Category: Economics

 

As a young man, I was not a car person. I was not interested in getting my license and not interested in owning a car. I relied on walking, running, and biking to get around. When I started work at Florida A&M University in 1993, I tried biking to work. My bike was destroyed by an SUV running a red light, and I barely escaped serious injury. I decided that I needed more speed, so I got a small Yamaha. After several near-death experiences, I decided I needed steel all around me and got a Toyota Tacoma in 2001. I was still not interested in vehicles and just took it in for service as needed. It had a few problems over the years, but the shop I went to generally did a good job and the prices were not too excessive. A couple years ago, it developed a mysterious hum that proved expensive and this got me interested in cars. Or rather, my truck. Being a philosopher, I naturally think of my experiences with the repairs in the context of a theory, in this case capitalism.

Practical folks are usually not interested in economic theories. They mostly operate within systems that theorists mirror in theories to criticize or justify the behavior of these practical folk. Consider, for example, capitalism. The theoretical ideal is that equals meet within the free market to engage in a fair struggle for success. In the case of businesses (broadly construed) the ideal is that they engage in battle until the businesses with the best products and best prices stand atop the corpses of their competition (with the invisible hand making this all happen as it should). In the case of the consumer, the ideal is that they engage as equals in the free market with these businesses, thus ensuring that they will get the best products at the best prices for themselves. The workers, within the magical world of the theory, also engage as equals with the businesses and work out a fair wage, fair working conditions and fair benefits. Outside of the theory, none of this holds true. So, let us look at cars and capitalism.

As I mentioned, my truck developed a mysterious hum. At the time, I knew very little about fixing vehicles, but I did know how to google the symptoms. Based on the sound and apparent location, it seemed most likely to be a bad fuel pump. While my truck does not have many miles, at the time it was 20 years old so I figured the pump could be dying of old age. The shop initially said it was my transmission, then went to the fuel pump. It was replaced and the hum went away briefly only to return. It went back to the shop and now they were sure it was the transmission. That was replaced with a remanufactured transmission. The hum remained, though they insisted that it passed all the tests. This inspired me to finally learn about cars.

I bought several books and read them, watched numerous credible YouTube videos on repairs and maintenance and learned all the parts of my truck. During this, I found that two hoses in the truck were damaged one had a visible hole, while the other was obviously cracked. Mind you, my truck had gone through three “multipoint” inspections and the paperwork claimed that the hoses and all been properly inspected and were in good shape. So, I replaced those hoses and did more checking, finding various other issues. For example, the battery had not been properly secured and had been sliding around. Fortunately, no damage was done, and I secured it properly. This nicely illustrates how idealized theoretical capitalism does not match the reality.

In the theory of capitalism, the goal is to maximize profits. This just mirrors the “desire for undue gain” that Plato talks about in his Republic and Hobbes’ reflection on gain in his Leviathan. Capitalism, in essence, enshrines greed as good. Practical folks do not care about this theory, but they do want to maximize their profit and hence repair shops have a clear and well-known incentive to do the least work for the most money. They are also incentivized to convince customers that expensive repairs are needed even when they are not. For example, carefully checking the hoses in my truck would take time and not yield much profit. And failed hoses could mean lucrative repair jobs later. As another example, the shop went right to claiming that the fuel pump and then the transmission were the issue, rather than considering less lucrative explanations. To be fair, issues can be hard to diagnose, but the profit motive pushes businesses to go with the expensive diagnosis rather than testing fixes that would be much cheaper.

It can be argued that this was all on me; the shop and I met as equal individuals in a free market, and they got the better of me. However, most of us do not meet repair shops as equals for two obvious reasons. First, most of us lack adequate knowledge to properly diagnose our vehicles and determine the necessity of repairs. As I mentioned, I had never had any interest in cars and only owned one to decrease my chances of being killed on the road. But this ignorance cost me. Ignorance would obviously not be a systematic problem if businesses were honest; while they might make honest errors, you would never need to worry about being deceived. That said, ignorance could still be a problem if you pick an incompetent business out of ignorance. As such, if you want to enter the free market and be able to compete, you will need to learn many things. While you cannot become an expert at everything, you can develop enough knowledge to make a better assessment of when you are being misled.

It could be objected that it is just obvious that people generally do not meet as equals in such situations; you go to a repair shop because you lack the knowledge (or equipment) to do the work yourself. In reply, I agree that this is why people go to shops; but it simply confirms that people generally not meet as equals in a free market: one person or group will usually be at a significant disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

It could also be objected that shops which exploit customers will end up harming themselves. As Benjamin Frankin was reportedly fond of saying, honesty is the best policy. As one of my professors pointed out long ago, this is a utilitarian approach to honesty: it is not that honesty is right, it is that it is the best policy from a practical standpoint. While shops do sometimes suffer from being exposed, dishonest behavior persists. This is because if a shop comes out ahead, then being dishonest is the best policy when one assumes that the goal is maximizing profit. As such, it is wise to be on guard—everyone has a clear incentive to maximize their profit at your expense. While some people think that this is just another bad apple problem in capitalism, this is capitalism: the goal is maximizing profits and there is more profit in exploiting ignorance than in scrupulous honesty. If you think otherwise, you presumably just agree immediately with whatever the folks at the shop tell you and pay up with a smile, believing they gave you God’s truth. But I assume you are sensible enough to be a cautious consumer, you know that their goal is to take as much of your money as they can and your goal is to get as much as you can for as little as possible.

