We are again hearing a lot about income inequality. I’d like to expand my views on the topic. I’ve typically stayed away from the moral discussion sticking only to the mathematical implications it has on economic growth. Quite honestly from a moral perspective I believe the issue is a wash on a broad scale and yet a travesty at the same time for that small and shrinking group of productive working class folks.
On a broad scale the nation has taken on a parent child relationship. It started with the New Deal under FDR and was put on steroids in the mid 60’s under LB Johnson with the Social Welfare Act. Now FDR was a prominent supporter of the central banking clan. And as such backed the notion that the best way to fix a debt induced depression is to take on even more debt and when that doesn’t work well the obvious next step is war. Now I won’t get into it here but if you step away from your school taught history lessons and discover the real catalyst for WWII I expect it will have you questioning everything (and the real reason for wars during the time of global central banking doesn’t take anything away from the incredible sacrifices made by those called on to fight; so you musn’t feel guilty about accepting truths even if they don’t coincide with what you’ve been taught it means to be an American i.e. believe anything you learned in school or that you hear from the President). In any case nothing like a grand war to end a depression.
LB learned a big lesson from the New Deal. And it wasn’t that spending can fix the economy but that spending on a large scale can sway voters. Now it is not efficient to buy votes one at a time but there is a way to buy entire demographics. You see the black community being loyal to Lincoln was thus supportive of Lincoln’s party and Lincoln was a republican. But interestingly under the spending programs of the New Deal money flowed into black schools in the south. Now despite FDR backing away from civil rights bills not wanting to risk southern democrat votes blacks did appreciate the improvement to schools and other social programs that benefited their communities. This appreciation was paid back with 75% of the black vote shifting to democrats.
In the mid 60’s LB Johnson decided that he needed another round of social programs to extract the remaining black vote. The greatest social welfare spending in the history of the world was thus introduced. The destruction of the black community directly has been catastrophic. Let me give you a for instance. In 1965 95% of black children were born into two parent households. Now part of LB’s social welfare act was to provide income and housing to black mothers. However, the stipulation was that in order to get the money they could not have a father living at home. Today 90% of black children in the inner cities are born into single parent households. The term husband and wife in the inner city has been replaced with baby-mama and baby-daddy. This in no way means all blacks have succumb to such social welfare. But the numbers are factual observations done by the census bureau.
The point is not to disparage blacks but to provide some context to my next point. Today 55% of the American population is taking some form of handout from the government and given blacks make up only 13% of the US population means the vast majority of social welfare recipients today are non blacks. The benefit realized by FDR and LB Johnson is that when voters are beholden financially to the state for their survival they tend to vote for those who are going to sustain those social programs. Republicans also took note and created corporate welfare programs which allow corporations via the lobby process to purchase policies that provide unearned cashflows i.e. welfare. So our entire political process is now built on the axiom that one must provide welfare to receive votes. And the majority of the nation are participants playing along. That is the majority of Americans take the handout and vote accordingly. Likewise corporations understand what they must do and also act accordingly.
This brings us all the way back to my opening point which is that income inequality albeit having a serious mathematical implication is borne of a moral blackhole. A nation of integrity doesn’t have a majority of the population taking government handouts. A principled nation does not allow for a political process built on bribery. Certainly politicians have led us toward these moral transgressions but that is the role of the false prophet. It is on the individual to withstand such heresy and as a nation we’ve become Eve in the garden. The meek may very well inherit the earth but only after the kings have plundered its beauty.