Virtually everyone around the world has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many Americans, in fact, have lost their jobs within the past few months. Who do we turn to during this challenging time? What should we do if
this pandemic persists for months—if not years? A few Americans, as one might
expect, are beginning to respond with the following statements: “The Federal Government must
periodically attend to our needs; it must deposit a certain amount of money in
every American’s bank account on a monthly basis”. This growing mentality, in my opinion, exposes America’s underlying flaws.
Just
last month, “President Donald
Trump signed into law a massive $2 trillion emergency economic
package… that includes direct cash payments… for people across the
country.” This step is unlike any other action the government has
taken in the past to support those in need. It’s more radical than all of
Bernie Sanders’s potential policies combined. We, of course, were already
expecting this to happen at some point. Thousands, if not millions, of
Americans are currently struggling financially--although it may take a while for some to
feel the effect of this unprecedented pandemic. America, nonetheless,
is faced with two conflicting decisions: Offer financial benefits to unemployed
Americans on a regular basis or retain its ideals by depending on private
philanthropic donations alone. Well, America has always prided itself as an
anti-socialist country; we can’t afford to go against the ideals of our
founding fathers. I must confirm at this point that I’m not a
pro-capitalist. I just find it funny that America typically resorts to
socialism and increased government intervention during times of depression, and
then reverts back to capitalism when everything comes back to normal.
Capitalism or socialism? Choose one!
If, hypothetically,
socialism is taken out of the equation, what else can be done to fix this
issue? That’s where philanthropy comes in. There’s no better time in the world
for philanthropists to step up. A month ago, Bill Gate “donated $150 million
dollars to combat the spread of corona virus.” Of course, he could have
deposited the money in people’s bank account. He, instead, chose to tackle the
root cause of this chaos. We’ve talked repeatedly in class about the importance
of tackling issues head-on. This, to me, is the only viable way to put an end
to this pandemic, while concealing America’s flaws at the same time. Once this
is over, we may continue to criticize those who hoard money for no apparent
reason. But for now, we have to motivate and compel them to give more.
Many countries around the
world are undoubtedly taking a critical look at America’s strategy.
They are wondering if America would begin to enforce more socialist policies
while this pandemic is ongoing. Outsiders may laugh at America if that ends up
being the case. The reason behind this, as I said earlier, is simple and
straightforward. Prior to this outbreak, many Americans were—and are
still—living in abject poverty. One of our many responses is that “those living in poverty
must work hard for what they want!” “Socialism,” according to some, “has no
place in America… Americans mustn’t depend on the government for food or
money.” Who wouldn’t label Americans as hypocrites if we decide to ignore these
statements? Non-natives may ask the question, “Does America really have to wait
until an outbreak like this occurs before it comes to the realization that
those struggling financially deserve to be treated fairly”? Philanthropists,
nonetheless, have the power to hide America’s hypocrisy—at least for the time being.
Victor Okedoyin
References.
References.
Victor,
ReplyDeleteYou've raised many interesting points. You mentioned choosing between capitalism and socialism and the changing government policies overtime. I disagree slightly with the notion that we have chosen one of the other. During the great depression, FDR implemented many socialist policies. Many of those policies don't exist anymore, but a few remain. President Lyndon B. Johnson also enacted many socialist policies, such as medicare. America maintains a negative view of socialism left over from the cold war, but we maintain aspects of both. Neither of these economic theories or systems would work alone in real life, but having aspects of both have been beneficial to our country. We need to strike a balance between having enough competition, so that people continue to innovate, but also making sure we take care of the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy, who are essential to society. Also, things that might have worked in the past, may not work in the future, and there will most likely be shifts in our country that favor socialism. Many of these policies they are enacting now during the pandemic could be considered socialist, but the idea behind these policies to limit the economic damage of having so many people out of work. Different circumstances call for different policies. I think right now in America, the system does too much to support the wealthy and not enough to support the poor. The pandemic only highlights problems that already existed in America, as you said. I thought your take on philanthropy being the capitalist alternative to socialism was interesting. It could be, but it doesn't do enough to decrease wealth inequality, which is one of the main ideas behind socialism. I think billionaire philanthropy highlights problems in America, because it shows that only a select few people can use their wealth to dictate policy and enact change. Our billionaires have the most money to give, but our country is still one of the most unequal countries in the world. Good job on your blog post.
