Capitalism and the 1% (Greed part 2)

I have realized, through reading over many of my posts, that it may be misconstrued that I believe that capitalism is a bad system.  This could not be further from the truth, I love all of the toys and gadgets that I, as a man who has lived a very frugal life, can still afford.  What I am against is what capitalism has become, and how far from what was initially intended it has traveled.

Though first founded as early as the feudal systems of the 16th century, you only need to go back a few decades to see how dramatically capitalism has affected economics.  If you were to take a time machine back to the 50's you would see a world that was vastly different, and daily life in America would shock (and probably bore) you.  Each house had one radio, one telephone and one car.  Families were single income because people wanted a roof over their head, food on their table and a community to help raise their children.  Having these things left them feeling content.

But, as capitalism has changed over time, society has changed with it.  The 21st century brings with it technology possible only in sci-fi novels decades ago.  These days everyone has a smartphone, kids have their own cars and tvs in their rooms.  Both parents work not because they have to but because they are trying desperately to keep up with everyone else in terms of gadgets and the newest trends.

This is today's capitalism and, while I understand and appreciate what it has done for the masses, I disagree with the message is currently entrenching in the minds of most Americans.  Buy, buy, buy!  You can have that!  You NEED this!

You see, while capitalism was intended to grow our prosperity, this prosperity was intended, on a more even scale, for ALL, not just the tycoons who own most of what you read, see, eat and buy.
One of the major cornerstones of capitalism was competition.  It was believed that the more options consumers had to choose from the more equitable and progressive the markets would be because competition would keep prices down while still driving innovation.

Sadly, this is no longer the case, the days of mom and pop stores lining the street corners are slowly dying off.  In their places sprout chain store replacements, franchises owned and operated not by an individual family but by faceless corporations.

I was perusing the internet the other day and came across a chart that, truthfully, blew my mind.  I knew that individual companies were dying off fairly rapidly, but I had no idea the true extent.  I realized that mom and pop stores were endangered species of sorts, but I did not realize that all had the same 10 predators.

What's worse is that more and more, as the shift in control and power grows wider, the people at the head of these growing corporations are moving away from another of the earliest cornerstones of capitalism, Noblesse Oblige.  This concept believes that "nobility (birth or wealth) extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person with such status to fulfill social responsibilities, particularly in leadership."  Simply put, if you have access to the means necessary to make a difference in the world around you, you should. 

Back in the 16th century 20% of the population had 70% of the wealth, today that elite number is less that 1%.  This disturbing trend has to stop.  The people who can afford to do more must be made to do so, be it through a larger portion of taxation, more charitable donations, or something as simple as forgoing shareholders in favor of actual employees; something must be done to redistribute that wealth.  

But herein lies the biggest obstacle: most people don't notice this ever growing separation because they are too busy "saving" at their local superstore.  You see, as these corporations accrue more and more wealth through the purchasing of rival companies, the average consumer saves (large volume means lower operating costs).  It feels nice to save, to pay less for an item that we are used to, so we become sucked in believing this to be a good thing.  The problem is that these savings are only temporary and our individual choice of products becomes smaller and smaller.  

You see, once a corporation owns the majority of their competitors, they have a monopoly on their product.  As we have all experienced through the cost of cable, even partial monopolies are not good for an individual's pocketbook or their choices of available channels.  

As we have talked about though, giving up power and money is not something many choose to do voluntarily.  One of the biggest reasons for this is that people don't want to share with those they feel who are undeserving.  It turns out that many in power believe that the poor are poor because they choose to be, that, if they wanted a different life they would have done something about it.  

Didn't you know that everyone has equal opportunity to change their place in the world?  

The first time I heard this argument I was in disbelief, but I have listened to my mother cite enough articles to argue this point enough to know that this thought is not singular.  Many wealthy believe that they are in power solely based upon their individual merits.  Because they took advantage of the world around them, because they scratched and clawed, they overcame.  They also believe that anyone, regardless of upbringing or place within society, can do the same.  

Now, I may have a different take on this than many, but I am not sure how it is possible to overlook the simple fact that many in power came to be not due to hard work or personal invention or innovation, but because they grew up in a world that was handed to them.  I guess admitting this would be a bit of a blow to one's ego, to realize that maybe it wasn't all you and that you, growing up in a house with heat, food, and individual rooms for each member of your family, plus a den, living room and tv room may have been better off than that family of 6 living in a two room shack; that perhaps your private school education may have better prepared you for the rigors of academia than the typical inner city education filled with kids looking to survive more than to learn; that the knowledge that college is a guarantee rather than a pipe dream may have given you a little more drive.  

There is a reason the rich keep getting richer.

Again, to acknowledge both sides of the same coin, I do also realize that there are numerous people who came from nothing to become something.  There are, without a doubt, those who not only took advantage of any and every opportunity, but who also went out and found new paths when theirs ran into an obstacle.  I fear, though, that many neglect to realize that, in order to accomplish this, an individual must be either truly gifted intellectually, incredibly driven, or have an incredible support system.  

For most poor, even the dream of something different is just that, a dream.  Just because the possibility is possible does not often make it even remotely probable.

I wonder though, why is it so difficult to help others?  What do the truly wealthy fear would happen if they gave up more of their wealth?  Is it a fear that, with wealth comes education and, with education, comes a desire for change?  

I do know that we need to change the current direction of the world's economy.  We need to allow the world and our country to grow but, as we do this, we must truly educate ourselves about who is gaining the most, and at what cost.  Are there people abusing not only the systems in place but also abusing all of us through these systems?  

Capitalism has given us all we have, and will continue to allow present day sci-fi novels to become a reality.  The thing we must fear though is that, in every sci-fi novel, while there are cool toys, only a select few are able to play with them while the rest of us live in 10' x 12' apartments.