Second, when you need a repair you most likely need them far more than they need you. As such, you are operating at a disadvantage. Often you need your vehicle to get to work, to make the money you will need to pay for the vehicle. While you can leave to find another shop, they most likely have a waiting list of customers. You probably need the repair done ASAP, while you are just another job in the queue for them. If your car is having serious issues, then taking it elsewhere might require a tow or put you at risk. As such, you will usually be operating at a disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

This could be defended by pointing out that capitalism excels at creating and meeting needs (and wants). It is working as intended that there is a shop available to repair your vehicle that you probably need to get to work. What more could you want? Reliable and convenient public transportation? An economic system in which you are not dependent on a for-profit repair system?

If you are a good capitalist, you will be aware of this disadvantage and try to mitigate it. Conveniently, solving your ignorance problem can also help with solving your need problem: the more capable you are at diagnosing your vehicle and repairing it yourself, the less you will need to enter the marketplace to compete as an “equal.”

When the left proposes to provide new and expanded benefits to non-rich Americans, the right replies with two stock arguments. The first is the deficit argument, which I addressed in my previous essay. The second is the Dependency argument.

The gist of the Dependency argument is that if people get assistance or benefits of a certain sort from the state, such as unemployment benefits or childcare, then they risk becoming dependent upon the state. Since this dependence is claimed to have negative consequences, such assistance and benefits should be limited or not provided. This can be seen as a utilitarian argument.

There are numerous variations of this argument which tend to focus on specific alleged harm. For example, it might be contended that if unemployment benefits are too generous then people will not want to work. As a specific illustration, in  April, 2020 Senator Lindsey Graham argued that public financial relief for the coronavirus would incentivize workers to leave their jobs. Other alleged harms include damage to the moral character of the recipients of such benefits and, on a larger scale, the creation of  a culture of dependency and a culture of entitlement. While this argument is passionately advanced by many on the right, there are two main issues that need to be addressed. The first is whether the argument is being made in good faith. The second is whether the argument is a good one from a logical standpoint.

Bad faith argumentation can occur in a variety of ways. One way is for a person to knowingly use fallacies or rhetoric as substitutes for good reasoning. Interestingly, a person can use fallacies and rhetoric in good faith when they do so unintentionally. In such cases, they are using bad logic in good faith. Another way is for a person to use premises they believe are untrue. Naturally, a person can make untrue claims in good faith; they do not realize their claims are untrue. Another way a person can argue in bad faith is to advance arguments that they do not believe in. This usually involves making arguments based on principles or reasons that they do not actually accept, while they pretend that they do.

Because of the problem of other minds, sorting out when people are engaged in bad faith argumentation can be challenging. After all, even if you can show that a person has used a fallacy or made a false claim, this does not itself prove they were arguing in bad faith: bad faith involves intent. Fortunately, there are ways to make a decent case that someone is engaged in bad faith and one of these is to provide evidence of inconsistency. This is, unfortunately, not always decisive: people can be sincerely inconsistent because they do not understand the implications of their claims and for other reasons that do not involve an intent at deceit. But in the case of the right, their dependency argument seems to generally be a bad faith argument.

If we take the Dependency arguments seriously, then they would also tell against inheritance, something beloved by the right since it helps entrench wealth and enhance inequality. In fact, philosophers have long made this argument.

Mary Wollstonecraft contends that hereditary wealth is morally wrong because it produces idleness and impedes people from developing their virtues. Inheritance is unearned. So, if receiving unearned resources creates dependency, then inheritance would create dependency. It could be countered that people can earn an inheritance, that it might be granted because of their hard work or some other relevant factor. While such cases would be worth considering, earning it hard work is not the usual way one qualifies for an inheritance. However, an earned inheritance would certainly not be subject to this argument. This exactly mirrors the conservative Dependency arguments, and they should, if they are consistent, agree with Wollstonecraft. But they clearly do not.

As one would expect, conservatives on the right generally favor protecting inheritance and oppose estate taxes. During the first Trump administration, the exemption to the estate tax increased to $5.49 million and in 2017 it increased again to $11.18 million. The Big Beautiful Bill also aimed at reducing taxes on the estates of the extremely wealthy.  This is inconsistent with their Dependency argument. If they truly fear that people getting small benefits from the state will create dependency and destroy incentives, then they should be terrified by such massive inheritances: these would, as Wollstonecraft argued, seem to be vastly more harmful. If one does not like the inheritance argument, then there is also the welfare for the wealthy argument.

While there are some exceptions, the right typically favors subsidies and benefits for corporations, businesses, and the wealthy. As such, it is hardly surprising that the bulk of social welfare spending benefits them rather than the poor. With almost no exceptions, one does not hear the people railing about the alleged dependency of the poor argue against these benefits and assistance. They are only concerned when the beneficiaries are the poor rather than the rich.

One can, of course, argue that there are relevant differences between benefits and assistance for the rich and those for those who are not rich. Often, these arguments also tend to be made in bad faith. A common tactic is to use the Perfect Analogy fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one takes the standards for assessing an argument by analogy to the extreme and imposes unreasonable requirements for similarity. This is the opposite of the Poor or False Analogy fallacy; this occurs when the standards are applied too laxly by the person making the argument.

 As a tactic, when using the Perfect Analogy Fallacy, one simply refuses to accept that the two things are similar, no matter what evidence or reasons are presented. As always, it can be challenging to prove that someone is doing this in bad faith, but one can sometimes push the person into trying to defend something that they clearly do not believe, and their bad faith becomes evident. That said, one must always be careful not to assume that a person who rejects an analogy must be arguing in bad faith or that they must be wrong—to refuse to consider their arguments would be an act of bad faith.

In closing, those who oppose the state helping the non-rich and use the Dependency argument generally seem to be arguing in bad faith. Naturally, if they have also argued against inheritance and benefits for the wealthy using the Dependency argument, then they can be  arguing in good faith. As far as whether benefits create dependency or destroy incentives to work, that is another matter. But the answer seems to be “no”, as long as one looks at the statistical data rather than simply speaking from ideology or “common sense.”

