Dear Editors:
It is difficult to wrap my arms around one of your writer’s words of “creative destruction.”
My best understanding is that you are defending the push by Reagan with his supply-side economics and deregulation. So, therefore, your writer points out that America has been successful in following this process described as “creative destruction.”
Your writer says America is still the strongest economic power in the world, even China. Perhaps your writer should read a book by Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World). Learning from historical example, Zakaria reviews what happened in Ancient China to cause the implosion of China and fall into poverty, thus removing it from the world scene.
The similarities are amazing. Moving to rid the nation of small business, the Mandarin business class, and consolidation at the top, the nation fell apart. Supply-side Reaganomics and deregulation has done the same thing in America. The deregulation made the merger and acquisitions of small corporations, sometimes local (i.e., local entities for electric, telecommunications, retail sales, etc.), have caused close-to-considering nationalization and supply-side economics in which those corporations no longer care about consumers on the demand-side of a capitalist market.
The R&D efforts which once funded the smaller corporations (by means of tax credits for R&D) have been replaced by strong dictatorial control which has removed pensions from what might be considered part of the American “Mandarin” class and given the money as bonuses and 1000% increases to those at the top. What is described here permeates many other industries and companies (see Ellen Schultz book, The Retirement Heist).
Furthermore, I have observations and evidence about the impact of centralized corporate conglomerates close to monopoly status. Some of the observations are personal and involve family business. Other evidence I have provided in many of my writings about this topic for more than a decade.
With this being said and considering your publication is out of a nation with a long history of “royalty-based” supply-side economics (feudal ownership which was thrown away by those in the northeast of America (see A Free Soil — A Free People: he Anti-Rent War in Delaware County, New York – referencing the anti-rent, anti-feudal wars in upstate New York in the 1840s), perhaps the ideas of your writer are thrust forward so as to validate America’s move, by way of Reagan, to deregulation and the ultimate slippery slope of supply-side economics? The justification is more for the “feudal” land policies in Dixie, called plantations, where the owners were too much like a Charles Dickens character, Ebeneezer Scrooge – cheap, cheap, cheap, and unwilling to balance supply and demand, whether it be economics OR labor.
What people do not realize is that when Reagan pushed for deregulation, many people said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our small corporation was not broke. In fact it was a cash cow, due to the hard work of the people who labored to make it better. How nice to honor us with a severance package which did not last long, but the axe men at the top walked away, skimming money (is that not stealing? Perhaps?) in the millions of dollars, so as to “deregulate” and move to M&A for the sake of monopoly.
We were against the deregulation so we were against change. The definition of conservative: “averse to change.” That would have made us conservative, not liberal. Liberal defined: “open to new ideas.” Deregulation was a “new idea.” No wonder people are so confused. Liberal: “…a political and social philosophythat promotes…democracy, and free enterprise.” Ultimately, democracy with the words free enterprise demonstrates an oxymoron. Free enterprise left unregulated destroys democracy, as we see happening today. Perhaps Reagan was the liberal but called himself conservative? All of his charismatic talk pushed this world into chaos beyond just the political spectrum.
A reviewer of the Zakaria book says,
America stands at a crossroads: In a new global era where the United States no longer dominates the worldwide economy, orchestrates geopolitics, or overwhelms cultures, can the nation continue to thrive?
According to your writer, America is still doing better than China. But the question remains as to how well it will stand up when it is face-to-face, with a supply-side economics, with communist supply-side economics of China? Is there not a better possibility America could stand up to China if we were to use “creative destruction” (i.e., like the 1840s anti-rent rebellions) to return us to deregulation and bring back capitalism as it should be – supply AND demand? For America, history has proven this to be true.
Sincerely,
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Tioga Herald 
Commentary about Economist Magazine Article about “Creative Destruction”
Dear Editors:
It is difficult to wrap my arms around one of your writer’s words of “creative destruction.”
My best understanding is that you are defending the push by Reagan with his supply-side economics and deregulation. So, therefore, your writer points out that America has been successful in following this process described as “creative destruction.”
Your writer says America is still the strongest economic power in the world, even China. Perhaps your writer should read a book by Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World). Learning from historical example, Zakaria reviews what happened in Ancient China to cause the implosion of China and fall into poverty, thus removing it from the world scene.
The similarities are amazing. Moving to rid the nation of small business, the Mandarin business class, and consolidation at the top, the nation fell apart. Supply-side Reaganomics and deregulation has done the same thing in America. The deregulation made the merger and acquisitions of small corporations, sometimes local (i.e., local entities for electric, telecommunications, retail sales, etc.), have caused close-to-considering nationalization and supply-side economics in which those corporations no longer care about consumers on the demand-side of a capitalist market.
The R&D efforts which once funded the smaller corporations (by means of tax credits for R&D) have been replaced by strong dictatorial control which has removed pensions from what might be considered part of the American “Mandarin” class and given the money as bonuses and 1000% increases to those at the top. What is described here permeates many other industries and companies (see Ellen Schultz book, The Retirement Heist).
Furthermore, I have observations and evidence about the impact of centralized corporate conglomerates close to monopoly status. Some of the observations are personal and involve family business. Other evidence I have provided in many of my writings about this topic for more than a decade.
With this being said and considering your publication is out of a nation with a long history of “royalty-based” supply-side economics (feudal ownership which was thrown away by those in the northeast of America (see A Free Soil — A Free People: he Anti-Rent War in Delaware County, New York – referencing the anti-rent, anti-feudal wars in upstate New York in the 1840s), perhaps the ideas of your writer are thrust forward so as to validate America’s move, by way of Reagan, to deregulation and the ultimate slippery slope of supply-side economics? The justification is more for the “feudal” land policies in Dixie, called plantations, where the owners were too much like a Charles Dickens character, Ebeneezer Scrooge – cheap, cheap, cheap, and unwilling to balance supply and demand, whether it be economics OR labor.
What people do not realize is that when Reagan pushed for deregulation, many people said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our small corporation was not broke. In fact it was a cash cow, due to the hard work of the people who labored to make it better. How nice to honor us with a severance package which did not last long, but the axe men at the top walked away, skimming money (is that not stealing? Perhaps?) in the millions of dollars, so as to “deregulate” and move to M&A for the sake of monopoly.
We were against the deregulation so we were against change. The definition of conservative: “averse to change.” That would have made us conservative, not liberal. Liberal defined: “open to new ideas.” Deregulation was a “new idea.” No wonder people are so confused. Liberal: “…a political and social philosophythat promotes…democracy, and free enterprise.” Ultimately, democracy with the words free enterprise demonstrates an oxymoron. Free enterprise left unregulated destroys democracy, as we see happening today. Perhaps Reagan was the liberal but called himself conservative? All of his charismatic talk pushed this world into chaos beyond just the political spectrum.
A reviewer of the Zakaria book says,
According to your writer, America is still doing better than China. But the question remains as to how well it will stand up when it is face-to-face, with a supply-side economics, with communist supply-side economics of China? Is there not a better possibility America could stand up to China if we were to use “creative destruction” (i.e., like the 1840s anti-rent rebellions) to return us to deregulation and bring back capitalism as it should be – supply AND demand? For America, history has proven this to be true.
Sincerely,
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Category:
Commentary
Leave a comment
Healthcare Costs in America & the Developed World