I’ve never been very good at analyzing myself, so I’m sure I couldn’t say precisely how my thoughts have changed over the semester. I suppose what’s best reflected in my blog is my journey through many different ideas towards my final topic of discussion in my expert study. I began with a decidedly outspoken introduction, and I’d like to say that I’ve made the transition from rhetoric to research, but truth be told, I’m really still not so great at that. I can’t even make myself believe that my arguments have reached a particularly wide variety of topics. What I can at least believe is that my rather empty rhetoric has at least become more reasonable and realistic.

Most of my earlier posts (and it does continue as a theme throughout) focus much more on the morality and economic sense behind capitalism, and only briefly touch on its application to the world as a whole. In The Africa Problem, I make an argument that I still wholeheartedly believe in: people can only really be wealthy in the long term by their own merit. An undeserving heir will soon lose his fortune just as the man given a fish will go hungry the next night. Again, not much more than fustian assumptions in relation to Africa, but I’m not sure what I could cite to predict the future. What really counts here is the idea, and the reasons behind it. It’s still something that I truly believe, and I’ve written as persuasively as I can.

In We Pledge Allegiance To Bill Gates, I outline my very first idea for my expert study. I never completely abandoned it- it is more abstractly touched upon in my study- but as interested in this hypothetical scenario as I am, I felt that it was too far-fetched to write any serious paper on, or at least before it’s a fully developed idea. What comes out here, I think, is my own vision of globalization. I discuss the blurring of national boundaries to the point of the extinction of nation-states, which I know is very detached from reality, but it still illustrates how I came to view globalization as empowerment of the individual and undermining the importance of national governments. If nothing else, I’d say that I at least have a somewhat unique vision of it, even if the final result is not entirely realistic. I tend to think a lot in ideals, but that problem is addressed near the end of the blog, which I’ll get to later.

A bit later on in the semester, I realized something very grounding. After reading The Communist Manifesto, I wrote Marx off as being outdated for writing not about capitalism in a free society, but about oppressive and exclusive aristocracies. It didn’t take me long to see that it wasn’t as outdated as it sounded. America has its own, somewhat unintentional aristocracy, created by the lack of opportunity and education for the children of the poor. Yes, I am from a wealthier area, and that is a lot of why I believe what I believe, but not for the reasons you’d instantly think. I’ve known many awful, stupid, almost sub-human children have their way paid for them because their parents were wealthy, and they get all if not more of everything I do, no matter how hard I work. It’s like a communist idea hidden inside a laissez-faire aristocracy. It still makes me absolutely sick to see these people going to great colleges while I have to think of the brilliant people doomed to low-income households and opportunities. One very important distinction I then had to make was that aristocracy is not the capitalist ideal. I’m safe; I’m still just as capitalist as I thought I was, but what’s not capitalist is our own social structure. From this little train of thought sprung a firm belief that people should be judged not by their background, but by their own merit. If this means that someone who was poor takes whatever place I might have had because they’re better than me, so be it. It’s for the best that someone better than me be higher up; I’ll just have to work harder. Of course, that ideal is not entirely realistic, but I argue in that same post that we at least have to take steps to see that it’s closer to reality.

Another idea I touch upon is the philosophy of global egalitarianism, and thus begin my anti-nationalist rants. For the first time I argue the idea which I eventually turn into a pillar of my later arguments: our world is now set up in an aristocracy of wealth by nation, but no American has a birthright to a job. In a truly egalitarian and capitalist world, there are fabulously wealthy in Mongolia and terribly poor in America, but everyone deserves to be where they are. Another ideal, but it’s the thought that counts when building a frame of mind.

From that point, I jump away from my economic defenses of capitalism towards more attacks on nationalism, collectivism, and elitism. I found that there are quite a number of isms that I dislike. There was still not much there but rhetoric, but how does one research culture? I do poorly enough researching numbers and statistics, so how could I research the cultural attitudes of America? The short answer is: I didn’t. What I hope I did at least do is make logical and convincing arguments. As far as American patriotism goes, I think I did a decent job making a sensible and persuasive argument.

