Hungry Americ The Great Beacon Of Opportunity

Big business not only monopolized the economy, but also caused unprecedented corruption in the political system. Joseph Keppler’s “The Bosses of the Senate” political cartoon in Puck depicts the massive corruption in the political system as he claims that the Senate no longer served the people, but the industrial tycoons (document 4). The American people responded to this by forming political and economic organizations in an attempt to curb the control of the large

. In the Gilded Age the economy was dominated by the wealthy corporations, “And so it went, in industry after industry---shrewd, efficient businessmen building empires, choking out competition, maintaining high prices, keeping wages low, using government subsidies” (Zinn 257). This is seemingly what is happening again in the 21st century; the level of inequality has peaked once more with, “…inadequate wages, poor social mobility, lack of access to universal healthcare and basic social safety nets, limited labor rights and attacks on unions, a tax system that benefits the rich in general and unearned wealth in particular” (Morning's Minion

More specifically, the president. Almost one year ago, President Donald Trump completed his cabinet. While normally this is good, Trump filled his cabinet with billionaires who have more experience with money than politics. “Meet the Billionaires who run Trump’s Government” by Newsweek, expresses Trump’s way of running the country like a business, “The New York real estate developers now advising the president spent their professional lives in… city regulators, 50-story crane operators… responsible for the New York skyline…” (Burleigh). While businessmen who understand operational aspects of companies can be useful, this could result in decision making that does not focus on the wants and needs of the people. “Trump voters know they’ve had a government for billionaires… but to have one by billionaires means… setting the nation’s agenda and there is no curtain” (Burleigh). Trump’s choice in his cabinet members is full of businessmen similar to him, men who already have it all. Although these men may be able to manage their government position, hiring those with lots of money and little experience does not seem wise. Flaws like this can lead to even more issues within the justice system. Instead of hiring men with money, men who understand the political roles should be playing a bigger part. The government needs solid people to

America has been called the “Land of Opportunity” and is gaining a reputation as such from people all around the world. The reality is that this “land of opportunity” is limited to only the rich. Tycoons, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, are monopolizing off of the labor of the poor, and destroying any competition. Many people are now referring to them as Robber Barons.

Vladeck (2002, para.14) addresses the issue of monetary power and its impact on universal health care coverage in the United States further pointing out that while politicians in the United States were able to succeed without huge electoral support, they couldn’t succeed without money behind them. As industry began to grow in the United States and contracts came up for large infrastructure projects such as the railroad, building canals or bridges and mining, the concept of political donations in return for lucrative contracts began to get established. Vladeck (2002, para16) also points out that wealthy groups and individuals have always been

This idea was explored further in Atlas Shrugged, where individuals like Dagny and Hank were forced to abandon their ambitions and needs in lieu of whatever the majority in power, the government, dictated. Their industries were restricted and nationalized by political leaders who argued their sacrifice was for the good of the “big family” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged 608), but like in Soviet Russia, the only ones who benefited were the leaders themselves. Consider the “anti-dog-eat-dog rule” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 77), which limited the expansion of railroad companies and the start-ups of new companies; such regulations and antitrust laws symptomatic of socialism rob individuals of their rights to support and run businesses (Rand, “What is Capitalism?”), Rand explained, despite their claim to help consumers and business owners.

Money is what makes the world go around. From day one, people are assimilated with the idea: to consume, one must spend a medium sufficient enough to receive an object that is desired. Every country has that medium. The Europeans have the Euro, the Japanese have the Yen, Chile has the Peso, and the United States has the Dollar. However, this idea of “getting and spending” has done more harm than good in specific countries. Particularly, in the United States there has been a growing issue of income inequality. The textbook definition of income inequality states: the difference between individuals or populations in the distribution of their assets, wealth, or income. The political problem itself, nevertheless, is deeper and