, and they have cast the woke elite as the generals of this opposing force. “Wokeness”, like “cancel culture” and “critical race theory”, is ill-defined and used as a vague catch-all for things the right does not like. In large part, the war on wokeness has been manufactured by the right’s elite. In part, the war arises from grievances of the base. There are even some non-imaginary conflicts in this war —at least on the part of the Americans that can be seen as blue-collar workers. I will be focusing on this and will try to define the groups and harms as clearly and honestly as possible.

Put roughly, the United States has two broad categories of blue-collar workers. There are the traditional blue-collar workers, such as those in manufacturing, employees of plumbing businesses, truck drivers and so on. There are also the blue-collar elites; they own small businesses, are successful self-employed electricians, work as middle managers at blue-collar industries and so on. As with any class, there are degrees of each. For example, a successful self-employed plumber could be considered a blue-collar elite, but would be lower on the economic class structure than someone who owns and operates a profitable plumbing company they built up from their original one-person business. Someone who simply bought a plumbing company with their inheritance would most likely be a white-collar elite.

The woke, broadly speaking, could be seen as folks on the left who embrace liberal values. While this aspect of the definition is contentious, the woke can be seen as focusing mostly on social issues relating to such factors as race and sexuality and being less (or not at all) concerned about general economic issues.

The woke can be seen as breaking away from concerns about the lower economic classes in general and focusing on specific oppressed groups. The woke elite are what David Brooks calls the Bobos; this is the ruling class of the left that has largely abandoned the working class left of the past. There are, of course, degrees in these classes. A poor college student working at McDonalds for tuition money who blogs and tweets in support of transgender rights could be seen as woke, but not elite. Stephen Colbert can be seen as an example of a top tier woke elite. As noted above, there is the problem of what counts as being in the woke class and the right’s “definition” is so vague it is useless in a rigorous discussion. To be fair, they do not intend this usage: “woke” is a political term and is kept intentionally vague. The right calls those concerned with broad economic issues “socialists”, “communists” and “Marxists.” But they also apply these labels to mainstream corporate Democrats, such as former VP Harris.

As would be expected, these terms are usually not used rigorously, correctly, or consistently. A person could be condemned as being “woke” for allegedly ignoring the plight of workers while simultaneously being blasted for being a “socialist” who supports unions, better benefits, and higher wages. But back to the woke elite and blue-collar folks.

As noted above, the elite of the right blast the woke elite for abandoning the blue collars in favor of a woke ideology. The blue-collar workers believe, correctly, that their situation has gotten worse, especially relative to their parents and grandparents. The blue-collar elites, though well off economically, see themselves as victims: they are excluded, mocked, or simply ignored by the woke elite. They are not wrong about this. I will begin with the workers.

Trump and his fellows have appealed to the perception of white, blue-collar workers that the woke elites have abandoned them in favor of woke ideology. There are also those who accept racist explanations for their woes. For example, there is the idea that minorities are stealing jobs from white workers (with the aid of the woke elites). These workers are not wrong that they are being hurt, but their explanations tend to be mistaken. So, let us look at the woke elite and race.

The woke elite and right elite are both fighting to stay at the top of the hierarchy, but they do differ in some of their methods.  But there are similarities. The woke elite, by definition, profess to be anti-racist (or at least not racist). But they generally benefit from racism in two ways. First, the white woke elite benefited from past racism and benefit from current racism in the usual ways, though they profess to condemn these things. Second, racism gives them a battleground with their opposing elite on the right. The elite of the right have, for the most part, use racism as a tool to maintain the social hierarchy that benefits them. For example, they use racism to divide the working class against each other. The woke left elite can be sincere in this fight, but they also benefit from keeping the fight focused on such matters as race to distract from concerns about class, since they are part of the upper classes.

Both the work elite and right elite are careful to avoid engaging each other issues of economic class; this is because they largely agree on the economic class structure (them on the top, everyone else beneath them) and do not want to disrupt that. A key difference, as noted above, is race. For the right, race is both a tool to maintain the existing hierarchy and a key part of the hierarchy. While the woke elite benefit from racism, they are like elites prior to the construction of race: their hierarchy is not built on race, and racism is not one of their tools. While professing a kinder, gentler view of economics, they do all they can to lock themselves in their position and thus lock out others. One example is education: the woke elites jealously protect their control over who has access to elite universities. The infamous college admission scandal laid bare how the elites attempt to control this access.

A second example is the concentration of the woke elite in a few cities. This has hyper concentrated wealth with a range of negative effects. This includes harm to the cities that would seem to benefit from this, such as a skyrocketing cost of living. A third example, which is what the right (ironically) focuses on is that the woke elite have transformed the Democrats from a party with some meaningful commitment to workers into a party that has abandoned them in many ways. It has also had a similar impact on the American left in general. There are, of course, some who have remained strongly committed to workers, such as Bernie Sanders. But the blue-collar workers are right to recognize the woke elite as their enemies, but not for the reasons the right gives. It is not the anti-racism of the woke that hurts workers, but their commitment to maintaining the economic social order. The woke elite are committed to maintaining the existing social order, they just do not use racism as a tool in doing so because they have other tools that work very well. And, if they embraced racism, they would just be elites of the right.

The right is correct to call out the woke elites for abandoning the workers, but they only offer lies, racism, sexism, and no real help. They have no desire to meaningfully improve conditions for the workers, the “woke” Bezos and anti-woke Ted Cruz are both vehemently anti-worker. The difference is that Cruz sees racism as a critical tool and Bezos (probably) does not since he has other tools that keep him on top. As such, blue collar workers need a third party, one that will fight for them and not for the woke elite or the right elite.

