Maybe Huey Long had the solution to capitalism run amok.

[Karmadillo]

Instead of bailing out Wall Street and the insurance industry, we could bail out those who really need bailing out.

http://www.hueylong.com/programs/share-our-wealth.php

Share Our Wealth
(a.k.a. Share the Wealth)

In a national radio address on February 23, 1934, Huey Long unveiled his “Share Our Wealth” plan (also known as Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan), a program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people. Long proposed capping personal fortunes at $50 million each (roughly $750 million in today's dollars) through a restructured, progressive federal tax code and sharing the resulting revenue with the public through government benefits and public works.

Share Our Wealth Proposal
•Cap personal fortunes at $50 million each (equivalent to about $750 million today)
•Limit annual income to one million dollars each (about $12 million today)
•Limit inheritances to five million dollars each (about $60 million today)
•Guarantee every family an annual income of $2,000 (or one-third the national average)
•Free college education and vocational training
•Old-age pensions for all persons over 60
•Veterans benefits and healthcare
•A 30 hour work week
•A four week vacation for every worker

Long advocated free higher education and vocational training, pensions for the elderly, veterans benefits and health care, and a yearly stipend for all families earning less than one-third the national average income – enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences. Long also proposed shortening the workweek and giving employees a month vacation to boost employment, along with greater government regulation of economic activity and production controls.

Long charged that the nation’s economic collapse was the result of the vast disparity between the super-rich and everyone else. A recovery was impossible while 95% of the nation’s wealth was held by only 15% of the population. In Long’s view, this concentration of money among a handful of wealthy bankers and industrialists restricted its availability for average citizens, who were already struggling with debt and the effects of a shrinking economy. Because no one could afford to buy goods and services, businesses were forced to cut their workforces, thus deepening the economic crisis through a devastating ripple effect.

“Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more than $50 million,” Long told an audience of millions, acknowledging the limit could be lowered to $15 million or $10 million as the details were worked out. “It will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond the point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.”

Long believed that it was morally wrong for the government to allow millions of Americans to suffer in abject poverty when there existed a surplus of food, clothing, and shelter. He blamed the mass suffering on a capitalist system run amok and feared that impending civil unrest threatened the democracy.

Reality Check
A Roadmap for the Future
Huey Long never received credit for the government reforms that resulted from his Share Our Wealth movement. The Great Depression persisted for six years after Long’s death, and the federal government gradually adopted policies to regulate the economy and provide for the public good. Many of today’s federal programs address causes championed by Huey Long:

•Social Security
•Veterans Benefits
•College Financial Aid
•Works Progress Administration
•FDIC bank insurance
•Medicare and Medicaid
•Food Stamps
•Housing Assistance
•Graduated Income Tax and Inheritance Tax

“The same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the same mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man,” said Long.

more...

[izquierdista]

1. Maybe he did

But as long as the majority of Americans think that they will need to avoid the estate tax because they are sure to win the Lotto, how are you going to convince them?

The rich only exist as reservoirs of money that has been taken out of circulation. If you gave Warren Buffett another billion dollars, the first thing he would do is increase his stake in Berkshire Hathaway, and he would not spend an additional penny. If you gave that billion dollars to one million poor families, they would spend their $1000 windfall on food, clothes, fixing their beater car, you know, stuff that actually increases the GDP.

[Karmadillo]

3. It would help to have a political party dedicated to helping the majority of Americans understand

the lottery economy does not work for them. If the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party could take back the party from the Corporate Wing, we might have what we need.

[HoarseWhisperer]

5. Very well said

Labor Unions used to be a big help in educating people about the reality of our economy.

[Synicus Maximus]

4. The money is not taken out of circulation. If you gave Buffett an

additional billion dollars and he did buy more shares of Berkshire Hathaway, the money does not get locked up in a safe somewhere. It is used to finance the various companies Berkshire owns. Things like new machines, which workers somewhere get paid to make and install and run, or in expanding those companies, you know creating new jobs, hiring more workers.

[Chulanowa]

10. Ah, reaganomics. It amazes me how many Democrats still buy that shit.

No, the money is not taken out of circulation. However, that circulation becomes very limited. The money becomes locked "at the top" as one corporate head gives it to another corporate head, who then passes it to another corporate head. At each step, more and more is skimmed off the top by each corporate head, called "profit" and then locked away in the safe (you don't get rich by spending more than you make, after all!) It circles aroundand around for a while, with the occasionally penny or two falling down the chain.

Nothing is stimulated in this process. The illusion of growth is maintained by the constant laundering of money at the top, but it's just illusion.

On the other hand, distribute the same amount of money to the paycheck workers at the bottom of these companies, and they will rush out to buy and spend, which actually produces jobs, which creates more demand for workers, etc.

Trickle down is an idiot's bargain.

[bvar22]

22. Even "bottom up" stimulus doesn't work..

...when the ONLY store in town is WalMart.

We are in way more trouble than we realize.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."---FDR's Economic Bill of RIGHTS

FDR was the leader of a Political Party which was called The "Democratic Party"
which bears no resemblance to the Party using that name today.

[izquierdista]

11. Wrong

His companies have no machines and hire few workers. The money is just as likely to go to buying put options on AIG. Please tell me how an AIG put option requires a worker to install and run something.

[Selatius]

18. If the goal is to boost the economy, giving a billion dollars to Warren Buffett is inefficient.

FDR's way was far more efficient. He gave people a paycheck for doing things that paid long-term dividends for everybody, such as an electrical grid or a jobs program or programs to build up national infrastructure, which only benefits or helps facilitate trade and commerce. After all, a bridge to move goods across is far more efficient than relying on ferries, and it is far faster. By giving consumers money directly and cutting out the middle-man, you can more easily target where you want the economy to grow, and the same holds true for public works projects.

