|← What is an Argument?||Should Illegal Immigrants be Made Legal Citizens? →|
As people draw various arguments towards who really runs America, what comes into their mind is whether economic stability of America is in any way connected with its governing structure and power. America is one of the most economically stable nations and it clearly stipulates its superficial powerful nature. However, the reality connects America’s economic stability with few but most powerful creditors who have completely funded and owned the America’s economy. According to Domhoff (2010), the bankruptcy of America has enabled few wealthy creditors to fund and own all the governing policies and structures of the United States. He points out that these few creditors who normally account for 1% of the American total population own more than 50% of the America’s wealth from which they solemnly apply the doctrine of “Government as Parent”. They thus manipulate the America’s lending economy thereby buying all of its assets including its people and country as a whole.
Domhoff (2011) notes that the Federal Reserve laws, under which all the aspects of human activities that affect the American people, such as unemployment, should be clearly addressed, have averted its mandatory obligations of serving the people of the United States. The laws are rather serving the interests of these few wealthy people. He points out that these few wealthy individuals normally dictate on the various legislations that primarily satisfy their selfish interest. For instance, the Independent Treasury Act of 1920 turned the treasury department into a private corporation to enable these monopolistic cartels to constitute and own the Federal Reserve System. This was aimed at enabling such cartels to control and run the American government and this clearly indicates how these few wealthy and powerful people can primarily dictate both the government structure and the policies (Domhoff, 2011).
In addressing the monopolistic impact of these few wealthy individuals in running the American government, the write up discusses various arguments regarding the possible problems that would arise in America when one percent of its citizens posses 50% of its wealth and assets.
Yes there is a Problem
As argued by Page, Bartels & Seawright (2011), the possession of 50% of the Americans wealth and assets by 1% of Americans normally results to economic regulations that only address their selfish interest rather than the interest of the American citizens. They point out that since these few people command the half of the American’s economy, they adamantly dictate various American economic regulations that enables them to become richer while other Americans continue to suffer poverty. According to them, the wealthiest Americans (1%) normally form corporate community from which they are able to illustrate their economic regulations of preference that then are passed and implemented by the federal government. They note that these wealthiest Americans normally meet and discuss on various legislations that they are able to pass either to the White House or through a congressional meeting in form of pamphlets or interviews so as to be implemented by the federal government.
Page, Bartels & Seawright (2011) point out that these wealthiest Americans, through their corporate community, command and ensure that the federal government enhances the financial regulations that primarily satisfy their private interest thereby controlling the entry and competition of their business especially by lowering their own capital cost. This on the other hand undermines the business entry of the ordinary American citizens. Benmelech & Moskowitz (2008) note that these few wealthiest Americans normally encourage the federal government to limit the maximization of the legal interest rate which in turn results into credit rationing. This in turn increases the cost of trading which normally bar most of the American businesses from entering into the international markets. As a result, most of Americans have continued to venture into business that primarily does not effectively enhance their economic standards. This normally negates the primary role of the government that is to motivate the public interest especially for the disadvantaged groups by helping them venture into international market rather than limiting their ability to access the international market as has been the case.
Domhoff (2011) argues that the impact of these few wealthiest American on the American politics normally results into the election of ineffective leaders who make no impact on public interest. He points out that these few wealthiest Americans not only fund their preferred presidential candidate but also form the campaign platform from which their candidate sell out his candidature in enticing people to vote for him. He notes that most of the pre-election promises of creating more jobs and reducing taxation revenue among the American citizens are purely constituted to help these few wealthiest Americans and do not actually address the concerns of the average American people.
For instance, Cay (2012) points out that both the Republican and Democratic administrations have seen the employment of the corporate community members in government departments. This helps ensure that these few wealthiest Americans form the government policy framework which helps them meet their private interest. He notes that the representatives of the corporate community not only participate in the congressional meetings, especially towards the enactment of economic policies, but they also form part of the foreign commission of the president that addresses him on the international affairs and the economic vulnerability of America. According to him, the taxation issues which have always captured the campaign platform for American presidents normally vanish once they are elected. Equally, the government regulations and laws that are constituted towards taxation normally have favored the rich as opposed to the ordinary Americans.
Bardes, Shelly & Schmidt (2011 note that the continuous reduction of taxation regulation on the rich Americans’ income has enabled their income to continuously grow irrespective of the president’s party affiliation. The president Clinton administration enabled these top one percent wealthiest Americans’ income to grow by 45 % with a subsequent growth of 65% during president Bush administration and finally a 93% income growth was indicated in the President Obama’ administration (Cay, 2012). But notwithstanding, the continued ineffectiveness and inability of American leaders in meeting their primary obligations of working towards the interest of the public and not servicing these selfish tycoons have resulted into unemployment opportunity and hence poverty among the ordinary Americans.