While the rich have long enjoyed luxury cars, mansions and yachts, their newest luxury vehicle is the spaceship. Musk has the most useful rockets as his SpaceX vessels can put satellites into orbit and reach the International Space Station. While they do make some innovations, they are more of an evolution of existing rockets rather than a revolution in space travel.

Virgin Galactic has a spaceplane, which can be likened to a passenger version of the old X-15. While spaceplanes have potential, Virgin Galactic seems mostly focused on space tourism. Bezos has a conventional rocket that shot him and later, Katy Perry, into space. Because of its limited reach, it seems suitable mostly for space tourism.  As would be expected, critics see these billionaire space vessels as wasteful excesses: resources are being expended for ego trips to space that would be better used to address serious problems here on earth.

Bezos has acknowledged the validity of this criticism, saying “Well, I say they’re largely right. We have to do both. You know, we have lots of problems here and now on Earth and we need to work on those, and we always need to look to the future. We’ve always done that as a species, as a civilization. We have to do both.” He claimed that his mission is aimed at “building a road to space for the next generations to do amazing things there, and those amazing things will solve problems here on Earth.” Is Bezos right?

He is right that the critics are largely right: while Musk can claim his SpaceX ships put cargo into space, Branson and Bezos have been joyriding (just barely) into space. Vast resources were expended to for these joyrides, and, in the case of Bezos, it can be argued that his flight was enabled by his brutal exploitation of his workforce. As is well known, Amazon workers have been pushed so hard that they need to pee in bottles to meet the requirements of their job. Amazon’s leadership has also been busy crushing unions, thus enabling Bezos to expand his wealth to the point that he has his own rocket ship. This creates a powerful symbol for use in arguing about taxing the rich and increasing the minimum wage. In the glare of rocket engines, it seems absurd to argue the rich would be hurt by having to pay more taxes or that business like Amazon would be meaningfully harmed if they had to provide workers with better pay and benefits. After all, if a company is so well off that its owner has his own rocket ship, it is absurd to argue against treating employees better on the grounds that the company cannot afford to do so. Bezos could have forgone some of that rocket ship money and eased up on his employees so that they would not have needed to pee in bottles. Given his bountiful wealth, he could easily have done both. But he decided not to. He also could have used all those resources to address problems here on earth while still maintaining a lavish lifestyle including multiple yachts.  His counter is, as mentioned above, that he is building a road to space.

For sci-fi fans, it is obvious that Bezos is probably thinking of Heinlein’s novella The Man Who Sold the Moon. This novella recounts the machinations of Harriman, “the last of the robber barons”, to get to the moon. In the story, Harriman manipulates and schemes to get backing for his plan and uses the money to acquire talented people to solve the technical problems. The story includes a successful flight the moon and ends with the plans to establish a colony on the moon. But Harriman is never allowed to go to the moon: he is seen as too important to risk. Heinlein does present a plausible tale, and it is still well worth reading today. But, of course, the actual world turned out differently.

Like most other huge endeavors, the moon was reached as part of a collective effort by a state when the United States put the first person on the moon. This public development of technology laid the foundation of billionaire space flight, just as their businesses were built on public foundations.  For a while, it seemed like a version of Heinlein’s vision might come to pass. But a moon colony was never established and humanity’s expansion into space has been slow and limited for many reasons.

We do have the technology to create a moon base and plans have long existed to do just that. As such, Bezos and his fellows are not really in the business of overcoming technological hurdles for a moon base or space expansion. As noted above, Musk and Bezos have rockets and Branson has a spaceplane. They have offered some evolution of technology that, in Musk’s case, has been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.

Also, while they are extremely wealthy, they do not have the resources to establish a significant moon base, let alone a Mars colony. But one could argue that they can shape public policy towards space. To use an obvious analogy, the United States government has heavily subsidized railroads, fossil fuels and interstate highways. This has usually been done at the behest of the wealthy. This public investment has provided infrastructure and, of course, vast fortunes for some. As such, the space billionaires might be planning something similar with space: a vast public investment gets them into a position where they can make private profit. Musk is already doing the best here; he has been getting contracts from the state to provide space vessels and services.  Bezos and Branson are behind here, but they seem to be aiming at space tourism. They, it seems, are adopting the model of selling their services to the wealthy.

In terms of billionaires building the road to space, the highway system and railroads provide good analogies: they were built by public funds and now the billionaires are cashing in. It is debatable whether paying billions to billionaires for space is superior to using those billions to fund public space operations. While there is the myth that the private sector is magically better than the public sector, there is the obvious question of how billionaires will make a profit while somehow also being cheaper and better than what could be done by NASA. The answer, as is usually the case, will probably be to simply lie.  

In terms of the road to space leading to amazing things that will solve problems here on earth, a case can be made for this. One example is asteroid mining. Asteroids contain resources and space mining would seem to avoid the usual environmental harms of mining on earth. However, there is the obvious concern about how those resources will be used and who they will benefit. If this just leads to space trillionaires while most people remain poor, then this will only solve the problem of not being a space trillionaire. One would need to go through and assess all the plausible benefits to make (or break) this claim, which is beyond the scope of this short essay.

In closing, an obvious critical consideration is what would be the best investment for problem solving. Sci-fi fans find the idea of space as the solution appealing. But we need to be realistic about this. For example, while a Mars colony sounds cool, those resources could be used to address problems on earth. For example, the failing infrastructure of the United States could be repaired and upgraded, and this would solve many problems. It would not be as cool as a Mars colony but would certainly solve more problems.

