A different metric

I am often confused by names of political/economic systems like fascism or oligarchy. This happened again at a recent Truthout post. My proposal:

Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.
democracy = power is determined by voters

capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party

The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http: www.vox.com="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership, the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https: www.salon.com="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.

Owner rights

It seems to me that Trump's budget director, Mick Mulvaney, is of the opinion he and his socioeconomic class 'owns' the taxes paid by American workers to the government. My comment:

There is a presumption among Mulvaney and his ilk that ownership confers additional/special rights. Unfortunately, they've influenced legislators and judges to their side with court rulings like Citizens United which give owners additional rights of personhood through corporate proxies. The 'owners' responsible for the financial collapse of 2007/8 are protected from prosecution. Contrast this to low income and especially low income minorities who own very little and are prosecuted and jailed at much higher rates for less egregious crimes. 

Mulvaney is just expressing this doctrine more openly - owners control everything - wages, profits, spending, workers' health, workers' rights, workers' votes. everything. They should keep in mind what happened to Arthur William Hodge and the French Revolution.

The current administration really needs to figure out who owns what (American public owns the public lands) and who governs what (elected officials and unelected civil servants) and who's direction (voters).

Independent foreign policy

The former Australian Foreign Minister is so dismayed by Trump that he recommends a foreign policy independent of the U.S. I agree. More ideas/proposals/policies is how innovation occurs. To use my economy metaphor, evolution needs a wide array of memes to act on.

Comment at Crooks & Liars:

Trump is so awful, he's marginalizing U.S. foreign policy, even with close allies. With the U.S. no longer setting the 'moral compass/standard' of foreign engagement, perhaps a higher ethical standard can be established by another standard bearer.

Robert Pollin at Truthout

Comment at Truthout:

The minimum wage is better defined as a set percentage of average income (say 50-60% of average wage of prior year). Defining the minimum wage at a dollar amount sets the stage for constant battles over minimum wage; by the time the $15/hr wage is won, it will be obsolete. 

Low employment empowers owners/employers; they don't compete for workers and they pay less for more labor. High employment creates competition between owners/employers for workers. There is a need to create/increase competition between owner/employers and workers.

Entitled politicians

An Oklahoma Republican, Markwayne Mullin, actually said taxpayers do not pay his salary. Instead, representing his constituents is a 'service' he provides.

IMHO, this is deserves to be filed in the dictionary under 'entitlement'.

Capitalism - entitlement to everything (profits, wages, labor, taxes, subsidies, infrastructure, public services) workers produce and pay for.

Secrecy goes beyond Pharma

Economist Dean Baker recognizes the effect of government conferred monopoly to big Pharma by way of information control (patents) on consumers. He needs to expand this understanding to all the other ways information control affects power structures. A simple example: secrecy is essential to hide organized crime from authorities; 'blue wall of silence' is essential to shield illegal/immoral/unethical police and their actions from the public.

Note: Control of information is relevant to practically every label.

Interview with Michael Hudson

Here's economist Michael Hudson describing his new book, J is for Junk Economics. He also thinks orthodox economics is a big part of the problem.