The Financialization of the American Elite

Most of the industrialized world had been decimated. Continental Europe had been marched all over with bridges and factories destroyed. The UK was crippled and barely hanging on. Japan had destroyed huge swathes of China and the US nuked Japan.

On the Allies side, morale was high and the US was lending to the world to rebuild. Even better - economically - initially those countries had little production capability so they were consuming more than they were producing.

The US was guaranteed to win economically because we were the only one in the race.

By the 70s, much of the world was back on its feet and quickly improving even becoming competitive in numerous areas.

> "At bottom, when many of our country’s wealthy citizens say “democracy,” what they really mean is “our class’s way of life.” If they respected democracy as fervently as they worship the “invisible hand,” they would see that the popular discontent simmering across the world today is the direct result of decades of elite hypocrisy and greed, hidden behind a façade of neoliberal economics.

> "The “center” is not where the best policy is made, or where public opinion converges; it is a place where political activity is fully dominated by financial elites and thoroughly subordinated to the mar­ket."

> "These are the same people who have left us with an upside-down economy and a weakened social fabric. Income inequality, financialization, and a socially inefficient distribution of both capital and tal­ent are the legacies of shareholder capitalism. Although these elites now mourn the erosion of the political “center,” they actively par­ticipated in the erosion of the American middle class. To add insult to injury, they insist on telling us elaborate stories about their entrepreneurial spirit and good intentions, and invite us to celebrate their virtue when they give back a tiny share of their captured wealth."

In particular, the argument is that the critiques offered in conferences like this are insincere and aimed at preserving the insiders' status rather than actually changing any of the things they're talking about: "His career tells us how he would advise those beginning their careers to navigate these challenges: Loudly criticize political dysfunction, but make no effort to explore its structural causes or remedies...[his] prominence conveys that incongruence between words and actions is tolerable, even desired." And further, that it would be "foolish to listen" to said finance people's self-serving political solutions.

A closer equivalent in the tech community would be more like "this guy has spent decades running shady adtech and addictive gaming companies, and continues to traffick personal information and addict kids to pay-to-play games, but is now also running an organization dedicated to digital privacy and is building a reputation as an expert in parenting in the digital age and voluntary gaming regulation".

Those two scenarios lead to two different levels of fear. I might care more about my workers to avoid getting shot. But if I'm too greedy and the only consequence is that I might get taxed, well, why not? I might even be more greedy to try to make up for the amount I'm going to lose in taxes.

At least in America, many of the wealthy are able to make money due to inherited resources that they did not earn. For example, their ancestors claimed a tract of land or access to a natural resource. Therefore, Capitalism could be brought more in line with the meritocracy that it claims to be if we taxed on the unimproved value of these resources and potentially on profit gained by rent seeking

Capitalism claims the revolve around people freely exchanging their labor for pay. However, since most people do not have access to the resources or capital to support themselves (often due to the resources already having been claimed by someone else's ancestors) they aren't really entering into the exchange freely. Therefore, Capitalism could be brought more in line with its stated libertarian principles by using the proceeds of the previously mentioned taxes to provide people without those resources with the ability to support themselves independently. This could potentially take the form of capital grants, education, farm land. If it weren't possible to actually give people a reasonable opportunity to support themselves, then a guaranteed minimum income could also address the issue (although I don't think its as good of a solution).