Economic Populism versus Global Monopoly Capitalism

Economic Populism versus Global Monopoly Capitalism

Political Support Of Global Corporate Monopoly Not the Same Thing As Support For Competitive Small Business Free Markets

By Thomas E. Vass, tvassontech.com

Watch What the Wall Street Journal Is Saying, Not What They Are Doing

In recent weeks, the editors at the Wall Street Journal and their guest op-ed writers, have been working furiously to explain the dangers of the philosophy of economic populism, as they would like to define it.

Their efforts are primarily to counter a voluminous increase in editorials and columns in other media that routinely attempts to disparage the concept of economic populism as a dangerous philosophy, as they, (mostly leftist writers), would like to define it.

Representative of the WSJ explanations about populism is the recent editorial of Thomas Frank, (Populism Is Democracy at Work, WSJ, February 3, 2010). In his article, Frank notes that, “Populism also seems to mean liberalism, only expressed in more fiery language than the pallid, technocratic drone that makes Washington happy. But whatever they mean by it, journalists and opinionators seem to agree that populism is dangerous. It scares the markets. And it is the duty of every right-thinking citizen to resist it.”

Frank had his editorial gun-sights set on David Brooks, who generally writes from the political summit of the New York Times.

In a New York Times column published a few days earlier, Brooks deplored "The Populist Addiction."

“Populism nearly always fails," Brooks wrote, citing the defeat of three-time Democratic presidential candidate William J. Bryan.

“What's more,” he added, “populism is fundamentally alien, (to American political tradition) since this country was built by anti-populists.”

This last bit of historical revisionism by Brooks may go unchallenged in the future if the left-wing educational establishment is successful in its political efforts to eliminate the teaching of early American history, as the leftists in control of the North Carolina bureaucracy are currently attempting.

Is The Populist Tradition Alien To The American History of Exceptionalism?

The left’s attempt to denigrate the philosophy of populism follows their well-used strategy taken from their traditional playbook. If they can somehow link populism to the idea of racism, than they may be successful at limiting the spread of an idea that would damage their march to a one-world-government collectivist vision.

In his recent blog, “ Populism: Just Like Racism,” Matt Taibbi explains how Brooks makes the logical syllogism connection between populism and racism.

All people (the populists) who criticize Wall Street are primarily interested in dividing society, just like racists.

As Taibbi concludes, “That’s basically Brooks’s entire argument here. Yes, the rich and powerful do rig the game in their own favor, and yes, they are guilty of “excesses”— but deal with it, if you want to eat.”

“The whole point of America,” notes Taibbi, in direct contrast to Brooks’ assertion that populism is alien to America, “is that we are all supposed to be our own masters, never viewing anyone as being by birth or situation inherently better or more capable than ourselves, and so the notion of relying upon some nebulous class of investment bankers to “channel opportunity” from on high strikes me as being un-American.”

But, for Brooks, and the leftist establishment in control of the national government, it is important to undermine this notion of American individualism in order to implement their vision of global collectivism. For Brooks, the whole point of America is to promote collectivist dependency, not Jefferson’s notion of individual civil liberties.

From the left’s perspective, populism is a bad idea and alien to the American political tradition, because it gets in the way of the imposition of a global elite-driven socialism. Thus, the importance of Brook’s inaccurate historical assertion that the anti-federalists, his philosophical enemies, did not build this country, the Federalist elites did.

The main goal for the left in America, and for President Obama, is to convert America into something that looks like a European socialist state. Economic populism is a threat to that goal because it taps into the American culture of free citizens and free markets.

Populism Threatens The Extension of Global Monopoly Capitalism, Too

The deep political divisions in America are not defined simply by right and left. What passes for the Wall Street Journal’s brand of economic conservatism in many cases is just shilling for the further extension of global monopoly capitalism.

From the perspective of the WSJ, populism is dangerous because it gets in the way of global elite-driven corporatism. The WSJ advocacy of global corporate capitalism, in a “World Is Flat” scenario is not exactly the same thing as support for free competitive markets and individual freedoms.

The danger of populism from this perspective, was neatly summarized in the WSJ by Mathew Slaughter, an associate dean and professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In his recent WSJ editorial, “How to Destroy American Jobs,” (February 5, 2010), Slaughter warns that, “Obama's proposals for increasing the tax burden on U.S.-based multinationals would harm our most dynamic companies.” (emphasis added).