Because of my love of sci-fi, I want humanity to go into space. But moral considerations point to focusing more on solving problems here on earth. As Bezos said, we can do both. But this would require the billionaires to decide to use some of their billions to solve these problems. Many of which they themselves have created and thus could often easily fix by simply ceasing to cause harm.

In the previous essay, I looked at the question of whether a good person could be a billionaire. I concluded that, in general, the two are not compatible. The gist of the argument is that if a person is good and they have vast resources, then they would use those resources to do good. I, of course, also used an analogy: could a good person on a derelict ship sit on a giant pile of supplies while other people suffered and died from lack? The answer is obvious: a good person would not do that.   In thinking a bit more about this matter, I realized I had omitted some important ethical considerations.

In moral philosophy, philosophers make an important moral distinction between doing harm and not doing good. As philosophers such as J.S. Mill have argued, we generally consider harming others to be wrong (although there are exceptions). So, a billionaire who becomes rich by doing harm to others or uses their wealth to cause harm would usually be a bad person, or at least not good. But one can make a case that people have no moral obligation to help others and can withhold their assistance while still being good.

Immanual Kant considers this possibility. He asks us to imagine a person who is well off and could easily help others. This person considers their options and elects to avoid harming people but also decides to withhold all assistance. Kant considers this person more honest than those who speak of good will and charity but do nothing. But Kant being Kant, he believes they would be acting immorally.

Kant seems to appeal to the Golden Rule here: he asks us to imagine what the person would want if they found themselves in dire straits and in need of assistance. Kant claims they would want help and thus must accept there is an obligation to help others. This sort of reasoning can, and has, been countered.

A hard-core approach a person can take is to insist they would not want help.  If they were in need, then they think they should be left to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This is easy enough for a well-off person to claim. But even if it were true this is hardly a decisive refutation: what some would or would not want doesn’t seem sufficient to show what is good or bad. This also applies to Kant’s case: even if everyone would want help, this seems to be just a fact of psychology rather than proof of what is right. That said, the Golden Rule is a good starting place as it can be useful in considering the morality of actions. After all, thinking about why you would not want something done unto you can help in sorting out why you, perhaps, should not do it to others.

Another classic distinction in ethics is between killing (or doing harm) and letting die (or allowing harm to come to others). In the case of the billionaire, if they acquired their wealth by or used it to cause harm, then they would be doing active harm and thus would not be a good person (in general). But if they merely allowed harm to come to others, then one could contend they are not doing wrong as they are merely allowing wrong to occur. Going back to the ship analogy, someone who is killing other people and taking their supplies is doing wrong actively. But if they sit on their vast stockpile, they are merely letting people die. One could argue that a good person could do this, since they are not doing evil.

One can, of course, argue that letting people die is a form of active evil. In the analogy of the ship, the person who stockpiles the supplies is actively denying other people what they need to survive. They are killing rather than letting die. Likewise, a billionaire who stockpiles wealth is denying others what they need, thus they are actively doing harm. To use a more extreme analogy, think of a derelict spaceship and imagine someone who is stockpiling air cannisters and have such a vast supply it would take them centuries to use it all. They are thus actively killing the other people on the ship by taking away air they need. They cannot be a good person. Likewise, a billionaire is actively harming people by taking away resources.

One could, of course, argue that there is plenty for people if they would just work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But that is simply not true; a person cannot be a billionaire in a meaningful sense unless other people are poor. So there are no good billionaires.

When I am critical of the current economic system in the United States I am often countered by the argument that the system is good because most Americans own stock. Some also say that this show how anyone can  work their way towards wealth by investing.

It is true that most Americans own stock. At 51.9% this just barely suffices to make the claim true. But the positive view is a matter of perspective as this also means 48.1% of Americans do not own stock. To use an analogy, if someone said that most passengers survived a crash, then that sounds good: while the crash was bad, at least most people survived. But if you inquired more and found that 52% of the passengers survived, sounds less good since as 48% did not. As such, some stock rhetorical techniques are in play here.

One is to use the vagueness of “most.” Psychologically, people tend to think in terms of “most” referring to a significant majority rather than just barely over half. As such, it is wise to consider the numbers rather than uncritically accepting “most.”

Another technique is the emphasis. When numbers are used, presenting them with the positive or negative statement can influence people. So, saying 52% of Americans own stocks makes it sound good. But saying 48% of Americans do not own stocks makes it sound bad. Looked at neutrally, 48% is a significant lack. After all, if 48% of Americans lacked shelter or adequate food, we would hardly rejoice that 52% had those things. So, gushing about 52% of Americans owning stock is a bit absurd.

Another rhetorical tool in use here is leaving out critical information. By simply asserting that most Americans own stock, this suggests most Americans are doing well. While no one thinks that the average American is crushing the stock market the way Bill Gates, Trump, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is; this language just lumps all stock ownership together without considering the distinctions. To use an analogy, it is true that most Americans own vehicles, but there is a huge difference between someone who has an old car and someone who owns yachts and rockets.

While there are some disputes about the exact percentages, the value of stock owned is rather like athletic talent: it is unevenly divided, and a small percentage have most of it. In the case of stocks, 10% of households are estimated to own 84-90% of the value of stocks. 1% of the population is estimated to own about 50% of the value of stocks. As such, while about 52% of Americans own stocks, the 1% own the lion’s share of the value of these stocks. For those even vaguely familiar with the American economy, this makes sense: why would the stock market be different from any other aspect of the economy?

As such, while most Americans own stocks, this does little to refute concerns about the imbalance and unfairness of the current system. In fact, looking at the numbers reveals stock ownership as another example of the imbalance and unfairness of the existing system.

