University of Phoenix Research Hub



Revisiting People’s Capitalism from First PrinciplesDavid A. BreslauerDavid A. Pardo AbstractThe logic of people’s capitalism is explained from the giant contradiction between the assumptions of economics and those of non-ego based behavior. Current social scientific research provides enough of the theory, facts, and figures necessary for various methods, many inter-related, by which people’s capitalism can be theoretically developed. Some of these methods are discussed in general. But, due to the contemporary state of the US politico-economic system, people’s capitalism will not be implemented, naturally giving rise to the emergence of a new world religion probably somewhere in the Middle East-Mediterranean area. This suggests that traditional theology in existing world religions is fundamentally mistaken. The very idea of theology as a field of study is questioned and an argument is advanced that theology should preferably be abandoned.Keywords: People’s capitalism, new religion, pleasure/pain principle, politico-economic system, socio-economicsIntroductionEconomics is based on a philosophical problem. Why? Let us enumerate some of the problems that economic utilitarianism as taught and practiced gives us. We define economic utilitarianism here specifically as perceived self-interest or the pleasure/pain principle, in other words, ego based behavior.General considerations:Individual utility functions cannot be compared. Therefore, developing aggregate utility curves is impossible—any political economic system goes since Pareto optimality cannot be generalized practically.There is no moral obligation or free will—only determinism. Human beings behave no differently from inanimate objects or any other animal in the animal kingdom so that the universe as we know it moves as one. There is thus no moral good or moral evil where “moral good” is defined as the individual or group acting first on what is perceived truthfully and impartially by the agent as “right”, stripped of perceived self-interest, (in other words, non-ego based humanity). What is “right” is guided by a universally accepted set of behavioral principles. Determinism solves the age-old puzzle why “bad things can happen to good people”.People are a means, not an end. “Follow your bliss” (what happens if you are a psychopath?) or “follow your dreams” (what happens if they are unrealistic?) replaces “follow your star”. Perceived self-interest or utility is the end, not non-ego based humanity. This does not mean that the pursuit of utility cannot lead inadvertently to more ego-based humanity (such as “altruism”) on the individual and/or collective level. Indeed, the types and degree of ego-based humanity also change with changing economic and technological conditions under utilitarian motivation.Specifically, for individual or group perceived self-interest or economic utilitarianism we have:The practice of religion is an exercise in hypocrisy since the individual or group acts first on perceived self-interest not what is perceived truthfully and disinterestedly to be “right”. “Wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve” is particularly egregious.There are no human rights, let alone human duties. In fact, there are no objective rights or duties of any kind either individually or collectively.Murder for expected utilitarian gain pays so long as one has not made a miscalculation.All human interaction must be regulated implicitly and/or it must be governed by enforceable contract. Democratic government finally strangles the economic system and/or ends up in some form of totalitarianism. The general, aggregate trend of political history is cyclical from one to the few to the many back to one again.What can replace economic utilitarianism on which the huge edifice of mathematical economics, social science, in fact, is built? Karma, in other words, you get what you give? This kind of natural religion does not solve the problem of free will. “Virtue is its own reward”? No chance, however virtue is defined, given what economists euphemistically call “animal spirits”. Following the old financial maxim that “one must always expect the worst”, we must accept the prisoner’s dilemma, the necessity of law and law enforcement on the individual and collective level. In short, we must accept perceived self-interest or economic utilitarianism as our behavioral starting point for the individual. What to do? Or should anything be done? We could venture a speculation that economic utilitarianism has aesthetic beauty inasmuch as it tells a story that eventually through the “slaughter bench of history” leads the human race inadvertently to ego based behavioral biblical ideals. For example, weapons are becoming so powerful that world war seems out of the question; gladiatorial contests have been replaced by television scripts and athletic competitions; consumer sovereignty shapes the supplier’s character, whether consciously or unconsciously, presumably for the good. The ego based behavior may eventually merge into non-ego based humanity.The introduction of divinely revealed rules through a traumatic catharsis induced by a subconscious conflict would solve the problems posed above philosophically