What I realized one very early morning in Sleep Is For People Who Don’t Have Enough To Think About is that my original idea for my expert study and the one I’d finally come to were really not terribly different. I wrote about free trade and notions of nationalism, but thought also that this tied in closely with the idea of blurred national boundaries, that is, globalization as the anti-nationalizer. An interesting question that arose in my mind, if not on paper, is: does globalization kill nationalism or does it require anti-nationalism to flourish, or both?

After writing my first draft I came back to the topic of education, following a conversation I’d had earlier that day with Dean Rucker. He had some interesting points about how education is greatly influenced by world events, and this is not a new thing. I was very happy to learn that Mandarin will be offered next year, but also saw the greater implications of this in terms of education. Global trends mixed with traditional education produces students who will not only be effective thinkers at home, but very capable abroad. This is still a part of the cultural aspect, which I clarify more in Substantivist Economics. I felt that my writing in that post was returning to more irrational terms, but I think I generally clarified the concept, at least.

All in all, I’m not terribly pleased with my writing over the semester. I believe every word I’ve said with all of my heart, but I don’t feel as though I presented it very effectively. It reads like “I think this” and “I think that,” but I at least think that I presented everything in a reasonably logical fashion. It turns out that I’m really not as brilliant as I thought, but that only means I’ll have to work harder- and isn’t that really it? No one can coast along without constantly striving to improve, neither in this fifteen person seminar nor in the 6.6 billion person flat world.

Now this is interesting.  Quite the contrary to what we usually hear, isn’t it?  According to USA Today, while it is true that millions of low-skill manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, more than 80% of manufacturers in America say they suffer from a severe lack of skilled workers.  These are high-skill positions, but it’s important to note that they don’t require any college degree at all.  In fact, many employers are offering free training to anyone who will agree to work these relatively well-paying positions.  Mike Bunner says in the article, “I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.  When I was a kid, people would stand in line for hours for an opportunity at a job like I have available.  I can’t get people to show up for an interview.”  So if these jobs are available, why aren’t people taking them?

Well, all the commotion about factory closings and job outsourcing sure isn’t encouraging anyone to take these positions.  The public perception of manufacturing jobs are low-class, dirty, and repetitive also hurt employment numbers.  America’s not yet ready to become a completely service-oriented economy, not by a long-shot, but it looks like people can’t distinguish between unskilled assembly line labor and skilled manufacturing work.  These employment shortages are hurting the growth of certain manufacturing industries which are not yet able to move for whatever reasons.

So here’s my question: with 43% of the entire manufacturing labor force 45 years or older, a percent that keeps getting steadily larger, do we want to encourage youth to go into these industries?  It’s clear that they need new employees who are willing to work in skilled labor, but as we move towards service-based industry, is this a field which we want to encourage?  I say yes, it is, because businesses like Mike Bunner’s Electro Chemical Engineering can’t feasibly outsource at this time.  We’re still far from being a complete service economy- in fact, the idea is still a bit far fetched- so we need to make sure that these good jobs aren’t being left alone.  Working with your hands and working with your mind aren’t mutually exclusive, but I think that people generally see it that way.  Realistically, for the time being, we still need a good proportion of lawyers to plastic welders.

A large foundation of my study is Karl Polanyi’s idea of “substantivist economics.” To grossly paraphrase, it says that there are two sides to economics. The first side is the completely rational and real side of numbers, facts, and theories; this is formalist economics, the study of economics based on utility under conditions of scarcity. In my study, this is where free trade sits. It’s the best economic system for both individuals and the world as a whole, as far as cold facts and figures go. The flip side is substantivist economics, the anthropological aspect of it: some decisions which are not necessarily logical, made by humans based on their cultural perceptions. This, I write, is where the popular American perception of globalization is. Although the global free market is clearly superior by numbers, people are very hesitant to accept it as a good thing. Indeed, “outsourcing” and even “capitalism” are both words to which negative connotations are attached in popular culture. Why does this happen? Polanyi explains how religion, government, and socio-cultural values and obligations factor into these choices often. While from a cultural standpoint, many of these obligations may not be seen as irrational, but they do nonetheless detract from the factuality of formalist economics.