Back when it appeared that being pro-democracy was good for business, companies  such as Coca Cola, Delta and Major League Baseball condemned Georgia’s restrictive voter laws and some even took action by taking their business out of the state. This angered Senator Mitch McConnell and he warned corporations to “…stay out of politics.” Unironically, he hastened to add that this does not include political contributions. This statement exemplified the Republican view that corporations should be paying politicians to do politics for them and not doing it themselves.   

McConnell went on to threaten corporations, asserting that they were acting like a “woke parallel government.” While Republicans advanced the narrative that the out-of-control left was pushing cancel culture, Republicans urged consumers to boycott these companies to pressure them into changing their behavior. They also called for state legislatures to punish these companies using the power of the state.

Some might accuse the right and McConnell of being inconsistent. On the one hand, this does have some plausibility. After all, when the right attacks what they call “cancel culture” they profess to value free expression and contend that the left is acting wrongly by coercing corporations into doing their bidding. Alternatively, they accuse the corporations of being woke and imposing their values on others and thus presumably imposing on consumer choice by restricting or changing products. But McConnell was explicitly threatening corporations with the power of the state. Republicans profess to accept that corporations are people, that they thus have free speech rights, and that money is speech. As such, this violated their professed principles: they were the ones trying to cancel free speech. McConnell also explicitly advanced two inconsistent views: corporations should stay out of politics while making political contributions.  But that is impossible: campaign contributions are political by nature.

It is interesting to compare this past situation with what happened to Tesla. After Elon Musk set out in apparent ignorance and malice to chainsaw the government, Tesla became the target of boycotts and even sabotage. While the right has famously boycotted “woke” companies, Trump claimed that the boycott was illegal and essentially did a commercial for Tesla.

On the other hand, if one ignores the surface rhetoric of the Republicans and McConnell and attempts to sort out their likely principle, then the inconsistency is dissolved. McConnell’s core principle seems to be that corporations should do what benefits McConnell. Engaging in political speech that opposes the Republican agenda of voter restriction was contrary to McConnell and Republican interests, so they threatened corporations to “cancel” their speech. Corporate contributions to McConnell and his fellow Republicans serve their interests, so they wanted the money to keep flowing. Corporate contributions to the Democrats also help the Republicans as Democrats who accept corporate money act in the interests of these corporations, which is what Republicans usually want.

The Republican party has shifted from a traditional pro-business approach to focus more on appealing to the Trump base and this has put them at odds with corporations. But one should not be tempted to think that the Republicans are going leftist and becoming pro-worker and anti-business.

The left has historically been critical of corporate involvement in politics for a variety of reasons. One is that corporations have great economic power and court rulings have enabled them to translate this directly into effectively unlimited political power. The other is that corporations tend to use their economic and political powers in ways that are detrimental to what the left professes to care about such as the environment and people outside of the top 1%. The left has, however, learned to adapt to this corporate power. Some people have figured out that they can influence corporations through consumer pressure and thus, somewhat ironically, sometimes get corporations to support what the right would tend to see as leftist, such as maximizing citizen participation in elections. It is not that corporations were taken over by woke leftists; they were simply keeping an eye on the bottom line: they rely on consumers for their profits and need to ensure that they present the right brand and products to maximize profits. Because most Americans were not on the far right, appealing to most consumers sometimes made corporations appear to be on the left in some ways.

But, as I have argued in other essays, these corporations are do not have leftist policies that would harm their bottom line. Corporations focus on profits and act accordingly. We did not see, for example, Amazon embracing unions. We did not see McDonald’s rushing to raise workers’ salaries and benefits. As such, the alleged wokeness of corporations was mostly just marketing and branding. If they were truly leftist, then they would not have operated as they did. That said, these corporations have done things that Republicans saw as contrary to their interests.

I do partially agree with McConnell: corporate influence in politics needs to be reduced. McConnell gets this when he is the one being harmed. But my view is based on a broader principle: I am not solely concerned with the harm to me; I am concerned about the general harm. When corporations acted in ways McConnell liked, he was happy to allow them unlimited expression. But if they expressed views he disliked, he was quick to threaten to “cancel” them for exercising the powers the Republicans gave them. McConnell’s solution was for the state to use its coercive power to threaten corporations into acting as Republicans wish. But this does not address the underlying problem: corporations have disproportionate power, and this is corrosive to democracy. Reducing that power would still allow the corporate rulers to express themselves, but it would allow others to use their freedom of expression more effectively. As my usual analogy goes, corporate America has a stadium sound system to blast its speech while most citizens are limited to trying to yell over that blast. So, we should not “cancel” corporations, but their power needs to checked and balanced.

Big corporations possess incredible economic power and many on the left are critical of how this power is used against people. For example, Amazon is infamous for putting such severe restraints on workers that they sometimes have to urinate in bottles. Thanks to Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats, laws and court rulings (such as Citizens United)  enabled these corporations to translate economic power directly into political power. This is also criticized by many on the left and they note how the United States is an oligarchy rather than a democracy. This political power manifests itself in such things as anti-union laws, de-regulation, and tax breaks. With the re-election of Trump, America has largely abandoned the pretense of being a democracy and rulership has been openly handed to the billionaire class.

In the past, Republicans favored increasing the economic power of corporations and often assisted them in increasing their political power. This might have been partially motivated by their pro-business ideology, but it was certainly motivated by the contributions and benefits they received for advancing these interests.  As such, it seemed odd when Republicans started professing opposition to some corporations. Social media and tech companies seem to be the favorite targets, despite the efforts of their billionaire owners to buy influence with Trump.

