I have heard a lot of people rebuking those who are going to the store and buying everything and leaving little for others. I posted here about the dangers of the widening gap between the have and the have nots. The honest truth is that we did not get here in a day or in the blink of the eye. It therefore sounds logical to argue that the best time to argue about the growing income gap is not now or yesterday.
Gentrification, racism, classism and other systemic problems that discourage sustainability, social responsibility and social equity have been getting out of hand as those in authorities, voters and many with the power to make a difference have taken a shortcut and therefore shortchanged the struggle for a more equitable society. I am reminded about the tax that Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a 100% income for any income above $25,000 back in 1952. Congress was up in arms and they bitterly opposed this otherwise stupendous proposal.
A compromise was reached and 91% and 92% tax rate was applied for the next 11 years. The purpose of the income was obviously and explicitly aimed at equity and not revenue. F.D.R would turn out to be the longest serving president and ruled over a era with the closest income gap in the U.S by holding office between 1933 to 1945. That era turned to be one of the most egalitarian periods in American history. Had the issue of racism, sexism and the military industrial complex been a part of the deal, things today would have been very different.
Those in congress knew that they had to do something about that and one of the things they did following his death, was to reduce the term limit. Racism still kept a lot of African descent locked out of the major government programs but that is a story for another day.
Successive administrations have pushed the neoliberal agenda that prioritized corporate profit as a government policy while neglecting the struggling individuals or rather victimizing them as policy. Ronald Regan for example took office in 1981 when the national debt of the country was 900 billion since the founding of the U.S but the debt had risen to 2.6 trillion dollars by the time he left office in January of 1989. Yet many speak about Republicans as the party of small government.
It is therefore hypocritical for those who have been supportive of the above administrations to now expect those who have profited from neoliberal policies to offer pittance to the victims of the system. Things are not the way they are because of an accident, but by deliberate design. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone being a conservative or whatever else one chooses to be, but at least own up to the consequences of the choices that you make. When things break down, admit that choice has consequences. The consequences of the systemic problems are the cause of the horde buying. The system is mainly working for a tiny minority. The larger part of the country is struggling. That is one way not to build a country.
We are either for a more progressive policy that lifts the citizens and offers an social network for all citizens. As it is, the biggest beneficiaries in this society today are the super rich.
To not buy everything in stores when you have most of the money does not necessarily mean that the struggling masses will be able to buy what is left. This has serious health consequences to a country as hunger is likely to influence the rates of infections as well as the ability to overcome the Coronavirus. Food is at the heart of everything. There is no shortcut to healthy organic and local food. George McGovern was one of the most infamous agricultural secretaries, having said that small farmers should either get big or get out. Now we can reframe those words and redeem the negative spirit in which they were uttered by changing them to get healthy food or get taken out.