I want to clarify this a bit before moving on, because as I’ve said, this is grossly paraphrased. Polanyi’s book, The Great Transformation, refers to the divide between market-driven capitalist economics and centralized redistribution systems. Polanyi argues that the substantivist approach applies to both systems, but is the exclusive approach to the latter. But then, it could be easily argued that socialism isn’t really an economic theory anyway, but a social theory. As such, formalist economics cannot be used to analyze it. Market systems, however, are driven both by these substantivist means and rational decisions of self-interest.

What substantivist economics is not about, however, is saying “Oh well, that’s just culture. Guess we’ll go that way.” What it tries to do is understand why people veer from the most logical course and doom themselves in the process. In the case of outsourcing, it’s easy to see why one might oppose it, despite the truth behind what Greg Mankiw had to say about it. In fact, that incident is a fantastic example of the “substantivist shift” towards opposing logic. Mankiw committed a major Washington faux pas: stating the blatant truth. He committed political suicide because though what he had to say was absolutely right, it was not what people wanted to hear. But that’s not even the root of it. Why wasn’t it what people wanted to hear? Well, the general media, for one, greatly exaggerates the “problem” of outsourcing and puts a spin on the pro-business crowd. After Mankiw’s comments, headlines began to appear about the Bush-supported flight of “American jobs,” as if a job were an inherent right to an American, not to be stolen by a foreigner. The media can’t drill an idea into Americans’ brains merely by suggestion, but it’s sure a great catalyst. “Outsourcing” quickly became a buzzword in the early 2000s and turned into an easy scapegoat for economic discontents, though it’s hardly the cause of any real problems there may be.

America’s popular values based on need as opposed to pure merit combined with collectivist attitudes of American pride also contradict the ideas behind international free trade. Americans need steel working jobs to support their families, big soulless companies don’t need to increase their profit margins .06%. That’s probably true, but you know what else is true? Indians need jobs. Indonesians need jobs. Americans don’t necessarily deserve jobs any more than they do. This, of course, is never recognized, because the idol of need is only enshrined in America. Our collectivist pride fosters a social “obligation” to help our own, when by the numbers, the economic policies to support that are bad for us as a whole.

So what is it? What causes people to put up shields against the good to leave the way open for the bad? I can’t believe it’s only the greed or short-sightedness of the protected; I try to have more faith in man than that. My best guess is that people simply don’t know. Their leaders don’t want to say anything, because politicians can’t go against popular opinion. The media won’t say anything, because sensationalism is good television. No one will listen to businessmen or economists, because wealth is a soulless pursuit, obviously. Although people are very open to cultural globalization, global free trade is frowned upon as the cause of all the suffering of poor countries. That’s hardly true, so why is that the opinion? And how can people know otherwise? I hate to say it, because it is my paper, but if no one will listen to the only people willing to speak the truth, then I’m afraid I don’t have a solution. The best I can hope is that as time passes, this transition becomes more accepted and people will begin to become educated about what is truly going on.

In a conversation with Dean Rucker yesterday, I learned that Mandarin programs will indeed be beginning at Mary Washington next year. This was very exciting news for me, but of course, these classes will most likely be immediately filled by upperclassmen. Hopefully I can at least start in my junior year, oh well. Anyway, this led into a very interesting discussion about how the global political and economic climate very much influences education curricula here at home. For instance, the new Arabic program at UMW is of course in response to our involvement in the Middle East. While I’d much rather get involved with Chinese trade than Arabic war, it’s still great that the university is ready to teach students what they need to know not only to reach their potential domestically but be very flexible globally. Maybe it was a little late on Mandarin, but better late than never. It’s not a stretch to state that (apart from English) Mandarin will be the most useful language to know in the business world in coming decades.

This trend in education reacting to the world was illustrated also during the Cold War, in which, of course, there was an influx of Russian programs in public schools. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, so too did collapse our public Russian programs. They quickly began to disappear from high schools and while they’re certainly not gone, they’re much less common than they once were. This is a good thing, though. We can’t teach everything that global operators could possibly need to know, but we should make an effort to stick with global trends. Even if China collapses in five years and Russia becomes an economic powerhouse (very hypothetical scenario), we’ll at least have been prepared for the most likely result. There are two goals now in education, I think.