but not behaviorally. Which rules? Since theology (and not non-ego based prophecy) is both speculative and at the same time potentially socially destructive as shown by history, one of those rules HAS to take theology out of the hands of the human race at this point in history. This suggests the universe is the book to study, figure out, and understand—which renders all religious texts trivial and questionable. (The psychological, sociological, and historical factual claims of the so-called infallibility of these texts, along with many of their other claims, also come into question and may be scientifically decided). The pursuit and acquisition of, at a minimum, scientific knowledge and understanding by anybody give us a hint as to what the political system should look like. One of the primary aims of the political system should then be the promotion and maintenance of the unrestricted flow and pursuit of at least scientific information. Given group and individual perceived self-interest, that implies balanced competition among information sources. What about the economic system? At this point in history we do not know. Or, at least, it has not been made public. Unfortunately, we must rely on the unambiguous consensus of all religious groups that can give us a hint. That spells property rights not materialism. The balanced competition between information sources fits logically with this notion of property rights. We can infer inter alia three functions of the political system from the balanced competition between information sources. First, the political system itself must contain informational checks and balances. At the same time, on political issues all facts should first be presented clearly and truthfully for open informed public discussion in resolving those issues. Second, it must promote an educational establishment that federally mandates open-minded critical thinking so that it can discriminate between what is true at a point in time from what is false, true facts from what are distorted facts, half lies (especially notorious in existing politics and commercial advertising) and lies. General human capital might include secondary school (before voting age) courses in data analysis and its principles including how statistics and language are abused, the principles of political economy, clarity and precision in communication and, above all, critical thinking. Social studies should also be federally mandated, encompassing inter alia parental training with stress on the value of education, the vital importance of non-cognitive skills, world culture and shared core social values, crime statistics and punishments (unless these do not act as a deterrent), the paths, dangers and consequences to addiction, the nature of temptation, and methods to report dealers of illicit drugs (and those advertising in any way alcohol and tobacco) to police. These courses could be supported by specific human capital that provides personal financial and marketable skills to create the material base for critical thought. Finally, the political system must safeguard property rights.Can property rights be reconciled in a politico-economic system with the unrestricted flow and pursuit of this kind of information? We do not live in an ideal world. We must settle for second best—reality in the universe we live in. We are slaves to sophistry, “…and the pursuit of happiness”. We argue here that a politico-economic system, after taking into account externalities and public goods, should aim for two general parameters. On the theoretical level at least, a competitive free market system which does, indeed, require protection of private property rights is the most efficient economic method yet devised both to satisfy individual preferences for building wealth and to satisfy consumer/producer preferences. It efficiently expands economic choice in the scientific and other types of understanding of the universe. At the same time, some form of real informed democracy, so long as it does not encourage the concentration and/or entrenchment of political power, is more congenial than dictatorship or oligarchy to the availability of uncensored information and the politically unhindered pursuit of knowledge and understanding by all individuals. Income and wealth inequality as a natural by-product of the competitive free market system, however, develops social, economic and political imbalances over time and so undermines the democratic process. People’s capitalism, on the other hand, advocates a socio-economic philosophy that brings back social balance to the free market by co-opting all citizens into a capitalist system so as to promote and prolong economic consensus in a democratic form of government. (This does not mean that it must violate the neoclassical golden rule of saving). It attempts to develop and distribute directly personal economic capital—financial, physical, and formal human—among all socio-economic classes for the purpose of promoting political and economic consensus on capitalism within a democracy. In addition, as Gates has noted, “people are likely to become better stewards of all those systems of which they are a part—social, political, fiscal, cultural and natural—as they gain a personal