-Andrew
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your blog post this week! I appreciate your perspective on the topic and agree that wealthy people should give back to society on a larger scale instead of hoarding their wealth. I also agree with many points Andrew raised in his response to your post; mainly that socialism is not entirely a bad thing and that the U.S. requires elements of both capitalism and socialism to function. As he mentioned, using parts of both systems creates balance in a society where people are still motivated by profit while the less fortunate are not just left in the dust.
Although it is labeled a “socialist” policy, the stimulus package that gives $1,200 to individuals is rooted in capitalism. Out of $2 Trillion dollars, less than 10% will go towards public services. In addition, less than 20% will go to state and local governments who are on the front lines of managing the COVID-19 crisis. At the same time $877 Billion, or 44% of the stimulus package, will go to business and the private sector. This “socialist” policy is meant to help capitalism survive through an unprecedented shock to our economy. Only about 30% of the $2 Trillion stimulus will go to individuals. The main focus of the bill is to prevent the private sector from deteriorating and maintain our capitalist economic practices.
The U.S. economy is consumer driven, without consumer spending we will have much bigger problems than a virus in the future. Many people have already lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, and a record number of people have filed for unemployment. This crisis is similar to a natural disaster and requires government action. The direct giving aspect of the stimulus bill reminds me of our class discussion about disaster philanthropy. During class we talked about why donating to the charity “give directly” was good: the beneficiaries knew what they needed and would use the money accordingly. Other forms of aid did compare to directly giving people a way to rebuild or maintain their lives. If you think about the stimulus in this way, it makes sense that people who are unable to work are being directly supported in this time of hardship. There is no way to guarantee that all Americans in need of help would be able to get it by relying solely on philanthropists.
References
Snell, K. (2020, March 26). What's inside the senate's $2 trillion coronavirus aid package. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package
Sophia’s comparison of COVID-19 to a natural disaster reminded me of Frédéric Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy. Say a kid breaks a shopkeeper's window, is that an macroeconomically beneficial action? Some would say, “yes,” because it increases economic activity in the area to have that window fixed. But, in actuality, it not only increases the costs of the shop, but eliminates the potential economic activity of that shop. That shopkeeper could have expanded his business, donated it, or spent it on personal expenses, but now it can only be a window-fixing expense. This doesn’t increase the local economy, but sets it back to the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThis scenario is often compared to disaster aid and, in this case, pandemic aid. A “socialist” stimulus package such as this is meant to preserve the status quo, not to enhance. I do not believe that aid is a socialist idea because socialism assumes a prosperous nation so the nation can increase socioeconomic equality with little risk to the health of the economy. However, any kind of aid is given on the basis that a window has already been broken. The urgency of the situation leaves very little room for innovation or ideological adjustment. I would love for some structural changes to take place as much as the next person, but I understand that drastic (re)action needs to be taken. The severity of the task shouldn’t be criticized, but rather the dexterity with which it is implemented. I personally don’t believe in universal basic income, but maintaining structure is more important than the implications of that money ideologically.
As for philanthropic aid, I unfortunately think it falls on very large philanthropists to contribute as policies enforcing social distancing have forced many nonprofits and local businesses to close their doors. If social distancing weren’t a factor, I would advocate for local empowerment to increase the economic infrastructure, but sweeping actions seem to make sense in the meantime. Do you think that an increased government role in the economy would have softened the blow of this pandemic? I’m curious to know what you think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Michael.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a technical question, to be honest. Unfortunately, I don’t any empirical evidence right now. We only believe what the government tells us. So, I’m just going to give a broad explanation of my stance on which economic system works best in times like this.
