secured in the cheapest and most "effective" way possible, just as supposedly "greedy capitalists" try to do.
I thinkith tooo late. In the words of Gordon Gekko. Greed is Good.