While Republicans profess to favor deregulation and embrace the free market, they were very angry about social media and tech companies and claimed  these companies were part of cancel culture.  I do understand why they are so angry. For years, social media companies profited from extremism—including that of the American right and it must have felt like a betrayal when they briefly took steps to counter extremism. While the narrative on the right is that these companies became woke or that out-of-control leftists took control, this was not the case. These companies acted based on pragmatism focused on profit. When Facebook changed its policy once again in response to Trump’s election, that was also pragmatism. Zuckerberg wants to make money and avoid prison.

Just a few years ago, extremism had damaged the brands of these companies, and they were under pressure to do something. There might have been some concern that their enabling extremism had gone too far. While they were accusations that they had gone “woke” their business practices revealed that they are not woke leftists. For example, Amazon is virulently anti-union, and Facebook is hardly a worker’s paradise. And now they are eager to appease Trump, although he has excellent reasons to ensure that they remain afraid of what he might have done to them.

Republicans did have pragmatic reasons to be angry at these social media and tech companies for acting against extremism and enforcing their terms of service. First, a significant percentage of the right’s base consists of active extremists, and they are very useful to Republicans. Second, the Republican party relies heavily on “moderate” racism, sexism, xenophobia, and intolerance as political tools.

One could argue that such people are not racists, they are just very concerned that brown people are illegally entering the United States to commit crimes, steal jobs, exploit social services, vote illegally, spread disease, and replace white Americans.  One problem with these views is that they are not supported by facts. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. While the impact of migration on the economy is complicated, the evidence is that there is a positive link between immigration and economic growth. The old racist trope of diseased migrants is untrue; in fact migrants help fight disease. And, of course, the replacement hypothesis is an absurd racist hobgoblin.

Interestingly, Paul Waldman makes a solid case that Republicans want critics to call their policies “racist” and this is part of their plan. As he notes, “…they know that their political success depends on motivating their base through a particular racial narrative…” If Waldman is right, then it can be argued that the tech companies were helping the Republicans at the same time they were hurting them. After all, while the tech companies “purge” of social media did hurt the right, it also handed them a victimization narrative that they exploited to activate their base. With Trump’s re-election, social media and tech companies have essentially surrendered to him, although one might argue that they are happy to go along with him.

In addition to racism, the right also uses disinformation and misinformation in their political battles. As noted in other essays on cancellation, the cancel culture narrative of the right was built largely on disinformation. At best it is based on hyperbole. The right’s response to the pandemic was also an exercise in disinformation and misinformation. And, of course, the biggest disinformation campaign was the big lie about the 2020 presidential election. This lie was the foundation for nationwide efforts to restrict voting access, most famously in Georgia. Since Republicans rely extensively on these tools, it makes sense that they were angry about social media companies “cancelling” their lies and that Trump set out to capture these companies after his re-election. Trump understands the power of propaganda and its critical role in his power.

While the Republicans did so for narrowly selfish reasons, they were right to be critical of the power of the social media and tech companies as these companies present real dangers. As I have argued elsewhere, these companies control most mediums of expression available to the masses. While they are not covered by the First Amendment, their power to limit free expression is concerning as they can effectively silence and amplify as they wish.

Leftists have long argued that this gives them too much power, and the right agreed—at least when it involved their very narrow and selfish interests. But the right wants social media to be a safe space for racism, sexism, xenophobia, misinformation, and disinformation. As such, while there is a very real problem with social media, the solution cannot be to simply let the far right do as they wish as they would simply spread hate and lies to advance their political goals. This is not to say that the left is composed of angels; harmful activity and lies of the left also need to be kept in check while allowing maximum freedom of expression. As always, there must be a balance between the freedom of expression and protecting people from harm.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MarkZuckerberg-crop.jpg

Back in the last pandemic, the right was busy with their eternal manufactured culture war. Manufacturing this war often involves using hyperbole and lies. Some years ago, the right was outraged about  Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. The right claimed Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head were cancelled by the left. In my adopted state of Florida and other states, the right has been active purging school libraries and managing educational content to ensure it is ideologically acceptable. It is, one must infer, only cancellation when the left is accused of doing it.

As I noted in earlier essays, Dr. Seuss’ books have not been banned. While the right’s narrative around Dr. Seuss implied that popular books such as the Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham were cancelled,  the reality is that Dr. Seuss’ estate chose to stop publishing six books because they  contain illustrations that “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.” These books seem to have been  poor sellers and most people seem unfamiliar with them.

Politicians and pundits on the right generally did not focus on these six books, and instead mislead the public by implying either that all Dr. Seuss books had been cancelled or the popular books had been cancelled. For example, Ted Cruz sold signed (by him) copies of Green Eggs and Ham and raised $125,000. He claimed that this was strike back against cancel culture. While Cruz has a history with that book, it is not one of the six books that the estate decided to stop selling  making this a bit of absurdist political theater.

At the time, the right was clever to not focus on the six books that were taken out of print. Some of them do have racist content and at the time explicitly defending racist content would have been less than ideal.  However, the right’s base gets the message: the right has not rushed to battle censorship in general, such as efforts to get books removed from libraries. Instead, they focus on defending what seems to be racist and sexist content.

There were also good reasons to use the popular books as their examples: “cancelling” Green Eggs and Ham would be absurd.  By lying, the right can claim that “the left” is crazy and out of control. To use an analogy, consider Coca Cola’s decision to stop manufacturing Tab. Imagine someone wanted to make that into a culture war issue, but realized that most people do not care about Tab and Tab sales were very weak. So instead of talking about Tab, they held up cans of Coke and Diet Coke, implying that these sodas had been “cancelled” despite being readily available. Imagine Ted Cruz selling signed cans of Coke, claiming that he will use the money to strike back against cancel culture. The same thing happened with Dr. Seuss: the estate stopped publishing their version of Tab but are still selling their Coke and Diet Coke.

