The reality that "the tippy-top, of the economic pyramid who have been most effective at capturing government support" is canon in my opinion.
I'm not insanely liberal or anything, so I don't want to go too far down the road of "who does the government REALLY serve" - but the Constitution was built around building a state that could enforce contracts. And for good reason, but that reason was NOT that they were worried about serving the poor.
But essentially what really motivated those behind the Constitutional convention was the diminishing value of their assets under the Articles of Confederation. Contracts weren't enforceable because the federal government wasn't strong or effective enough, especially across state lines.
Man, this just reminds me of one of the truly amazing things about American history: virtually the same people who wrote the Constitution tried to form the country under a different set of documents, and it failed so thoroughly that they TOTALLY re-did it (arguably illegally) 6 years later.
That's very interesting. Thank you for the book reference!
If you have more time, would you philosophize on how all of this might relate to present-day circumstances? (In addition to the topic of the original motives for the constitution, it might be interesting to include some discussion of what those those "at the top" could/should infer from history.)
So the only thing I can say for certain is to remember that the rich always benefit from the existence and strength of government more than the poor unless that government is extremely hostile toward business. Despite some rhetoric that is out there, that is extremely far from the case in the case of the US government.
What the US government has almost always done a fantastic job at (not necessarily above and beyond other governments, just in a vacuum) is creating a system where financial transactions can occur without much risk (monetary policy, moving off the gold standard frictionlessly, etc.) and where contracts can be enforced. And that's business pretty much right?
The argument from there about taxes and regulation are details, and we can argue about that all day. But they are details that are minor compared to the ability to conduct business with confidence in a general since, not the slight variations we see these days.
I'm a liberal, but it's for the above reason I supported the financial bailout. If I fear for anything, it's either of those core securities being diminished.
There is a lot of very good insight here, in particular the focus on foundational economic institutions (ie, truth telling and promise keeping). Even so far as the taxes and regulations being details (a couple percent here or there, not a crisis).
The issue that we are facing though, is starting to become of another sort. It is evidenced by the shift of wealth from the commercial centers to the DC area. It is evidenced by 80% of government spending not being on running government or protecting the population or even enforcing laws, etc. It is evidenced by (what was quoted in the article) of goverment borrowing (and printing money) to support the oligarghical too-big to fail banks. It is evidenved by the nationalization of private sector debt via student loans and via housing loan guarantees. It is evidenced by the failure to regulate derivatives or split investment banks from commercial ones.
It is evidenced by "Economists" in the keynesian tradition who support uncritical borrow and spend (as the answer to everything), all of which provides stability but none of which provides actual earnings/power to the working classes...etc. It just provides benefits to the rich and debt/taxes to the poor. The "Liberal" current administration has underwritten the most perverse transfer of weatlth from the poor/middel to the top, its almost comical they pretend to be for anyone other than themselves. They make the Tea Party, in Contrast, look almost perversely rational. There is too much fear. In the Left. Of change.
Wow, that comment made no sense until I edited "unless that government is extremely hostile toward government" to "unless that government is extremely hostile toward business"
I'm not insanely liberal or anything, so I don't want to go too far down the road of "who does the government REALLY serve" - but the Constitution was built around building a state that could enforce contracts. And for good reason, but that reason was NOT that they were worried about serving the poor.