I’m asked why I consider myself a liberal (I’m often told I’m not because I supported and support the war), and there’s a simple explanation.

Because corporations like Circuit City, headed by men such as Philip Schoonover (salary $2.17 million per Forbes), lay off the 3,500 highest-paid employees and invite them to reapply for their jobs — at far lower wages.

Because the grocery chains here in California took a strike in 2003 to lower the wages and benefits of new hires — and last year made $3.4 billion (Ralphs), or $2.6 billion (Vons), or $2.3 billion (Safeway) — all record profits — as the average CEO of the three chains increased their wages from $2.8 million to $7.9 million.

When this country was founded, the impact the richest man in Boston could have on the lives of the average man in Boston was substantial — but limited. The average man could open a store of his own, find other sources of trade, or move out of the area controlled of the wealthy man.

This story continues below
Advertisement

But it was still an issue — the topic of the relative power of the wealthy crops up throughout the Federalist Papers, and it is clear that by extending suffrage widely (among other things), the founders intended to make sure that the government did not become an oligarchy, and to balance the interests of the wealthy and powerful few with the combined interests and power of the many.

So the history of wealth in the United States represents a pendulum between Rockefellers and Roosevelts; growing concentrations of wealth — often leveraged into still greater concentrations of wealth and power — and efforts by the government to limit those concentrations.

Why bother?

For two reasons. First, because the greatness of America is the attachment of everyone to a republic that is seen to work for everyone, not just the wealthy few. Excessive concentrations of wealth — and power — erode the attachment of both those on the bottom who don’t see the system as theirs at all, and those on the top who suddenly believe that they are above “the system.”

Second, because it stifles the creative boil that is needed to keep the overall wealth and power of our society growing. When wealthy businesses and business managers use their leverage to force smaller competitors out of business, we are left with an economy based on monoculture enterprise, and that monoculture lacks the hybrid vigor and the ability to mutate and grow new features and services that is the reality behind Schumpeter’s creative destruction.

I’m not a class warrior; I love the inequality that comes from people creating new products and value and think that the ladder that leads from the factory floor to the executive suite — or to the small shop you own yourself on the corner — is one of the most important things we have in America.

But when that ladder is pulled up by those at the top, two things happen. First, the legitimate inequality that drives the market is poisoned, because people no longer believe that the game is fair, or even one they can play.

The political consequences of that are incredibly significant because a big part of the legitimacy of our system is based on the notion that the game isn’t rigged.

Second, the overall level of growth and progress decline, because those at the top are more concerned about pulling up the ladder than lifting the whole building. In an interesting study published in Business Week, David Yermack and Crocker Liu showed that CEOs who acquired mega-homes ran companies that underperformed.

“Armed with the addresses of 432 CEOs of S&P 500 companies at the end of 2004, Yermack and Liu found that 12 percent of them lived in homes of at least 10,000 square feet, or on a minimum of 10 acres. And their companies’ stocks? In 2005 they lagged behind those of S&P 500 CEOs living in smaller houses by 7 percent, on average.”

When the people at the top are focused on preserving the trappings, the enterprise suffers.

So our new Gilded Age risks both ruining the republic, as those forced out of the game withdraw their political and social allegiance — and ruining our economy as those who are winning the game focus on capturing value rather than creating it.

Me, I’ll be doing a lot more shopping at other stores. You may want to consider that as well.

Marc Danziger is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at windsofchange.net.