As I have argued before, when companies change their product lines it is usually because they think doing so will increase profits. If the “radical left” controlled companies to the degree the right claimed, they would use that power in more meaningful ways, such as forcing companies to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. As such, the idea that the out-of-control left is abusing hapless companies is absurd. Now, onto branding.

Some years ago, Hasbro decided to change the Mr. Potato Head brand to Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head and Mrs. Potato Head are still available and sold under those names. The company did make the statement that “Hasbro is making sure all feel welcome in the Potato Head world by officially dropping the Mr. from the Mr. Potato Head brand name and logo to promote gender equality and inclusion.” There is no evidence that Hasbro was subject to coercion or forced to make this decision.

Some on the right claimed Mr. Potato Head had been cancelled but were not clear about what they meant. Some seem to have meant that Mr. Potato Head would no longer be manufactured, which was not true. Others might have simply been angry that Hasbro changed “Mr. Potato Head” to “Potato Head” while maintaining the Mr. and Mrs. versions of the toys. On the face of it, this seemed to be a silly fight: a toy company slightly changed the brand name for a toy line while retaining the toys. A deeper look reveals that it was, in fact, a silly fight.

But from a political standpoint, this was a clever move: by misleading their base about the facts, they generated outrage against “the left” and distracted them away from the fact that the Republicans seem to have little in the way of policies or interest in engaging with meaningful problems. They also do not need to do anything: there is no problem to solve, no results to achieve. There is just an opportunity for unfounded outrage that will feed the base until they can find a situation suitable for manufacturing pointless outrage.

Corporations changing their products and brands does not appear to create any meaningful problems  as they are simply changing to maximize their profits. Consumer tastes and values change over time and that is what happened then and what will continue to happen. There was nothing sinister going on in these cases, no problem to solve, no need of state action. The right is simply manufacturing a problem where none currently exists, other than the “problem” that consumers change over time.

While the wealthy did very well in the pandemic, businesses and employees were eager to get back to normal economic activity. While the vaccines were not perfect, they helped re-open the economy. As another pandemic is certainly on the way, it is worth considering the issue of vaccine mandates again.

While there are various moral issues involving vaccines, one is whether employers have the right to require employees to get vaccinated. While this situation is somewhat unusual, it falls under the broader issue of employee rights.

In the United States employers hold vast power over their employees. This power stems from the doctrine of employment at will: an employer can fire an employee for almost any reason or no reason at all. Employees can, of course, quit for almost any reason at all or no reason at all. But employers generally hold an advantage: it is usually much easier for an employer to replace an employee than for an employee to find an equal or better job.

This doctrine allows employers to exert broad control over the lives of their employees within and beyond the workplace. For example, an employer can fire an employee for holding political views they dislike and even for social drinking or smoking outside of work. Employers also have a very broad right to surveil their employees at work or when using work equipment. While the government would need a warrant to read your work email or listen to your calls made at work, your employer can do that at will. In some cases, they can legally put cameras in bathrooms to monitor employees.

While some see this degree of employer power as wrong and even on par with tyranny, it is the default moral view in practice. That is, employers have the moral right to fire their employees at will with only very few exceptions. Under this doctrine, an employer would be within their rights to offer an employee the choice between being vaccinated and being fired just as they can do the same thing with almost anything else. Obviously, if this doctrine is rejected, then the ethics must be addressed in a different manner.

One reasonable approach is utilitarianism. This is the view that the morality of an action is determined by its positive and negative consequences for those who count morally. Actions whose negative consequences are greater than their positive consequences are wrong. Good actions are those whose positive consequences outweigh the negative. I, like many others, use this approach when addressing large-scale ethical matters such as public policy.

Assuming mandated vaccines are safe and effective, they would present little risk (though there are always risks). They also provide benefits during this next pandemic. Because of this, an employer could make the moral argument that employees must be vaccinated based on the positive consequences of reducing the likelihood and severity of their illness (which would impact the employer). There is also the fact that vaccination of employees would help protect co-workers and customers. An unvaccinated employee would be a health risk to themselves and others and thus it would be right for employers to mandate vaccination in most cases. Employees who would be harmed by the vaccine or who do not interact with other workers or customers could, of course, opt out.

One could make a broad moral argument against employer power and use this to argue that employers should not have the power to force employees to vaccinate (naturally, employees always have the right to quit to avoid doing anything they do not want to do). I do find this appealing because I think employers have too much power and workers too few rights in terms of how employers can coerce employees. That said, vaccination seems morally on par with safety mandates of other kinds that are aimed at protecting workers and customers from harms and these seem warranted on utilitarian grounds. A business could be morally responsible for not requiring vaccines if employees infect each other or customers.

One way to counter this argument is to argue that requiring vaccination is different from other safety requirements. To illustrate, an employee who is required to wear a hair net while preparing food can take that off at the end of their shift and it has no lasting impact. A vaccination is different as it is not something that could be removed at the end of the workday. Even safe vaccines come with risks that make them different from hair nets and gloves (though a person could be allergic to latex gloves). As such, these might be relevant differences that break the analogy.

This can, of course, be countered by the fact that vaccination is usually required to attend K-12 schools and college so there is a moral precedent to requiring vaccination. One could argue that school and work are different; the challenge would be showing how the differences break the analogy. Or one could also argue that schools should not require vaccination either, but the challenge is proving this rather than just assuming it. But it is worth considering that an employer could be morally responsible if an employee were harmed because they were required to get vaccinated to keep their job.

One can also make an appeal to rights, that people have the right to refuse medical procedures. I do agree that people have this right; but it is distinct from the right to be allowed to be unvaccinated if one is around people at work or school. By analogy, I agree that people have the right to use drugs, but this is distinct from the right to use drugs at work, such as while flying a plane.