stake in the economic system, with all the rights and responsibilities that implies” (21). As such then, people’s capitalism provides a flexible goal with many possible methods and degrees of realization. The guidelines of people’s capitalism are superimposed on the following rules of thumb: (1) since the creation of wealth ultimately depends on labor, policies should encourage citizens to maximize their contribution to the productive effort of society and forestall them from choosing to retire. Thus economic incentives are key; (2) an economic policy must be evaluated on both its economic efficiency aspects and its cross-sectional accumulation of personal savings aspects; (3) given two policies where one is a direct path and the other an indirect path and they both can achieve the selected objective, choose the direct path cet. par. (4) government economic intervention should be used as a “last resort” (This does not mean that all regulatory action, concern for future generations and the environment, or effective law enforcement and crime prevention should be eliminated); (5) social and economic meritocracy is preferable to social and economic privilege or entitlement.We can look at the argument normatively. A politico-economic system does not operate in a social vacuum. There must be a philosophical justification for its existence. In other words, what is the goal, the purpose, of the system? For example, if it were possible, is it the largest degree of lifetime expected utility for each individual in the system or at least as many individuals as possible? Or is it letting the individual reproduce human life as a tradition or way of life without any self-reflection on the purpose of that reproduction and without any consideration of the social and economic consequences? (For example, is placing human reproduction over improvement in the quality of life for the parents, the family and the community problematic, particularly in the Third World?) Or is it giving all citizens equal opportunities for self-actualization in the Maslow sense shaped by a universally accepted set of revealed religious rules? We argue for the latter alternative at this point in history. And specifically we argue that those religious rules, taken as a set, are the encouragement of, first, humanity as expressed in non-ego based behavior, second, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding (particularly but not exclusively scientific understanding), and, third, authenticity by which we mean “be yourself. Be true to yourself”. We conjecture that, in light of the existence of the “animal spirits” and the subsequent prisoner’s dilemma, people’s capitalism within some kind of real informed democracy is a viable, albeit imperfect, approach in satisfying this last alternative in the short and long run. We now pose two questions, answering the last to which we devote the rest of this paper. 1. In a multi-period model, how would a deliberate and direct government redistribution of economic capital and its interest to be held by individual voting US citizens change their voting preference toward capitalism within the context of the contemporary US political economic system? There is no answer to this question since one would have to take a valid opinion poll every nanosecond. We will make the social psychological assumption that the acquisition and possession of personal economic capital, particularly financial capital, by each American citizen of voting age would change his or her political opinion favorably toward the concept of capitalism. Clearly, this opens up a whole line of future research. How much and what kind of economic capital should be redistributed and how much each individual citizen should receive are separate questions that will not be addressed in this paper. The answers are determined as much by the contemporary social situation and perceived relative utility as they are by the decision rules in the Marxist superstructure. 2. In the consumption-production life cycle, what are some of the economic ways to develop people’s capitalism within the contemporary US politico-economic system? People’s CapitalismWe all know that one of the artistic beauties of the capitalist system is the economic cliché of the “invisible hand”, the “cunning of reason” that turns the individual’s perceived self-interest inadvertently for the economic benefit of the collective. A lesser known beauty, not considered by economists, is the fact that this system necessarily creates income and wealth inequality in the first place. If some, but not too much, cultural diversity should be celebrated, then some, but not too much, economic diversity should follow suit and add color to the social scene. Not only will the poor always be with us, but, relatively speaking, they should be with us. And economic inequality instills effort so long as upward mobility is a realistic probability. The problem arises when concentrated economic powers invariably buy undue political influence or the wealthy project counter-productive role modelling such as the ostentatious display of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure as opposed to philanthropy. Too much absolute and relative wealth and income inequality can create social problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction, excessive social welfare, homelessness and criminality, while at the same time the lower and middle classes may not have social or capital access to fulfill their economic potentials. Efficiency in the labor market may be compromised. Enter the justification for people’s capitalism.People’s capitalism became common as an advertising and propaganda slogan in the 1950s to depict US workers as prosperous in a classless society. A central tenet of people’s capitalism was that ownership of capital assets in US industries had become democratic through the dispersion of stockholdings (Perlo). Hence, a major criticism of capitalism that too few people share its benefits had been blunted. Later, a variety of options had been proposed to make people’s capitalism a viable solution for the economic inequalities and inequities in the US politico-economic system. Redistribution of capital property income (Yunker, 1982), expanded profit sharing (Conyon and Freeman), access to investment capital for all (Albus) or combinations of these approaches (Kurland) were advocated.Despite the establishment of employee stock ownership purchase plans, IRAs and 401(k)s, academic and government research indicate stock ownership has become more concentrated, especially since 2007. According to Frank, only 48.8 percent held stock in 2012, the lowest level since 1995 and the top 10 percent of Americans (by net worth) held 81 percent of stock in 2010.As early as the 1980s Harrison and Bluestone warned that “changes in the composition of the workforce by age, race, gender, years of on-the-job experience, education or training have had no effect whatsoever on growing inequality” (25). They determined the increase in part-time work and lower wages for these workers explained 42 percent of overall wage inequality and described the issue as universal for American workers in the 1980s. Wage inequality was assumed to be correlated with wealth inequality. This trend has been compounded by increasing CEO compensation vis a vis that of the average company worker. More recently, Alvaredo et al. have found that private wealth relative to national income has followed a spectacular U shaped path over time. Of particular interest is their speculation that wealth and family connections may provide access to high paying employment. In other words, social contacts and networks may play a role in perpetuating intergenerational immobility. Kopczuk, however, pointed out that the top 1 percent of the US income and wealth distribution exhibit less reliance on capital income and inherited wealth and more reliance on income related to labor and entrepreneurial success than, say, in the 1920s. Wealth has always been concentrated. But what is particularly disconcerting is the lack of economic mobility, particularly among male workers and blacks. If mobility were high, the level of income and wealth inequality would not be cause for concern, since it is possible that the poor moving through the lifecycle would become rich. But economic mobility has not increased. Athreya and Romero have concluded that mobility has not been sufficient to offset the rise in inequality. Short-term inequality likely reflects lifetime inequality. Furthermore, Leigh estimates the intergenerational elasticity in earnings between fathers and sons and fathers and daughters is 0.6 or higher, a figure substantially above previous estimates and indicative of a relatively immobile society. If policies to implement people’s capitalism are to be adopted to reverse these trends, the causes of immobility and relative inequality must be found. Traditional arguments for recent annual earnings and wealth inequality have included less progressive taxes, globalization inducing a changing job market, and the demand for more technical skills (Alvaredo et al.). Due to the nature of the job market, requiring multi-dimensional skills, the individualization of pay has also made unionization more difficult. In addition, beginning in the 1980s, reduction in savings has made it easier for the general population to fall into debt. Benhabib et al., for example, have suggested in explaining the recent wealth distribution that there are differential savings rates. It has been argued by many in the financial industry that the use of sophisticated investment models has also allowed the rich to become richer. If this were true, it would defy the conventional wisdom that random variations rather than investment abilities are partly responsible for the observed differences in savings rates.Important research has recently been conducted on the causes for economic immobility. Chetty et al. have concluded that high mobility areas have (1) less residential segregation (2) less income inequality (3) better primary schools (4) greater family stability and (5) greater social capital by which they primarily mean the strength of social networks and community engagement. They go on to state that an important implication of their results is that “much of the difference in intergenerational mobility across areas emerges while children are teen-agers, well before they enter the labor market as adults…income mobility is driven by factors