[EVDebs]

13. Keynes' "marginal propensity to consume" needs to be looked at by economists esp at the Fed ! nt

[Xipe Totec]

2. Is that why they 'retired' him at age 42? n/t

[snagglepuss]

6. Thanks you for posting, I am embarrassed to say I didn't know any of this.

Back in High School I remember reading Long was a "dangerous Southern demagogue" and that just stuck:(

[Hydra]

8. Funny how that works, huh?

We enshrine mass murderers, and we vilify people who speak for equality and fairness.

[Karmadillo]

14. Same here. The "wanabe dictator" boilerplate downthread is typical of what I was told.

I guess part of one's education is unlearning the propaganda.

[snagglepuss]

15. I found a balanced analysis of Long at a UK educational site .

Thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlongH.htm

[Karmadillo]

23. Thanks for posting this. Ruthless, it seems clear, but in a context of oligarchic ruthlessness.

In continuing with the theme of stuff I didn't know, I looked up government in Louisiana before Long. I don't remember the Bourbon oligarchs being referred to as dictators. I guess when you already have wealth and aren't planning on redistribution, you get to be a member in good standing of the democracy no matter how many people you step on. Here's a link to Answers.com on their "achievements":

http://www.answers.com/topic/louisiana

<edit>

Reconstruction's demise inaugurated the state's Bourbon period, characterized by the rule of a wealthy, reactionary oligarchy that retained power until the 1920s and relegated Louisiana to economic underdevelopment. White supremacy, fiscal conservatism, electoral fraud, and contempt for the public good were the hallmarks of Bourbon rule, as even the modest gains of Reconstruction, such as creation of a state education system, were undone. Nothing reflected the Bourbon mindset better than the notorious Louisiana lottery, the corrupting influence of which attracted national opprobrium, and the convict-lease system, which sometimes subjected the overwhelmingly black inmates to annual mortality rates of twenty percent. The Bourbons' crowning achievements were the segregationist laws enacted during the 1890s, the blatant electoral fraud that prevented a Populist-Republican coalition from taking power in 1896, and the property and literacy requirements and poll tax provision of the 1898 constitution that deprived almost all blacks, and thousands of poor whites, of the right to vote, thus completely overturning Reconstruction. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which sanctioned legal segregation, originated as a challenge to Louisiana's 1890 law requiring racially segregated accommodations on railroad cars in the state.

The Twentieth Century

The history of Louisiana was profoundly altered with the 1901 discovery of oil in the state. For the rest of the century, Louisiana's economic fortunes were pinned to those of the oil industry. The Progressive movement of the early twentieth century brought little change to Louisiana, dominated as it was by the Bourbon elite, except for implementation of the severance tax—a tax on natural resources that are "severed" from the earth—and creation of the white party primary system.

more...

So this is what Long took on. For all his flaws, something every political leader is going to have, and for all his ruthlessness, without which he would have gotten nothing done, I don't see anything to suggest he wanted to be a dictator. Still, given how much wealth is concentrated in too few hands today and given how dangerous Long's ideas and achievements are to that concentration, I understand why some today try to dismiss him with that label.

I saw on Amazon there's a Ken Burns documentary on Long and the standard biography seems to be Huey Long by T. Harry Williams. Sounds like they're worth a trip to the library.

Again, thanks for the link. Take care.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. He was a wanabe dictator

Part of one's education is learning that almost every great historical figure is seriously flawed. Huey Long was notoriously corrupt and ran the state like a dictator during his time as Governor. He also stood up to big corporations, did many things that helped the poor, and more or less brought Louisiana into the 20th century.

Personally I'm certainly glad that he never became President. But I think there's definitely a case to be made that Louisiana is better off having had him as Governor than we would've been had he not been Governor.

[Sherman A1]

20. Agreed

And add my thanks for posting.

[Hydra]

7. This would work

But as someone further up posted, every fool in this country seems to believe they will work hard and become a millionaire...and they don't want to pay taxes on that if they do, and they don't want to be subject to laws.

Face it, as long as that attitude prevails, the people at the top will continue laughing...and they will know that the people they're walking all over deserve it. After all, they would be doing the same if the roles were switched.

[jgraz]

9. I think we could keep his caps without adjusting for inflation.

Who needs more that $50 million??

[Selatius]

19. Anybody who thinks they can win the Powerball Jackpot.

Cynical answer--I know--yet there are quite a few among the population who hold out the secret hope that they, too, will become one of the financial elite if they won the jackpot, so naturally, they'd be opposed to such limits on wealth.

[Sherman A1]

21. Easy Fix to that

just cut out the Powerball (or as I call it Taxation with an incredibly small chance of coming out way ahead) or limit it to a set amount with more winners (again spreading out the "gain"). :hi:

[Odin2005]

12. Long was a wanabe dictator.

Fuck him.

[nomorenomore08]

16. Maybe so, but you know what they say about a stopped clock...

:shrug:

[nemo137]

25. And his movement ended up joinging forces with Fr. Coughlin.

Funny how people asking us to learn lessons from history, don't learn them themselves.

[Karmadillo]

26. And FDR's movement included Father Coughlin and lots of unsavory Southern Democrats.

Does that discredit FDR or make him a "wanabe dictator"?

[amborin]

24. K&R

The latest round of Wall Street muckety-mucks now in charge of regulation.

— By Andy Kroll


Here's a short list of Obama officials who got their start in the private sector—many, like Paulson, at "Government Sachs."


Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner's No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms

Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary's chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs

Larry Summers
Obama's chief economic adviser
Made $5 million as managing director of a hedge fund

Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank

Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae

Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs

Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Made $5.8 million at the Blackstone Group in 2008-2009

Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009

Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group

Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund

Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner

Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat'l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/henhouse-meet-f ...