Private Vs. Government

I guess if we were to take the "extremes" of American economic thought, and then state things simply, one side's argument would be that only the private sector can run things efficiently, while the other side would say that only government (at either the local, state or national level) can give some semblance of fairness to the distribution of goods and services. So we have two words representing two ideas, "efficiency" and "fairness." Like Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, or Ike and Tina Turner, these two words just can't seem to get along.

Since the days after World War Two, the one side, often referred to as "economic conservatives," made "gradual" headway in the argument to reverse the economic policies put in place during the Great Depression. However, the 1960s brought a fresh batch of economic activism by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." As part of Johnson's program, the President declared a "war on poverty." As many economic conservatives later liked to quip, "Poverty won!" Johnson's general philosophy didn't end when he left office in January 1969, but rather it was continued by Republican Richard Nixon, as the President established the "Section 8 Housing Program" and the "Environmental Protection Agency," better known to most by the initials "EPA."

Then began a long march to "deregulate" the American economy, begun interestingly, by President Jimmy Carter, who deregulated the airline industry. Then came Ronald Reagan, and thus BEGAN an era characterized by: deregulation, no regulation, free markets always know best, free trade policies that left many American workers and small businesses at a disadvantage, huge trade deficits, the government is the enemy, tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, "Let's not tax those "poor" rich folks, or they won't know where their next million (or billion) will come from, huge budget deficits, a merger mania that concentrated more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer businesses, and thus creating entities that we now call "too big to fail." Reagan's successors each seemingly tried to "outdo Reagan," with even Bill Clinton, the only Democratic president during the era, joining the Republican-led Congress in the dismantling of laws put in place to prevent banking nonsense and by allowing huge corporate mergers to go through. All the while, income disparity grew to levels not seen since the 1920s; that is, for those unaware, just prior to the Great Depression. Many middle class Americans either ran in place or lost ground during this reactionary period.*** This whole era came to a stunning end with an economic plunge the like of which we haven't seen since The Great Depression, and the end is not in sight yet.

Some of the perpetrators of this carnage then turned to...ahh...the enemy; that is, the U.S. Government, to save their behinds AND their bonuses! Of course, now taking taxpayer money from "the enemy" posed no problem for these greedy nincompoops, until that "mean old Uncle Sam" actually wanted to lay down some rules and regulations, especially regarding pay and bonuses for these supporters of "the free market ALWAYS knows best." By the standards espoused by their philosophy, they would have long ago joined the ranks of the unemployed for having run their companies into the ground (I'm sure that philosophy only applies to "the peasantry," however). Then too, these folks would hardly have had to apply for food stamps to keep from starving, as most are worth many millions, some even hundreds of millions, of dollars. This is the mentality, or lack thereof, that we are up against.

To be continued....

*** Remember, purchasing power, not actual dollar amounts are what counts.