that either directly affect children at early ages (such as the quality of schools or social structure) or anticipatory behavioral responses to subsequent differences (such as returns to education in the local labor market)” (1602). Athreya and Romero echo these sentiments and point to the fact that more than 60 percent of children whose parents are in the bottom quintile will end up in the bottom or second quintile compared to 23.3 percent of those whose parents are in the top quintile (2015). They go on to state that “a critical point here is that the disparity in learning likely arises not only from differences in innate ability but also from forces such as the quality of K-12 education and parental and cultural influences. These forces are very different for children from poor versus rich families -- a dynamic that is magnified by a labor market that demands increasing levels of skill” (184). It is well known that human capital not only depreciates, but can be self-reproducing. According to psychologists, the beginnings of human capital development take place as early as the age of three. It is here where people’s capitalism should first be focused. Scarce government resources should be funneled into excellent public pre-K and rigorous public K-12 training for poor legal residents first and away from the subsidization of universities and four-year colleges. Furthermore, subsidizing higher education perpetuates the proverbial “paper chase” with its promise of escape from the secondary labor market and does not necessarily develop the non-cognitive skills that are required for economic success in any job or career or, for that matter, the successful functioning of any kind of democracy. Community colleges including the offering of retraining courses, on the other hand, should be partially subsidized to avert a moral hazard problem. In other words, the playing field should be levelled as much as possible from the outset, presumably stopping short of interfering in family structure, if people’s capitalism is to rectify the gross “inequities” of the free market system in any significant way.Public investment in the human capital of the poor’s children could partially crowd out parents’ investment in their children’s education. It could also increase the size of poor families. A nominal across-the-board lump sum consumption tax on each new born, including any costs for paternity tests and for uninsured delivery, could be inescapably imposed on both parents. (This would also aid in the identification of illegal immigrants, assuming the government itself is not exploiting them for net tax revenues.) Coupled with perceived and real opportunities for upward mobility (breaking down the barriers between the primary and secondary labor market?) for both poor males and females, logically this tax would provide incentives to limit the relative size of families vis a vis the rich. This measure might change the population growth profile and possibly might have a long term impact on social security revenues provided by the current set-up. Yunker has proposed that a capital wealth tax of about three percent could lessen the impact of the increasingly skewed distribution of wealth (2014). He argues that this could induce slightly higher output from wealthy households and lower inequality as measured in the Gini coefficient. The problem here rests on the monitoring of capital accumulation, particularly if the tax is levied on individuals or households beginning with a certain threshold. How to evaluate, for example, tangible property or the constantly changing value of stockholdings? Then there is the real problem of capital flight. Alvaredo et al. suggest that the importance of inheritance may be making a comeback so that the traditional method of estate taxes will have to be relied upon for the foreseeable future.The philosophy of people’s capitalism invades every corner of the economy. There are the obvious macroeconomic givens, such as stable monetary policy and effective financial regulation (which includes tight policing) with high rates of conviction and very stiff penalties for white collar criminals. A lesser known given is the control of CEO compensation through tighter corporate governance, not simply the application of agency theory. What is the impact of unvoted corporate stock being assigned abstention status rather than being automatically assigned to management discretion? Other questions on a whole range of topics need to be addressed for the feasibility of people’s capitalism. For example, what is the impact on youth employment with the elimination of the minimum wage for those below voting age? What is the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and economic mobility of legal migrants and workers, not simply on inflation and “full” employment? What is the impact of substituting a progressive state income tax, starting at a certain threshold of income, for the sales tax? Poorer people usually have a higher consumption out of disposable income for various reasons such as an expected shorter life span. What is the impact of a stepwise federal income tax starting at a given level of income with no exemptions, no standard deduction and no personal deductions except one—a