Slaughter’s sleight of hand in using the possessive pronoun “OUR,” is much like the syllogism used by the left that equates populism with racism. There is nothing remotely or uniquely American about “OUR most dynamic multi national companies,” yet Slaughter, and the WSJ editors would like to maintain the façade and the farce that the mutli national corporations are loyal to American workers.

Slaughter highlights Table S-8 on page 161 of President Obama’s proposed budget. “If these proposals are enacted,” he warns, “U.S.-based multinational firms will face $122.2 billion in tax increases over the next decade.”

Slaughter suspects that the attack on multi national corporations may be inspired by President Obama’s incipient populism, as evidenced by the President’s renewed criticism of Wall Street bankers. “The fundamental assumption behind these budget proposals, explained Slaughter, “is that U.S. multinationals expand abroad only to "export" jobs out of the country. Thus, taxing their foreign operations more would boost tax revenues here and create desperately needed U.S. jobs.”

He failed to close his logical economic loop. Obama’s idea is to first tax profits of the multi nationals, and then have socialist government elites reinvest the tax revenues here in America to create jobs.

The idea that government elites can use tax revenues to create jobs is misguided says Slaughter. “This is simply wrong. These tax increases would not create American jobs, they would destroy them.”

Slaughter’s economic policy of relying the multi nationals create American jobs rather than government elites is based upon both historical revisionism with a small dose of economic fantasy, as if the global trade policies implemented by the Clinton administration have been an economic success.

His fantasy is that “More investment and employment abroad is strongly associated with more investment and employment in American parent companies.” This fantasy begs unemployed workers in America to share in the fantasy of global trade success and deny their own economic reality.

Slaughter immediately contradicts his own argument by providing the economic reality confronted by American workers. The U. S. labor market is hemorrhaging private sector jobs which is directly caused by the way the Clinton administration implemented global trade policies.

These are the same global trade policies supported by the Wall Street Journal that equates support for global monopoly capitalism with small business free market competition.

Over a ten year period, starting in 1999, Slaughter describes the slaughter of U. S. private sector jobs. “Today,” he notes, “there are 2.4 million fewer private-sector jobs than 10 years ago. Moreover, in all four quarters of 2009, gross private-sector investment fell so low that it did not even cover depreciation. For the first time since at least 1947, the U.S. private capital stock shrank throughout an entire year.”

(Hint to Mathew: This is the wrong data to use to support your argument about the munificence of global corporate capitalism).

Small Business Economic Populism and Job Creation In America

“Which firms can create these jobs?” asks Slaughter. Why, of course, he answers, “U.S.-based multinationals. They—along with similarly performing U.S. affiliates of foreign-based multinationals—have long been among the strongest companies in the U.S. economy.”

To correct Slaughter’s fantasy, only small businesses create jobs and multi national corporations destroy jobs. Small businesses create jobs when they make capital investments aimed at product innovation to meet market competition.

To correct the inaccurate historical revisionism of Brooks, the anti-federalists did build this country, and the southern agrarian populists were successful politically. Before they got crushed by the Southern Plantation Democrats, who used one party apartheid racism to obtain their victory over the populists.

The agrarian populists, in their Ocala Plan, wanted increased government regulation of monopoly capitalism, not the imposition of a socialist state. Small business economic populists today want an end to the unfair corporate policies on global free trade, but do not want the imposition of a socialist state.

Unless and until the Republican Party can shed its Big Corporate Free Trade position that only benefits Big Business, and adopt a pro-small business competitive free market policy, the political shills at the Wall Street Journal will have zero intellectual credibility in arguing why economic populism is dangerous.

Economic populism is the same thing as small business free market competitive capitalism. The only way out of the current political and economic crisis in America is more small business economic populism. Increased government stimulus spending or increased global trade is not going to solve the job creation problems in America.

Only increased capital investments in small business will solve America’s economic problems.

European socialist collectivism and global monopoly capitalism are both failed economic policies, and both lead to the imposition of a tyrannical one-world global government that does not derive its authority from the consent of the governed.

An Enemy of My Enemy Is Not My Friend

The threat of socialist tyranny in America is immediate. The threat of global corporate monopoly capitalism is evident. The enemy of socialist tyranny is the enemy of monopoly capitalism tyranny.

They both lead to a tyrannical one world global government, just in the hands of a different elites.

They are both my enemies because they both undermine individual freedoms and the competitive free markets of economic populism.

And, to help Mr. Brooks one more time about the contribution of the anti-federalists in making this country, “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”