Shifting the Burden of Proof on Corporate Welfare Programs: Analyzing Parenti’s Claims

Introduction

In “Politics: Who Gets What?” Michael Parenti argues we ought to limit corporate welfare programs. Specifically, Parenti argues, we ought to limit subsidies and bailouts as well as tax breaks for wealthy corporations and individuals. First, Parenti argues subsidies and bailouts redistribute taxes from the working majority to corporations that privatize the profits at no benefit to the larger society. Second, Parenti argues tax breaks for the wealthy allow corporations and individuals to amass huge profits while doing nothing to benefit the larger society. Third, Parenti argues limiting all forms of corporate welfare would reduce a national deficit that benefits only wealthy individuals and corporations, through the redistribution of wealth, at the expense of the larger society. Corporate welfare, asserts Parenti, includes: “tax breaks, price supports, loan guarantees, bailouts, payments in kind, subsidized insurance rates, marketing services, export subsidies, irrigation and reclamation programs, and research and development grants” (Parenti 2008;66). Corporate welfare program payouts in 2003, asserts Parenti, reached $815 billion (Parenti 2008). Parenti utilizes a plethora of historical and financial statistics to demonstrate how wealthy individuals and corporations have benefited from corporate welfare programs but with little or no benefit to other areas and groups of society.

The focus of this paper will be on Parenti’s first and second premises, namely that subsidies and bailouts redistribute taxes from the working majority to corporations that privatize the profits and that tax breaks for the wealthy allow corporations and individuals to amass huge profits, at no benefit to the larger society. Parenti addresses the argument that corporate welfare programs are necessary because they create good paying jobs which in turn increases government revenue in taxes (Parenti 2008; 67-73). Such a claim is a supply-side economic theory that asserts when the wealthy make more money, the economy as a whole benefits because the wealth trickles down and disperses throughout the economy. Parenti makes four specific claims against this assertion. After examining the evidence presented by Parenti as well as additional evidence related to Parenti’s claims, I will argue Parenti’s premises are strongly supported by the given evidence despite some parts of his claims being disputable or unable to be substantiated. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on supply-side, “trickle down,” economic theorists to provide evidence that their economic theory is sound and if these theorists cannot, then as a society we ought to dismiss their theory and limit corporate welfare programs.

Parenti’s First Claim: Small Businesses

The first claim presented by Parenti asserts, “Most Americans work for small businesses, and most of all new jobs are created by small businesses” (Parenti 2008; 67). Parenti cited Lloyd Chapman quoted in an Associated Press report on July 11, 2003 as his source for this claim. The AP report cited is unable to be located through either online searches nor searches of academic databases such as LexisNexis. A search on Lloyd Chapman reveals Chapman is the president of the American Small Business League, a non-profit and non-partisan organization with the stated goal of promoting policies designed to create opportunities for small businesses (American Small Business League 2013). According to the ASBL website, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 90 percent of net new jobs are created by small businesses (American Small Business League 2013). Per the Small Business Administration, a small business is “an independent business having fewer than 500 employees” (Helfand, Sadeghi, and Talan 2007; 41). According to the U.S. Census Bureau as of 2008 businesses with less than 500 employees employed 59,693,991 people and businesses with 500 plus employees employed 61,209,560 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Robert Jay Dilger, Senior Specialist in American National Government, in a Congressional Research Service Report dated January 30, 2013 also provides evidence regarding Parenti’s claims. Dilger asserts, as of early 2013, 99.7 percent of businesses have less than 500 employees and businesses with less than 500 employees “provide almost half (49.1%) of all jobs” (Dilger 2013; 2-3). Dilger asserts “from 2005-2010, 99.97% of all startups […] began with fewer than 500 employees” and “startups with fewer than 500 employees provided 92.51% of all startup created jobs from 2005 to 2010” (Dilger 2013; 5). Dilger also cites a 2010 SBA study that found “over the previous 15 years small businesses accounted for about 65% of private-sector net job creation” (Dilger 2013). Dilger addresses a very significant counterargument, namely that small businesses starting up may temporarily create jobs, but due to the likelihood of new startups closing, they have a negligible effect on overall long term net job creation. Dilger refers to an independent study that found “startups with 20-499 employees had a positive employment effect that increases after its first year in operation, reaches a maximum after five years, and then moderates” (Dilger 2013; 6).  He continues, “The positive employment effect from these firms continued to remain positive over the entire period studied (1994-2006)” (Dilger 2013; 6). Dilger concludes that the research shows “Startups with fewer than 20 employees tend to have a negligible effect on net job creation over time while startups with 20-499 employees tend to have a positive employment effect ‘that continued to increase for five years after their formation before decreasing’” (Dilger 2013; 11).

Additional evidence surrounding Parenti’s first claim comes from Jessica Helfand, Akbar Sadeghi and David Talan, economists at the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data collected by Helfand et al found that from June 1990 through September 2005, “Gross job gains and job losses combined yield an average quarterly net gain of 324,000 jobs (Helfand et al 2007; 41). Helfand et al continue, “Firms with fewer than 100 employees contributed 45.0 percent of the average quarterly net growth, while firms with fewer than 500 employees contributed 63.7 percent. These data show that within this time series, firms with fewer than 500 employees have, on average, contributed the most to net job gains” (Helfand et al 2007; 41).