limited amount of interest on college private bank loans? The definition of income here includes the value of all compensation such as the marketable value of stock options at grant, estimated if necessary, and all net capital gains where the rate on net realized long-term capital gains is determined by averaging over the applicable asset holding period. (Any employee benefits package can be claimed as a business expense). A progressive tax like this would certainly capture some of the economic rents of upper management and encourage long term capital investment. It should also be noted here that all forms of “charitable” contributions, according to economic utilitarianism, being ego based, are consumption goods or services. What is the impact on downward mobility by requiring from birth that minimal private health insurance, with a denture/teeth extraction rider, be inescapably mandatory—if necessary, with assignment statistically to an accredited private insurance company for those with uninsurable pre-existing conditions obtained at birth or obtained during the involuntary unemployment period and with subsidization of children (under 18) of those in jail or public mental hospitals? Mandatory minimal private disability insurance from birth would also be required and could not be collected upon until the age of 18.The big question is what to do with the current set-up of social security—by which is meant retirement and survivor’s income, disability, black lung benefits, and social security insurance. Economists have known for years that social security is a fiscal quagmire, filling up the swamp leading to slow but inevitable US government bankruptcy. With an aging population the whole program or any part of it is increasingly becoming impossible to change politically in any fundamental way. In this matter the philosophy of people’s capitalism is clear-cut and unequivocal. Sunset social security now. The reasons are obvious.The main issue is simple: how far must a diverse people be coerced into personal saving for their own retirement? Some people are risk averse, like many in the middle class and in civil service jobs, some less so, like many entrepreneurs. Some make informed decisions, some do not. Some want instant gratification, some are more patient. Some have self-discipline, some do not. Some take into account the expected consequences of their actions, some do not. Some are industrious, some lazy. Some are misers, some spendthrifts. And so on. The degree of coercion in some kind of democracy primarily depends on the nature and homogeneity of individual preferences. The German rationale of establishing the first government social security systems in the 1880s was initially based on the simple fact that many people do not or do not want to plan for their old age and will place themselves at the mercy of an obligated society. And then there are those who for supposedly bare survival cannot make the necessary financial sacrifices to save for retirement. The US solution is to impose a flat tax on wages (with a cap) shared equally by employer and employee and to run social security as a government program.So what is wrong with the US social security systems? Tax deferred individual social security accounts, determined by a flat tax on income (recall, all income), with no cap as opposed to the current collective system (1) avoids a political “football” (2) would increase the perceptions of personal, albeit forced, savings (3) would avoid a labor/leisure distortion (De Nardi et al.) (4) would avoid an intergenerational Ponzi scheme (5) would not be regressive (the current set-up has a maximum wage limit) (6) eliminates the temptations for politicians to raid the system, given a lock box (7) avoids the problem of changing demographics (8) would avoid transforming the federal government into an insurance company for which it is not designed (9) would not create the “common impression that…funds are earmarked…It is the federal government’s own form of accounting finagling which long preceded Enron” (Quirk: 51-52) (10) would avoid the question: “has one generation the right—let alone the power—to bind another?” (Quirk) and (11) does not violate the principles of Occam’s Razor. For example, De Nardi et al. illustrate some of the complexities of the formulae used by the Social Security Administration (SSA):The SSA takes as its starting population for its projections the Social Security Area as of January 1, 1989 and its breakdown by age, sex, and marital status. Second, the SSA projects future (a) fertility (taking into account historical trends, future use of birth control methods, female participation in the labor force, divorce, etc.) (b) mortality (taking into account future development and application of medical methods, environmental pollutants, exercise and nutrition trends, drug use, etc.) (c) net immigration (d) marriage and (e) divorce. The final step is to compute projections for future survival probabilities, fertility, immigration, marriage and divorce, after adjusting the above primitive objects for a number of reasons. For example, instead of using death rates, death probabilities are computed as the ratio of the number of deaths occurring to a group in a given year to