Inequality and Our Capitalist System
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/opinion/letters/inequality-capitalism.html Version 0 of 1. To the Editor: Re “Uncomfortable Questions” (“The America We Need” series, Sunday Review, July 5), by Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation: Mr. Walker has written an excellent article on the need for real changes to our capitalistic system if our democracy is to survive. Our present system, put in place one little brick at a time, ultimately generated a structure that grossly favors the rich over the poor. Mr. Walker points out that the changes necessary to address this inequality will require superrich support even though it will affect their wealth. However accurate Mr. Walker’s analysis may be, I just wonder how many of his superrich brethren will support changes that would affect their wealth. I don’t know any superrich people (unlike him, I don’t attend $100,000 per table galas), but I have known some rich people. And I’ve always been impressed by their deep concern with maintaining, growing and protecting their wealth. The idea that one can ever have enough, that sharing wealth might have societal worth, is anathema to most of them. I suspect that most of the superrich would fall in the same category. Dennis TaylorSan Miguel de Allende, Mexico To the Editor: Darren Walker is a brilliant analyst of our world and our nation. But his statement “I believe that capitalism is the best means of organizing an economy” leaves me fuming. Tell me why! It’s my opinion that the inequality that Mr. Walker cites in his essay is a logical, even necessary outcome of the capitalist system itself, and it can’t be “reformed” out. America’s capitalism at its base flows from nothing but good luck compounded by avarice, then ossified by inheritance. And in 1944 Eric Williams, in his book “Capitalism and Slavery,” showed that modern capitalism is a direct descendant of industrial slavery. It has sustained itself ever since as a lucky few exploiting the less lucky. I would love to be wrong about this, but empirically speaking, a couple of centuries of examples have shown no variation in outcomes. Neil HartbargerSilver Spring, Md. To the Editor: Darren Walker provided a comprehensive review of the relationships between corporations and the rest of us. I would add one additional concern. In 2006 I owned a small amount of stock in a large financial institution. During the financial crisis of 2007-8, this investment lost 90 percent of its value. When I read the annual report, I found a brief recount of market circumstances, followed by dozens of pages that explained executive compensation. Had I been an observer from another planet, I would have concluded that the sole purpose of the company was to compensate executives. In that crisis, the employees, communities, customers and even shareholders suffered. The executives who precipitated the crisis suffered much less. I suspect that the compensation of executives has been a driver in the conscienceless capitalism described by Mr. Walker. Mark KozakHershey, Pa. To the Editor: I agree with most of what Darren Walker wrote, but take issue with two things. “No chief executive, investor or rich person wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says, ‘Today, I want to go out and create more inequality in America.’” No, but I’ll bet most executives and investors wake up thinking, “How can I create more value for the shareholders?” and “How can I crush the competition?” All too often, these ends are achieved on the backs of the lowest-rung workers. And Mr. Walker writes, “I believe that capitalism is the best means of organizing an economy.” An economy — OK. But what about the people in a society? Somewhere around March 30, we saw how well capitalism works when an unseen force levels us: It leaves millions vulnerable, without health care, without jobs, and an economy with shuttering businesses. In about two weeks, capitalism failed and could not save us. Nor could or did the billionaires. Can we have more nuance in our capitalistic system, even just a little bit? Would a good dose of socialism in our economy kill us — or perhaps save some lives? Mare SwallowChicago To the Editor: Darren Walker describes privilege in terms of tax code benefits for the very wealthy and laws written to strengthen corporate control at the expense of our democracy. But the ongoing conversation about “privilege” is usually framed not in corporate terms, but more about what we get as white individuals in America that our Black brothers and sisters don’t get. This includes greater chances of not being beaten up or killed by the police, shorter prison sentences or not being arrested at all, and a better chance of finding good jobs and places to live. These are basic human rights we should all have. On average, the U.S. worker, white or Black, works more hours, has a lower life expectancy, pays more for health care, spends more time in prison and has fewer opportunities to join a union than citizens in comparable countries. I am willing to give up lots of the privileges that untethered capitalism affords us: the privilege of seeing our democracy dominated by powerful corporations and the 1 percent, the privilege of watching our public education system deteriorate, the privilege of paying more for health care, with poorer health outcomes than comparable countries, and the privilege of incarcerating more of our fellow citizens than other countries. As long as white people think of themselves as “privileged,” the easier it will be for us to be duped into clinging to some racist idea of superiority that does not serve us. Deborah BayerRichmond, Calif. To the Editor: In “Political Capital” (column, July 5), Paul Krugman says that campaign contributions are only “part of the story” of why the rich have so much power. But part of the story of campaign contributions is the amount of time that candidates spend talking to rich people. Raising money is a time-intensive process. Unless you’re Bernie Sanders, people don’t spontaneously give you money in response to emails; you have to call them up, individually, and ask for it. If you’re in Congress, and you need to raise millions of dollars, you can’t do it by calling people who can only afford to give $100; you have to call rich people. But nobody can give more than $2,800. So you have to call lots of rich people. And when you spend thousands of hours on the phone with rich people, their concerns are the concerns you hear about. Over time, that has an impact on your own views of what’s important. A system of public financing, in which small contributions are matched at a high rate, would get politicians out of that rich-people bubble. Steve NovickPortland, Ore.The writer was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2008. To the Editor: Re “The Silver Spoon Tax,” by Lily Batchelder (Sunday Review, July 5): In 2017, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers paid a bigger share of individual income taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined, according to the Tax Foundation. The top 1 percent also paid a 26.8 percent average income tax, over six times the rate paid by taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent. These percentages are repeated year after year, and these are the people your author is proposing to tax yet more at their deaths. Anne M. McKinneyKnoxville, Tenn.The writer is a tax and estates lawyer. |