|
Your original statement was:
"If I have all my wealth is spoken for..."
I was responding to that statement as if it were a metaphor supplanting the word "I" for the Untied States. If that was an incorrect assumption I apologize.
But this latest reply seems to indicate that I was correct in my original assumption, so I will respond as if I was.
Wealth is not codified as I understand it. It may be an established term in academia, especially in economics, but as I have tried to state, I don't accept that definition. Now I will agree that possession, transference and disposal (if I understand the term as you use it) has been codified into law as it is foundational to our economic system, whether I agree with such codification or not.
By your definition, huge portions of it are spoken for, as they must be in a capitalist system as we have defined it. In the larger sense, it matters not whether I agree with it, I am bound by such rules if I (freely) live in this society.
Where we differ is over the statements about what is "free to the masses." A significant portion of the nation's wealth is owned by the masses in the form of real estate and other capital assets. I think where the problem lies, and where you might be misstating an argument that I believe we essentially agree on, is not whether or not "the masses" can improve their lot through wealth acquisition (through savings and investment), but rather their ability to be fairly and equitably represented in the system because of their relative lack of political and social power. In other words, the reason control of wealth tends to concentrate in the elite's hands is because they write the rules.
But...it is within the power of the lower classes to change this disequilibrium in a democracy if they vote according to their own class interests as opposed to accept being manipulated into voting against their own class interests. I would even take this one step farther. I think the greatest good to the greatest number (which should be the starting point of any conversation regarding benevolent political structures) occurs when people think of the big picture rather than their own narrow interests.
For example, my wife and I have no children. Very early on in our tax paying lives I considered it an unnecessary burden to pay half of my state tax money to support other people's children's education. My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have children, why should I subsidize someone else's. I sounded like a standard RW talking point.
After a little thought, it didn't take me long to realize that I receive great benefit from public education, in the form of societal (intellectual capital) wealth creation. That young girl that I helped put through school may find a cure for cancer or become a great writer or teacher. The point is, we need to integrate our own narrow interests (survival instincts) with the broader realization that we are never alone is this enterprise. This is what I believe (hope) is slowly dawning on many across the planet as I write.
We are finally coming to grips with the integration of ourselves with the universe. In a way this is the second great consciousness raising of humankind. The first being the realization of self consciousness. (I think therefore I am.) That is why this is so gut wrenching and difficult. We will literally become a new species or we will perish as the "old ways" destroy us from within.
How does this apply to our little discussion. The whole nature of capital, ownership, wealth, and what it means to be part of this complex ecosystem is undergoing a fundamental transformational state. Einstein blew everything apart with E=MC2. In the end, Newton alone just couldn't describe the amazing changing miracle that is this universe.
The masses will eventually have to wake from their NYT/CNN/Faux News mind control slumber or they will continue to be utilized as little more than chattel by the elites. It is incumbent upon all of us to be responsible for not only our own well being, but also that of the society as a whole. We now know the universe is tightly integrated, not composed of separate parts. The sooner we all realize this fundamental fact, the better we all will be. But it will not come easy.
Thanks again
|