Bah, humbug. Most of those who were “suspicious of commerce” were spoiled landholders whose main excuse was their(often dubious), skill at arms which is a profession that by nature has the same objection as commerce as it too can be said to create no useful material. They had all the vices they projected onto merchants, except merchants when they were loan-sharking went for bigger game. It is hard to take seriously the complaints of this class which are mainly from getting what they were dishing out to others.

Merchants risked their lives in travel and lived by their wits, and did NOT just sit around in luxury waiting for wealth to flow into their pockets. And despite what Aristotle said, they do create; by bringing goods and services to where they are most wanted they add value to it.

In other words, the end of medicine is healing, the end of agriculture is food production and so on. But the end of commerce is gain, which may be used well or ill.

The bourgeois, by the nature of his calling, tends to view everything as a commodity, something to be bought and sold, rather than for its contribution to human well-being. This becomes a problem when the bourgeoisie ceases to be a class and its spirit imbues a whole culture.

When a policy was under consideration, I once heard the question, “But is this right?”. I now hear only, “… will it work”.

The end of medicine is healing, the end of agriculture is food production and so on. But the end of commerce is gain, which may be used well or ill.

The bourgeois, by the nature of his calling, tends to view everything as a commodity, something to be bought and sold, rather than for its contribution to human well-being. This becomes a problem when the bourgeoisie ceases to be a class and its spirit imbues a whole culture.

“But, given the realities of human nature – that
sense of solidarity was more of the exception – not the inequality and brazen greed that we see today. That can’t be fixed with marginal tax rates – but only with changes of heart and different sets of social expectations (which at the end of the day, only reflect attitudes of society).”

True…but a bit of a cop-out. There were higher tax rates in the 50s and the rich did not complain and business did not suffer. Imposing higher tax rates at least would address the issue of equality and inch us toward solvency, even if the wealthy paid grudgingly. There was enough of a “change of heart” to abolish segregation…all we need is enough of a change of heart to change the tax structure. National solvency might turn out to even make up for a bit of individually-suffered “pain…” It would be nice if there were less brazen greed, but I would settle for brazenly greedy rich people who were afraid enough of the law to pay their fair share…

A google search brought up a definition for luxuria – “inordinate love of money, possessions – and for “superbia” -”inordinate, unreasonable self-esteem”. I had mistakenly thought the terms were used to describe flaunting of riches, of inciting envy.

Jewish teaching/tradition condemned these qualities, did it not?

In the post WWII generation there was a sense that coming out of the Great Depression and World War – some sense of solidarity and recognition of common experience was to be acknowledged and respected. There were ostentatious displays of wealth to be sure – but they weren’t as ubiquitous….

But, given the realities of human nature – that sense of solidarity was more of the exception – not the inequality and brazen greed that we see today. That can’t be fixed with marginal tax rates – but only with changes of heart and different sets of social expectations….

I share this view.

Contrasted with the 1960s, people are tempted to regard the 50s as the model of normalcy. In fact, the 50s were perhaps the apex of ABnormalcy – an era with weirdly high social cohesion and low social stratification (among white people). Arguably the disparities of the Gilded Age and the 1920s were more typical of the kind of social stratification you see in other societies, and more typical of the stratification we’ve returned to – for better and worse.

And this view – the 50s was “normal” — helps fuel libertarianism. It’s easy to rebel against the constricting bonds of social cohesion when we can treat that cohesion like air – endlessly available, costless provided. But when people live amid social decay – crack-ravished urban centers, meth-ravished rural landscapes – the burden of social cohesion no longer rank at the top of people’s concerns.

Then people put effort into building cohesion. Is it a coincidence that areas with high church attendance are also areas that suffer high rates of social maladies – divorce, unemployment, school drop-outs, violent crime, stress-related illness, obesity, etc? People value the straight-and-narrow when they see, all around them, the consequences of falling off the path.

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen the exploding compensation for CEOs (and income inequality in general) tied directly to the Reagan and/or Bush tax cuts – as if one caused the other. The corollary of this argument is that if we just raised taxes on the “1%” (or if they just “paid their fair share”) then inequality would magically disappear.

What an exercise in missing the point. The reason there has been an explosion in executive compensation relative to what the rank and file are paid is simply this – “because they can and get away with it”. Marginal tax rates (or capital gains tax rates depending upon the argument) have comparatively little to do with it. In the post WWII generation there was a sense that coming out of the Great Depression and World War – some sense of solidarity and recognition of common experience was to be acknowledged and respected. There were ostentatious displays of wealth to be sure – but they weren’t as ubiquitous and in the executive suite there was more of a sense of what was high pay and what was simply ridiculous.

But, given the realities of human nature – that sense of solidarity was more of the exception – not the inequality and brazen greed that we see today. That can’t be fixed with marginal tax rates – but only with changes of heart and different sets of social expectations (which at the end of the day, only reflect attitudes of society).