1. Provide students with a diverse, “untouchable” education to give the ability to reach their best potential in whatever field in which that may turn out to be.

2. Prepare students to operate globally in concordance with current and expected global trends.

The first has always been a fundamental goal of education: preparing students for the world in which they’ll operate (domestically). But though it’s been happening probably longer than we realize, it becomes more and more important every day that students are prepared for the much larger and literal “world.”

I just returned from an hour-long chat with Professor Gable which was very interesting and enlightening. I went to discuss with him the cultural points of my argument, and we ended up talking at length about many different aspects of the entire topic, from Little Italy to David Ricardo. First, I brought up something which he had talked about earlier in the semester, that is how people form bonds based on arbitrarily set borders. This is the basis of the idea of nationalism which I am trying to debunk. People tend to categorize themselves for a number of reasons, and these connections are often irrational but not thought about. Of course, he reminded me, there are other types of bonds than the territorial ones which make up nation-states. For instance, the Catholic Church is an example of a non-territorial sovereignty. People fundamentally connect to a nation-state to be functioning members of society, and other bonds are out of emotion or sentiment. Quite quickly, those nation-state bonds become bonds of sentiment as well. We become Americans because we were born in America, but we soon also identify as Americans because we love apple pie and baseball, because we’re Americans. The territorial identification is not irrational, at least not in today’s society, but it can certainly lead to irrational thinking.

I’m not arguing to forsake our nationality to become world citizens, but I am arguing that it’s possible to love one’s country while also being a world citizen. As international collaboration and interaction becomes easier, identifying with one’s country becomes less a fundamental necessity for functionality. This is exactly what will cause the death of irrational nationalist thinking. Right now, this progress is being hampered as war and fear politics force upon us a deeper national commitment, driven by either fear, guilt, or pride. If not for functionality, than for what other rational purpose are we bound to those born within the same border? Because they’re human, but just as human as a foreigner is. And this, I think, is where we will move. It is possible to retain national identity as global citizens. We Americans should know this concept better than anyone. During high periods of immigration, and even now today, people from all over to America to look for work. Communities popped up, such as Little Italy, in which people who all considered themselves Americans still celebrated their cultural heritage. As such, it’s not unthinkable that connection to nation-states can become more sentimental than pragmatic, and we consider ourselves to be humans with an American heritage rather than Americans who need to compete as a team against other groups of humans.

All people have a natural tendency to categorize themselves somehow, and as previously stated, it’s not always territorial- that’s simply just the most basic and practical bond in an unflat world. Other people can commit themselves more to an organization, such as an executive who travels all over the world and interacts with many different types of people. He may no longer consider America to be anything more than a sentimental rooting and a place in which his company must be headquartered. That’s not to say that he’s renounced America entirely, but just that he considers himself a citizen of his company for all practical purposes, and is only sentimentally tied to the United States. Another example also illustrates the prominence and irrationality of collectivist thinking: a Mexican immigrant comes to America looking for a job. He’s generally shunned by the public for being an intruder, someone sub-human (sub-American) who’s going to steal an American’s job. By working, he supports his family, but others oppose his opportunity to work because immigrant labor is detrimental to American solidarity and he’s accused of not being altruistic. Well, he is, just not to the collective nation. His primary bond is to his family, and even though he’s an American, he’s not working for America, nor should he. Collectivist thinking is dangerous, as it leads to irrational xenophobic prejudices and barriers to hamper the recognition of humanity outside of the collective.

Beyond the hypothetical rhetoric, he shared with me some of his experiences in less developed countries. We’ve already discussed how educational systems must be formed for a people to prosper, but what we’ve not considered is, what if that education can’t be put to use? In Guinnea-Bissau, he found that there was a functioning, if horribly underprovided, educational system. It produced literary citizens, but there was nothing for them to do. Guinnea-Bissau does not have an educated service industry for anyone to work in, nor is there a demand for one. That sort of higher market is necessary for a nation to raise its standards, but one had simply not developed and educated children ended up making shoes. How does a skilled labor market develop in a manufacturing country? How did it develop in China? I’ll be sure to take a look at that.