For decades now, our political and economic policy have been constructed around one idea: that if taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea has been the backbone of Republican trickle-down Reagan-economics and has been scarcely challenged by Democrats. America’s economy as well as the global economy as a whole are facing extreme income inequality and this idea has only widened the gap. Our political system has been flooded with the money of the rich through lobbyists or super PACs, who then are the ones receiving the tax cuts and are garnering political favors by doing so, effectively moving us farther from a free and fair democracy, but rather towards oligarchy. The middle class has been fading away due to stagnating

“The right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings-bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions,” this is what Carnegie calls intense individualism (Carnegie 488). This idea is essentially the heart of capitalism. As humans, it is natural for most to be competitive and have the drive to be successful. The competition, also referred to as survival of the fittest, pushes most people to be the best and work hard so they can have the higher status. When you work hard and get an earning from that, it is instinctive for most to want to keep that money, not give it away. This is the idea of the American Dream, when you pull yourself up from the bootstraps to give yourself the life you wanted. This competition does not only fall within individuals but companies as well. This competitiveness and desire to be the best is constantly stimulating the economy. When wealth is just handed out like Carnegie suggests, people will get lethargic and not work as hard, therefore not stimulating the

America is known as the melting pot. It is a lovely thought that every race and nationality are melted into one entity, perhaps if we lived in an utopian society that term would be true. The truth is, there has been a racial divide in America between the african american and white race that dates back to the 1600’s. Caught in the middle of this divide are the biracial population. They are the embodiment of two polar opposite races coming together. One might think they are bridging the gap between these two races, instead they are most often seen by whites as just black and by african americans as not black enough.

Actually, in the real world some financially powerful people do not follow such principle and have sufficient money to buy almost everything that allows them to take up some power to influence, or better yet, command the economic policy. On the matter, Henry Kissinger once said that “Who controls food, controls the people; who controls energy controls entire continents; and who controls money controls the world.” (Are We Western Money Slaves?). Of course the first thing a private ruler of the economic policy would do is to assure a huge and always increasing income and wealth to a small group of already financially powerful friend members. Consequently, the income and wealth of a society so dominated follow trends of eternal concentration;

Once said by Erich Fromm “Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.” This quote states that greed never allows people to experience the feeling of satisfaction. Nothing is ever enough so they will go to all extent in order to attempt to reach what they believe is success. Greed can be found everywhere. It is a characteristic that many people withhold and is portrayed in many forms. One example being, the children’s movie, The Lorax. In that movie a city is ruled by the mayor, who makes all executive decisions in order to maintain himself in power. It reaches the point where everything is factory made and even the air is sold. No one can contradict the mayor’s manners due to the way they were taught to live, in a society in which they do not have a voice. Greed can have marvelous impacts but, when it comes to company owners, the tables turn. Everyone wants to be successful in life, that is not a negative aspect to have. However, how far will you go in order to reach your goals? Without regulated capitalism, monopolists would go very far, to the point where their choices impact others’ living conditions negatively in bizarre forms. Therefore greed is not good because it impacts living conditions negatively.

Since, if anyone should have the power to impose taxes and make expenditures to promote social objectives, it shouldn’t be corporations but the government, as they have the resources and knowledge to make these kinds of decisions that could potentially have an impact on all our lives. Friedman argues, “Business professionals have neither the power nor possibly even the knowledge necessary to address larger societal problems, even if they wanted to” (Friedman, Milton. 1970). An example he refers to is the fact that business professionals are not in a position to fight inflation, where factors, such as money supply and aggregate demand need to be considered. Overall it is investing governmental power in a person who has no general mandate to govern and why should we allow unelected companies to determine our social values and to take over the role of elected government.

Greed alone is not sufficient for policy failure, since the question then is why the people do not organize to counter the influence of the greedy interests and power seekers. The answer is the apathy of the voters. With the benefits concentrated among a few interests, and the costs spread among the whole population, the incentives of the greedy dominate the incentives of the masses. For the average voter, the cost of organizing and lobbying is greater than his own benefit, since the benefit goes to everybody.

Since part of the money is being used to buy off politicians, it is corrupting our political system on all levels,