the number of persons in this group at the beginning (as opposed to the middle) of the year. (612)Simply put, the lump sum amount in the individual social security account could be turned over to and paid out as an annuity (until death) by the individual’s chosen accredited insurance company. The payment would start at 65 with no exceptions to obviate any tax avoidance opportunities created by a progressive federal income tax. For those who die before 65 the lump sum amount would revert to the individuals’ beneficiaries. And how would the funds of the individual social security accounts be invested? If the funds were invested in federal government securities, they could be manipulated indirectly through deficit financing. The younger and middle-aged generational voters would have an incentive to increase the national debt to raise the nominal interest rate. More preferable is investment in a risk-free stock market portfolio (a beta of zero or close to zero in the capital asset pricing model). The real rate of return could be expected to oscillate between the historical one and three percent. Such a measure would discipline voters and politicians to control inflation risk. So, why has not the US social security been changed to a system such as this? The reasons are symptomatic of the flaws in the US political democracy devoid of a viable long-term strategic vision and will. (1) The financial deregulation that continued from the early 1980s with bipartisan government blessings and led to the crash of 2007 killed any hope of fundamental social security reform. Capitalism’s business cycle has generated and continues to generate fear that the population would be placed at the mercy of the stock market. This paralysis is unwarranted, given the suggested risk-free portfolio and effective and efficient financial regulation. (2) How are the accrued liabilities of the old system going to be paid off at the time of reform? Clearly, to avoid political disruption this would have to take place over a considerable amount of time—intolerable in a short-sighted reactive incremental political democracy. Simply put, how much, if anything, are current voting workers willing to spend on former voting workers? Future generations would receive the largest welfare gain at the expense of current and transitional workers. This outlines the difficulty of changing the social security set-up in any fundamental way.The social security system operating as it stands can be changed cosmetically through (1) increasing payroll taxes for the next 20 or so years. Future retirees would be hurt in the transition mainly because the rising taxes would crowd out savings and slow real wage growth from technical progress. (2) reducing social security benefits. This would hurt current or near-term retirees. (3) raising the eligibility age for benefits. This would reduce the value of social security for members of younger and middle-aged generations. The solution to patch the system? Kotlikoff et al. suggest the following: “A pre-funding of social security financed with consumption taxes more evenly spreads the welfare losses across generations, and it helps future generations, especially the poor, by stimulating capital formation” (247). Whatever solution is recommended, this only delays facing the fundamental misgivings in the current social security set-up.ConclusionNo doubt, a coordinated and integrated economic policy set in the US with the economic goal of developing people’s capitalism is unlikely to be adopted in the near future. It requires sustained political will and political discipline. As with virtually every facet of life, the spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak. Certainly linking just social security benefits directly to individual pay-ins probably cannot be relied on by itself to develop people’s capitalism to promote political democratic consensus. Without a feasible, overarching economic philosophy in light of growing income inequality and persistent economic immobility more incremental, indirect and probably non-transparent attempts at government redistribution in the US will take place, working at cross purposes within and between socio-economic classes. These attempts will continue to fuel the existing political degeneration of the hodge podge of pork barrel, coalition, interest group and, above all, class politics. Population growth and changing demographics, increasing economic interdependencies, globalization and the institutionally disruptive speed of technological change are evolving. And an ambivalent, myopic, reactive and sanctimonious foreign policy that trumpets human rights (contradicting economic utilitarianism) but that fails demonstrably to deliver only aggravates the situation, particularly in the expenditure on the military. More pressure is placed on the politically attractive option of deficit financing, constrained only weakly by younger generation voters.In the US, the general public, confronted with an information and disinformation overload, has become more selective to the facts and data it pays attention to. Groups with specialized knowledge proliferate, making it difficult to cater to all their demands and therefore to reach consensus democratically. More