Through a lot of the discussion we touched on some economic questions and talked about Thomas Friedman and David Ricardo. One of the interesting things we talked about was how a strong rooting to national identity and belonging can inspire the sort of protectionist policies which advocates of the global market try to fight against, and how both of our political parties contribute to that in one way or another. Democrats come right out and attack outsourcers for ruining the American economy and people, even though the numbers tend to disagree. Republicans have a much more indirect way to shoot themselves in the foot. Though they support global economic policy, the way in which the Bush administration has promoted blind Americanism also creates xenophobia and a distaste of the foreign, causing Republican supporters to cry out against good old American countrymen being replaced by dem darn macacas. Again, I’m not telling you about the general philosophy of America, indeed, the truth of it is heading in the opposite direction of what I’d like. I’m telling you about the general philosophy and mindset that America should have which would be most condusive to the global free market and development of all nations involved.

It’s 3 AM and what am I thinking about? Partially, I’m horribly jealous of Stephen for being able to sleep so soundly. I’m also noticing the hair leaving me to be with the comforter on top of my head and remembering my family’s tragic history of baldness. But mostly I’m regretting steering so far away from my original expert study topic. Now this may sound like a change of topic yet again, but it’s really not. It just now dawned on me that the topic I was originally interested in and the topic I settled on are very compatible. I at first wanted to discuss the death of nationalism, specifically economic nationalism, but decided against that as it would be too hard to gather any actual facts for and is much more about philosophy than economics. I settled on discussing the international free market and how it benefits both us and China. But here, deep in the night, it hit me: these two topics are more or less the same thing, just taking the completely philosophical and completely economic perspectives. So really, my original idea can be a very researchable and concrete one when combined with my final idea. The Death of Economic Nationlism: The Development of an International Free Market and How It Benefits All Economics Involved. Not very catchy, I know.

As far as economic history and theories go, I’ve got a big ol’ stack of books on my desk filled with Post-It notes, and my own copy of David Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation is being sent to me right now. Yes, I know the library and Professor Greenlaw both probably have it, but I just like having my own books. Besides, it matches my Wealth of Nations. The Economic Report of the President, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and various other Googled resources have proven very helpful for solid facts and figures. As for the more human, philosophical side (because the philosophy of the people is very important in determining the economic system), I’m planning on hopefully talking to my anthropology professor, Professor Gable, tomorrow (or today, rather). I’d like to interview him briefly about his thoughts on nationalism, egalitarianism, and other social ideas. I think that in order to really grasp the full importance of either of these, you need them both together.

On a sidenote, I recently went through a long customer service experience in regards to my credit card, and was switched between two different Visa departments, in New Delhi and Maine. It only reinforced what I’ve noticed every time I’ve known to where I’ve been speaking: customer service is, in general, much better in India. Most Americans I’ve talked to are discourteous, pretentious, and generally unhelpful, while Indians tend to be quite the opposite. Maybe it’s really not just the money we outsource for.

Quite simply, globalization is a threat to our weaknesses, and an opportunity for our strengths. If the global market is an unstoppable development acting for the eventual good of everyone, our nation must inevitably become a part of it. If we resist, there will be dire consequences far worse than any pain that joining the world economy could do. If we embrace globalization, however, there will be great benefits and opportunities in the long run. True, there is the potential for some suffering at first, especially in the non-skilled labor force. There is and will continue to be opposition from those whose jobs are in danger, as well as those whose supposed patriotism makes them cry “Buy American!” Globalization is already happening, it is the future, and it is the only decision to come to given both the economic and philosophical ideals of America.

I’ll begin with philosophical and ideological reasons, because the mindset of the people is the mindset of the country, and in effect the direction of the economy. America was founded on the ideas of individualism, liberty, and egalitarianism. The notion that we should “Buy American,” purely philosophically, promotes collectivism. It encourages us to accept what we may not want for the alleged greater good for the community as a whole. This, it seems to me, is the opposite of individualism and freedom of choice. Individualism means that people have their own personal identity and worth, rather than being part of a whole. The idea that we have a duty to serve our fellow countrymen purely out of nationalism is a collectivist and thoroughly un-American one.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t buy American, but simply that we shouldn’t buy American because we feel that we have a duty to. Liberty means that we have the freedom to choose a Japanese car over an American one, and furthermore, we have the freedom to make that choice without any guilt cast upon us from a generally collectivist populous. Liberty means that we have the freedom to dissent against, detach from (to an extent), and even hate our own nation and express these thoughts if we wish.