I’m not a capitalist, so let's just take that of the equation for now; Neither am I a socialist. If anything, I’m an anarchist. Yeah, I know, this is a civil society course so I shouldn’t be saying that. I was only kidding. But I do believe that America’s current economic system is extremely flawed—this is the sole reason why our economy tends to crumble during times like this. As you said, we are often left with no other choice but to stabilize the flawed status quo through dexterous means. In this case, by aiding Americans in dire needs. (Luckily rich people get less amount of money). You said “[you] would love for some structural changes to take place”. So do I. But it just seems like no matter what we do, the gap never closes. Some people still remain privileged, while others remain at the bottom. They tend to depend on wealthy and powerful people in times like this—since the government doesn’t even care.
So which economic system works best? I sincerely don’t know. There’s no perfect utilitarian system right now. But, for some reasons, it just seems like capitalism is the most favorable option in this era. I can tell that you, Andrew and Sophia also prefer capitalism to socialism (Or, at least, a mix of both). I don’t blame any of us. Truly it breeds inequality, but that doesn’t mean that this system is completely undemocratic. Andrew Carnegie definitely agrees with me. Rich capitalist can always use their wealth in the right way. They can always give a fraction of their wealth to struggling Americans. Nice question, by the way.
Reference.
https://www.carnegie.org/about/our-history/gospelofwealth/
It’s interesting that you brought up anarchy because it’s a common misconception that anarchy just means chaos. Anarchy could imply chaos, but it is simply the lack of recognized authority. Some people think that the international relations function underneath a state of anarchy because the U.N. is usually seen as just a nice ideological gesture with no real sovereignty unto itself. I would liken anarchy more to capitalism because laissez-faire capitalism mandates no government intervention. I think you might just be a critic, which is not a bad thing at all. I find debate and commenting on global structures to be very fun as well. However, we are just young adults who only know things based on our own research and education; we cannot solve problems that greater society and academia haven’t been able to for centuries. Fortunately, that doesn’t mean we can’t take a few jabs here and there once we find an opening.
DeleteI think that overhauling the government is something that’s needed, but it won’t be surefire because we have built these centuries-old systems and don’t know much else. And I don’t think that narrowing the gap between classes would prevent a recession such as this, only soften it a little before the savings run out. I think the gap between classes and the wealth inequality that is so hounded on is merely a result of structural discrimination. They influence each other, but the pure idea of capitalism isn’t bad. Neither is socialism, but both have been corrupted by human flaws. These are just my thoughts though I’m interested to know what policymakers decide to implement. Of course, just so I can critique them like I know better.
Victor, I enjoyed reading your post a lot. I have been having the same thoughts and questions about what systems would work better for the people of our country. It seems that the US depends on socialist policies when in need and distress, while enforcing a bad reputation against socialism otherwise. However, I see our current philanthropic model as a redundant cycle that barely solves our systemic and institutionalized issues. Instead, we are allowing the wealthy to receive tax cuts because of their donations, and improve their reputations. In reality though, the hoarded accumulation of wealthy by these people is not their money. This money is not earned without exploitation and keeping people ignorant. This money should be given to society and our communities regardless, and these people do not deserve the positive recognition of being "compassionate" or "giving". We also see this philanthropic model on a smaller scale, when white or blue collar people donate to other white or blue collar people, or even those who do not have jobs or are in financial crisis, through mediums like GoFundMe. People are able to show their name and donation, which I think again feeds people's ego (even though it is useful and appreciated!!!!) However, you have the poor giving to the poor and that smaller percentage of money as a collective whole ( compared to that of the super wealthy) just keeps being thrown around in the same circle.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what it will take for our country to have universal healthcare, housing, education, and income. We know the money is there and exists, so what is stopping us from giving humans what they need to merely survive? It is greed and selfishness. I am personally getting fed up with the fact that we have a reputation of being "one of the wealthiest countries" in the world, while we have huge disparities that cause people of lower socioeconomic statuses to die. Being "one of the wealthiest countries" in the world, or realistically, being the country that has the richest individuals, should also ensure that all the people in our country are taken care of with compassion and empathy. I see this only being accomplished through organizing and revolutionizing. (We go in at dawn!)