On the other hand, it is argued that by one percent of the wealthiest Americans owning 50% of America’s wealth and assets, their impact on the American economy can adversely affect the social programs that are intended to help the ordinary Americans. Benmelech & Moskowitz (2008) point out that since these wealthiest Americans own most the industries in the United States, any regulation that they wish to pass always sails through even if it affects the well being of ordinary America. They point out that the social welfare programs especially for workers are essential in enhancing their rights so as not to be exploited in their working areas. Furthermore, hindering such social programs undermine their human dignity. According to Domhoff (2011), the few wealthiest Americans at times ensure that workers do not form either unions or parties which primarily give them the opportunity to express themselves. For instance, in case workers unite in opposing the dilapidated working conditions they experience in various industries, the few wealthiest Americans will use their powerful economic outstanding through government securities such as the police and the judiciary in disrupting such organizations (Domhoff, 2011). He notes that these few wealthiest Americans not only own the congress and the executive but also own both the America’s judiciary and all the States governments.
Moreover, because of these 50% of America’s wealth and assets owned by 1% of Americans, most of the Americans are on the verge of unregulated prices of commodities which can result into high inflation rate and financial crisis thereby affecting the lives of American citizens. According to Page, Bartels & Seawright (2011) the America’s government normally depends on the corporate community in enhancing regulating prices of various commodities. They point out that these normally make it difficult for the government to determine the prices for basic commodities. This is especially observed during the financial crisis where inflation rate normally shoots beyond the income of the average Americans. They note that the American economy stands threatened whenever these few American through their corporate community are left to decide on prices for basic commodities that surpasses the income of average Americans.
No there is No Problem
On the other hand, some scholars have argued that there is no problem that is posed by 1% of Americans possessing 50% of the America’s wealth and assets. The various arguments towards this approach are primarily based on the impact and importance of wealthiest Americans owning 50% of America’s wealth and assets.
Benmelech & Moskowitz (2008) argue that the owning of 50% of America’s wealth and assets by 1% of Americans poses no problem but rather is advantageous to most American families. They based their argument on the fact that various companies and industries of these wealthiest American normally incorporate public relief programs that are primarily developed so as to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Americans. They argue that the philanthropic effort of these few wealthy Americans to help the disadvantaged groups signifies the key role that they play in alleviating poverty that affects various societies. As pointed out by Tarbox (2012), the wealthiest American people normally see their potentiality in giving back to the society. This enable them to improve the economic well being of people in a society. She points out that these wealthiest Americans have solemnly obligated charity events and evidently normally form part of their financial obligations. For instance, Bill Gates announced to ship in $750 million through his Microsoft charity organization, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that is primarily entitled to help in preventing the spread of AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria. Moreover, she points out that David Rubenstein who is one of the American billionaires cut off the government’s expenditure by agreeing to renovate the Washington Monument which was damaged by earthquake. This would enable the government to relocate the funds that were intended for the renovation of the monument into other activities that address the public interest.
On the other hand, Maurer (2006) argues that by owning 50% of America’s wealth and assets, these wealthiest Americans are able to preserve Americans wealth and assets that not only help in building stable economy, but also provide most of the Americans with income through job opportunities. He points out that if most of the Americans own large portion of America’s wealth and assets this will result into an economic rift and instability characterized by unnecessary economic competition. He notes that acquiring wealth signifies acquired powers and therefore each of the Americans who own adequate portion of wealth and assets will try to exercise his or her powers especially towards American economy which in turn might result into its economic downfall.
Moreover, Benmelech & Moskowitz (2008) argue that the implementation of taxation regulation especially towards income taxation of the wealthiest Americans by the current American administration will enable it to increase its annual revenue collection which in turn will reduce its borrowing rates. Even though, the wealthiest Americans at times have been the creditors who have helped in stabilizing the American economy, if the taxation regulation can be effectively implemented towards their wealth and assets, then America stands a chance of reducing on its lending rate (Benmelech & Moskowitz, 2008). For instance, applying a tax of 25% to the total income of the wealthiest Americans will result into almost $ 1.25 billion which is essential in enhancing the government activities towards improving the living standards of ordinary and average Americans.
The write up in addressing who really runs America have illustrated various arguments that have suggested that the wealthiest Americans primarily dictate the governing structure of the American administration. It has pointed out that these wealthiest Americans normally form a corporate community from which they deploy their member to the government departments in collaboration with federal government thereby forming the ruling power that runs America. The paper has noted that the wealthiest Americans primarily contribute to various legislations and policies that range from taxation to financial regulations. The policies ensure their continued excelling of their industries in the international markets.
On the other hand, the write up has noted that the possession of a large portion of America’s wealth and assets does not primarily constitute problems but rather addresses the public interest. It has pointed out the need for the wealthiest Americans to pay taxes that correspond to their hefty income so as not only to improve America’s economy but also to improve the living standard of ordinary Americans. Moreover, the write up has illustrated the need for the wealthiest Americans to effectively use their economic status not for their selfish gain but rather towards the entire public interest.