Collectivism breeds bigotry and xenophobia, the enemies of egalitarianism. To feel that any American deserves something more than a foreigner who’s just as good is what’s truly un-American. The American patriot can be a great contradiction, but one that makes perfect sense in terms of liberty and individualism. Being unpatriotic is patriotic, and it is from our own nationalistic thinking that anti-nationalism should be produced. It’s true, these fundamental ideas somewhat blur national lines and nations themselves, but that’s exactly why they’re so compatible with the idea of globalization and so opposed to the philosophy of “Buy American.”

Our nation right now is very comfortable. After World War II, we became the only surviving superpower, breeding a complacency that was only briefly threatened in the Cold War. If globalization is a threat, it’s only a threat to our moral failings. That is, what globalization is doing is forcing us to realize that there are other nations in the world, nations which can compete with our own. Of course, anyone whose comfort is threatened will fight to protect it. That is exactly what the protectionist left is trying to do, and I’d like to end this part with a quote from philosophy professor Dr. Harry Binswanger: “The patriotic advocates of buying American would be shocked to learn that the economic theory underlying their viewpoint is Marxism. In describing the influx of Japanese products and investment, they don’t use the Marxist terminology of “imperialism” and “exploitation,” but the basic idea is the same: capitalistic acts are destructive and free markets will impoverish you. It’s the same anti-capitalist nonsense whether it is used by leftists to attack the United States for its commerce with Latin America or by supposed patriots to attack Japan for its commerce with the United States.

“Contrary to Marxism, one does not benefit from the poverty or incompetence of others. It is in your interest that other men — in every country — be smart, ambitious, and productive, not stupid, lazy, or incompetent… More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What’s good for Toyota is good for America. That’s individualism, and that’s Americanism.”

I hope I’ve effectively illustrated how American philosophy demands globalization, and now I’ll move on into pure economics and practicality. I feel that I should begin by refuting politicians’ claims as to the great harm that globalization, outsourcing especially, is causing America, as it’s politicians who are calling on Americans to abandon the American philosophy previously discussed. When Greg Mankiw, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, stated that “outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade,” there was an enormous outcry from the media and the Democratic party that the Bush administration was supporting the “exporting of jobs” and that American unemployment and poverty was part of his economic plan to benefit the rich.

In the true tradition of media and politics, any hard evidence to support these sensationalist, rabble-rousing claims is very scarce. In the words of Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, “All the sensational numbers that are thrown around all the time in the media are nothing more than forecasts by various consultants… Forrester Research estimates that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015… Let’s get real. Suppose Forrester is right, that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015. That’s eleven years, folks. That’s 300,000 jobs a year, or 25,000 a month. Today there are 130 million jobs in the United States. So the cost is 2/100 of 1% of jobs each month. Don’t worry about it. On average the US economy generates job growth 10 times that much every month.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in October 2006, well below the average since 1948. While it’s true that jobs are being lost in manufacturing and low-skill areas, what no one ever talks about are the new service-oriented jobs which open up at a faster rate than the manufacturing jobs are closing. Just as Mankiw conceded, there is some uncomfortable displacement, but nothing that adversely affects the economy. Average earnings are rising faster than inflation, unemployment is very low, and our economy is growing at a fantastic rate. Why, then, have Democrats shouted so loudly about the dangers of outsourcing? Well as it turns out, Republicans aren’t the only ones who can play up a nonexistent danger for the sake of votes.

What Mankiw was defending was an economic theory that has been accepted for two hundred years: the idea of comparative advantage. Every nation will produce what it can produce best and most efficiently, and everyone benefits. Advancements in India will much more likely help us than harm us. There really isn’t a real question here. The biggest concerns are false ones raised by enemies of the truth: media and politics. The facts, the actual facts, beg to differ with the outcry against globalization. Protectionist policies will destroy us in the long run, but if we choose to uphold our traditional American ideals and embrace the new world, life will end up being much better for everyone around the globe.

