![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently in the politics forum I mess around in, someone proposed that both liberals and conservatives actually believe in the concept of "trickle-down economics." The only difference, he said, was that liberals would rather be trickled on by the government, and conservatives by corporations. Hence the desire by liberals to grow the government and tax corporations, and the desire by conservatives to shrink the government and lower corporate taxes. Is this true?
Well, its true that I've heard a lot of angry blanket statements about "the corporations" come from my lefty companions ... though that was when they were all about age 25 or below and hadn't really established their careers or been subject to the long, fine grinding process of corporate and/or freelance life.
(I think I can best explain that by saying that some strains of liberalism live mostly in young people, who feel excluded from the established system, and haven't learned enough about what limitations there are on the kinds of systems that can exist.)
With time, that generalized anger at corporations was fragmented into a lot of specific complaints at specific companies (e.g. Monsanto for suing farmers and enforcing a crop monoculture, Google for invading privacy, Walmart for obliterating smaller businesses in small towns, Philip Morris for obvious reasons), or at the widest scope, companies operating in certain sectors of the economy (e.g. coal companies, for lobbying incessantly to lower pollution standards.)
At the same time, corporations have been paying our salary. Even among those of us who are "our own boss", most of the time we take contracts from corporations. So it's not that we prefer some version of "trickle down" from the government, it's that we know nothing "trickles down" from corporations. Corporations only disburse funds in exchange for work, which we do. If you can't do the work they require, at the rate they demand, you can't get jack. In turn we see some of the money we earn taken by the government, to perform redistributions that corporations cannot (or shouldn't) be structured to perform. Like, you know, hire and train cops and firemen, run a court system, invade France...
Lately (and by that I mean in the last decade) most of my friends have become convinced that "pay for basic healthcare" is on that list too. I'm starting to see their point. My healthcare has always been provided by an employer. Every time I've gotten sick, it's been because some infection was passed to me by the people around me, almost all of whom are not able to "earn" healthcare as comprehensive as mine.
If I could create a consistent zone of healthy people around me by just going door to door and passing out cash, I probably would. But there are a dozen reasons why that tactic would totally fail. A government-led approach... That stands a chance. Employers are just not consistent enough of a channel for it.
Saying we tend to favor the entities that drop the most crumbs sounds like we'll favor the entity that hands out the most "free" stuff - as if our aspiration is to become as fully dependent as possible, whether liberal or conservative. But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, because what looks like a giveaway is actually debt. If it's government debt, it's owed to the rich. If it's corporate debt - well, again, it's owed to the rich. Unfortunately, neither group - liberal or conservative - has the moral high ground when it comes to reducing debt. (Conservatives are just as happy to spend money they don't have, and won't collect, on their own array of causes, even as they lobby to slash others.)
So that's my take on it. There is no such thing as "trickle down", and any conservative or liberal who endorses it in any sphere - corporate or government - is missing the point. What's real is debt, and unless some political party somewhere grows enough independence to face it directly, we will continue to have a permanent ruling class, vacuuming up our interest and using it to consolidate their holdings.
Well, its true that I've heard a lot of angry blanket statements about "the corporations" come from my lefty companions ... though that was when they were all about age 25 or below and hadn't really established their careers or been subject to the long, fine grinding process of corporate and/or freelance life.
(I think I can best explain that by saying that some strains of liberalism live mostly in young people, who feel excluded from the established system, and haven't learned enough about what limitations there are on the kinds of systems that can exist.)
With time, that generalized anger at corporations was fragmented into a lot of specific complaints at specific companies (e.g. Monsanto for suing farmers and enforcing a crop monoculture, Google for invading privacy, Walmart for obliterating smaller businesses in small towns, Philip Morris for obvious reasons), or at the widest scope, companies operating in certain sectors of the economy (e.g. coal companies, for lobbying incessantly to lower pollution standards.)
At the same time, corporations have been paying our salary. Even among those of us who are "our own boss", most of the time we take contracts from corporations. So it's not that we prefer some version of "trickle down" from the government, it's that we know nothing "trickles down" from corporations. Corporations only disburse funds in exchange for work, which we do. If you can't do the work they require, at the rate they demand, you can't get jack. In turn we see some of the money we earn taken by the government, to perform redistributions that corporations cannot (or shouldn't) be structured to perform. Like, you know, hire and train cops and firemen, run a court system, invade France...
Lately (and by that I mean in the last decade) most of my friends have become convinced that "pay for basic healthcare" is on that list too. I'm starting to see their point. My healthcare has always been provided by an employer. Every time I've gotten sick, it's been because some infection was passed to me by the people around me, almost all of whom are not able to "earn" healthcare as comprehensive as mine.
If I could create a consistent zone of healthy people around me by just going door to door and passing out cash, I probably would. But there are a dozen reasons why that tactic would totally fail. A government-led approach... That stands a chance. Employers are just not consistent enough of a channel for it.
Saying we tend to favor the entities that drop the most crumbs sounds like we'll favor the entity that hands out the most "free" stuff - as if our aspiration is to become as fully dependent as possible, whether liberal or conservative. But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, because what looks like a giveaway is actually debt. If it's government debt, it's owed to the rich. If it's corporate debt - well, again, it's owed to the rich. Unfortunately, neither group - liberal or conservative - has the moral high ground when it comes to reducing debt. (Conservatives are just as happy to spend money they don't have, and won't collect, on their own array of causes, even as they lobby to slash others.)
So that's my take on it. There is no such thing as "trickle down", and any conservative or liberal who endorses it in any sphere - corporate or government - is missing the point. What's real is debt, and unless some political party somewhere grows enough independence to face it directly, we will continue to have a permanent ruling class, vacuuming up our interest and using it to consolidate their holdings.