levels of public bureaucracies are needed to eliminate the multiplying conflicts of interest. This means an increasing likelihood of an emerging elite that knows how to abuse and manipulate information for its own unscrupulous ends. In addition, the complexity of government has required the specialized knowledge of technocrats, precluding popular participation directly in the affairs of government. Out of the political checks and balances we are moving toward the dictatorship of the bureaucracy—the system is dying by a thousand cuts.The US is, in fact, reaching or has reached the “universal state” of Arnold J. Toynbee. The signs are everywhere—the sheer expenditure on the military; the increasing preoccupation of domestic security in controlling emerging and disgruntled economic castes; taken as a whole, the long-run growing reliance on all levels of government and their bureaucracy to resolve socio- economic problems; and, needless to say, the contemporary external “terrorism” challenge on the information system. What would be one of the outcomes that Toynbee would have predicted? The birth of a new world religion, presumably redirecting our frustrations outwards and pointing the way to the stars—and to ourselves. Religion then evolves, but at this stage in history only in form not in common essential substance. Stripped of the rhetoric, preaching, rationalization, ritual, titles, theology, fanaticism, tradition, internal textual contradictions, behavioral anachronisms, proselytism, idolatry, factual errors, uniforms, business, entertainment and all forms of overt praise and worship, that common essential substance is the exhortation to non-ego based humanity first of all. This implies that fundamental theological concepts in current world religions are mistaken. Theology has to be rethought or much more preferably abandoned. If a new world religion were to begin in the Middle East-Mediterranean area, what to include and how to express it in a text would require “thinking outside the box”. Pragmatically, with the development of interpersonal skills, it would logically provide a common and constructive project, leading to more political, economic and social preoccupation with reconciliation. Any envisioned text, however, would only serve as a supplement to the study of the universe. The text could contain inter alia stories of the forms and consequences of non-ego based and ego based behavior and advice on ways to guide it.BibliographyAlbus, James S. 2007“Peoples’ Capitalism: A Plan for Prosperity and Economic Justice.” Global Business and Economics Anthology 26, 1: 85–110.Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez 2013“The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, 3: 3–20.Athreya, Kartik, and Jessica Sackett Romero2015“Land of Opportunity: Economic Mobility in the United States.” Economic Quarterly 101, 2: 169-191.Benhabib, Jess, Alberto Bisin, and Mi Luo 2015“Wealth Distribution and Social Mobility in the US: A Quantitative Approach.” Available online at. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmauel Saez 2014“Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, 4: 1553-1623. Conyon, Martin J., and Richard B. Freeman2001“Shared Modes of Compensation and Company Performance: UK Evidence.” Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research. De Nardi, Mariacristina, Selahattin Imrohoroglu, and Thomas J. Sargent1999“Projected U.S. Demographics and Social Security.” Review of Economic Dynamics 2: 575-615. Frank, Robert2014“The Stock Gap: American Stock Holdings at 18-Year Low.” Available online at , Jeff1998The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. NY, NY: Perseus Books. Harrison, Bennet, and Barry Bluestone1987“Dark Side of Labour Market "Flexibility": Falling Wages and Growing Income Inequality in America.” ILO Working Papers 257511, International Labor Organization. Available online at , Laurence J., Kent Smetters, and Jan Walliser2007“Mitigating America’s Demographic Dilemma by Pre-funding Social Security,” Journal of Monetary Economics 54: 247–266. Kopczuk, Wojciech2015“What Do We Know about the Evolution of Top Wealth Shares in the United States?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29, 1: 47–66. Kurland, Norman G. 1999“The Capital Homestead Act: National Infrastructural Reforms to Make Every Citizen a Shareholder.” Center for Economic and Social Justice. Available online at , Andrew2009“Permanent Income Inequality: Australia, Britain, Germany, and the United States Compared.” Discussion Paper No. DP628, Centre for Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University. Available online at, Victor1958“People’s Capitalism and Stock-Ownership.” American Economic Review 48, 3: 333-347.Quirk, William J. 2003“Social Security Tax and Social Security.” Society 40, 3: 49-56. Spence, Michael 1973“Job Market Signaling.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, 3: 355-374.Yunker, James A. 1982“The People’s Capitalism Thesis: A Skeptical Evaluation.” ACES Bulletin, (Association for Comparative Economic Studies) 24, 4: 147.Yunker, James2014“Capital Wealth Taxation: Theory and Application.” Review of Political Economy 26, 1: 85-110. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download