Around 2:20 into this clip is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Especially:

“And this is why it bugs me why so many people talk like it’s 1955 and we’re still number one in everything. We’re not! And I take no glee in saying this because I love my country and I wish we were, but when you’re number 55 in this category and number 92 in that one, you look a little silly waving the big foam #1 finger. As long as we believe being the greatest country in the world is a birthright, we’ll keep coasting on the achievements of earlier generations and we’ll keep losing the moral high ground.”

There used to be a good six paragraphs right here, but upon revision they sounded like the rantings of a nutjob. I’ll touch it up and turn it into a legitimate argument in the next couple of days. Until then, I’ll just leave you with Bill Maher.

In an ideal capitalist system, the men at the bottom are the ones who deserve to be there, as it is with the men up top. America is far from an ideal capitalist system. I originally thought that Marx was simply outdated, as he wasn’t really attacking capitalism, but rather the aristocracies. I thought, surely we’ve evolved beyond that. Men are no longer legally restricted from advancing to the higher levels of society. Of course, on second thought, I realized how wrong I was. Though Americans aren’t held down economically by any legal restrictions, our system creates an unintentional nobility. Contrary to common misconception, artistocracy is not the result of true capitalism, but rather the enemy of the capitalist ideal. It promotes laziness, complacency, and above all, the inequality of opportunity. In capitalism, real capitalism, there are classes, and they’re a good and right circumstance, because ideally, everyone deserves to be where they are and can move freely up or down by their own decisions- judged by their own merit, and not by their fathers’. That is, of course, not how it is in America. There is small equality of opportunity between the children of the rich and the poor. Contrary to my opinion of low government spending (don’t worry, I’d cut most welfare programs to compensate a bit for this), I believe that all schooling, including higher education, should be completely free- open to any with the grades and test scores to enter.

Opportunity begins with eduction. The cost of decent schooling is the major obstacle to intelligent children of low-income families, and the most unfair advantage of the incompetent children of the wealthy. Not only that, but education is the greatest investment we can make in our own country. This will open up doors for the poor, rather than closing them for the wealthy (the often fashionable path). Pulling people up instead of dragging them down. By opening doors, you lose the need to close others and infringe on rights and freedoms. Inheritance, for instance, is an issue of property rights of the original earner of the money. Free schooling will eliminate the unfair advantage of the inheritors without eliminating their rights. Will it be expensive? Yes, and of course we don’t want taxes to raise any higher than they are, yet the closer we get to the capitalist ideal, the more “necessary” government-funded programs we can erase. If we are able to make the most of our workforce and if people truly get what they deserve (of course, always retaining the rights of choice- work would never be forced), then we’ll find many, many fewer victims of circumstance. When America finally opens all of the doors and forgets irrational prejudices, all people will be free to do what they feel that they can do best, and are willing to do so, and from this our nation will achieve its greatest potential with happy, free citizens, imbued with a sense of responsibility and industry from their freely provided higher education. From each according to his decision, to each according to his worth- that is the capitalist credo.

How does this new “aristocracy” apply to the developing global market? Well, the ideal is that people get what they deserve. This means, of course, that we can’t protect our own incompetent from more efficient, more willing, and more skilled competition out of some foolish, increasingly outdated notion of nationalism. The society of nations is coming to an end as we come upon the society of the world. Previously, wealth was a pyramid with the American rich at the top, other First World rich below them, American poor below them, and the rest of the world (doctors, academics, specialized workers, intelligent men, industrious men, revolutionary thinking men included) below them. That is simply not just. We feel that Americans have some sort of birthright of superiority, a right to be at the top no matter how hard they work, for merely being born within the United States border. The new pyramid of wealth holds the competent of all nations (if those continue to exist) at the top, and the lazy or cowardly everywhere at the bottom. National governments have a responsibility to create the best for the people they govern, but by what right? Birthright? We have a moral responsibility to the world to provide the deserving contributors of all nations with exactly what they’re worth: the best the world has to offer. The path to wealth should be open to all people, regardless of what border they were born within. Wealth and poverty still exist on a flat playing field, but everyone has an equal shot. This is the new world, the rational and virtuous world, and we must be a part of it.