Parenti’s claim has two parts, namely, first that most Americans work for small businesses and secondly that most of all new jobs are created by small businesses. Regarding the first part of the claim the evidence by the U.S. Census Bureau and Dilger assert small businesses account for about half of all employment in the U.S. So, the first part of Parenti’s claim is disputable. Regarding the second part of the claim the evidence provided by Dilger shows that startups are net job creators, and most startups are small businesses, therefore small business startups are net job creators. The research by Helfand et al corresponds with the separate SBA study cited by Dilger in that Helfand et al found over the 15 year period from 1990 to 2005 small businesses contributed the majority of net jobs to the economy. The SBA study by Brian Headd cited by Dilger put the small business job creation rate at 65 percent over a 15 year period while the Helfand et al study put the small business job creation rate at 63.7 percent over a 15 year period. The corroboration in evidence from different sources strengthens the second part of the Parenti’s claim. Ultimately, while the first part of Parenti’s claim that most Americans work for small businesses is disputable, evidence from various sources lends strong support for the second claim that overall small businesses account for the majority of long term net job creation.

Parenti’s Second Claim: Wal-Mart Subsidies

The second claim presented by Parenti asserts, “Thus between 1980 and 2004, Wal-Mart received $625 million in payouts from otherwise cash-strapped state and local governments to open up stores in their areas. Wal-Mart also is indirectly subsidized by the federal government when its poorly paid workers find it necessary to apply for food stamps, subsidized housing, and other public assistance, costing U.S. tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars every year” (Parenti 2008; 68). Parenti cited George Raine’s article “Wal-Mart’s Cost State,” in the San Francisco Chronicle dated August 3, 2004 as his source for this claim. Raine’s article is able to be accessed via the newspaper’s website. Raine’s article cites a study by the Berkeley Labor Center, a UC Berkeley research institute (Raine 2004). The BLC authors of the study assert Wal-Mart’s low wages requires workers to seek public assistance at the cost to California taxpayers of $86 million annually (Raine 2004). The BLC authors, per Raine, assert Wal-Mart workers earn 39 percent less than union grocery store workers and are half as likely as union grocery store workers to have health insurance (Raine 2004). Raine cites a spokesperson for Wal-Mart as asserting the study overestimated the income of grocery store workers (study estimated $15.31 whereas average is $11.08) and underestimated the number of Wal-Mart employees with healthcare coverage (claims 90 percent of employees have healthcare coverage, 50 percent through Wal-Mart and 40 percent through “other sources”) (Raine 2004).

Evidence on how much Wal-Mart receives in government payouts to open stores, how much Wal-Mart employees are paid, and how many Wal-Mart employees have health insurance is hard to independently corroborate. Parenti doesn’t cite a source for the $625 million government payout figure for store openings and the only source he cites for the public assistance claim is the Raine article, which itself requires further investigation. Evidence provided by Greg LeRoy supports the first part of Parenti’s claim regarding payouts to Wal-Mart to open stores. LeRoy asserts Wal-Mart has received more than $1 billion in payouts to open stores (LeRoy 2005; 29). LeRoy doesn’t cite a source for this claim. However, Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch provides some additional evidence. The organization asserts they are a non-profit research organization focused on economic development and notes their Executive Director is LeRoy (Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch 2007; About). Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch asserts Wal-Mart has received over $1.2 billion of government subsidies nationwide (Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch 2007; Index). The Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch website provides detailed references to numerous resources they researched in their investigation of Wal-Mart subsidies and other resources concerned with this issue (Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch 2007; Resources). The variety of resources offered by LeRoy and Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch provides additional support for Parenti’s claim regarding payouts to Wal-Mart.

Regarding the second part of Parenti’s claim, a study by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce dated May 2013 utilized data from Wisconsin’s Medicaid program to argue in line with Parenti’s claim. The study points out while Wal-Mart made $17 billion in profits in 2012, it “ranked first in 24/7 Wall Street’s ‘12 Companies Paying Americans the Least’” (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013; 4-5). The study asserts per “a New York University study published in 2005, Wal-Mart employees earn 28 percent less, on average, than employees of other large retailers” (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013). Additionally, the study asserts data from Wal-Mart shows that only half of its employees are covered by its health insurance and the majority of new hire employees are hired as part-time, thus would not qualify for healthcare coverage through Wal-Marts’ plans (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013; 6-7). The study asserts Wisconsin’s Medicaid enrollment data shows that Wal-Mart ranked first on the list with the most employees and dependents enrolled in the program at a total of 9,207 enrollees (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013; 9). The study calculates, based on a Wal-Mart Supercenter employing 300 people, the cost to taxpayers for one store could be $904, 542 a year based on the number of enrollees currently in the Medicaid program also enrolling in other public assistance programs (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013; 10). If all employees at one store who are eligible to enroll in Medicaid did enroll and enrolled in other public assistance programs, then according to the study, the cost could be up to $1,744,590 per year (Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 2013).

Parenti’s second claim contains multiple parts, namely the claim of millions of dollars of government payouts to Wal-Mart coupled with the claim that Wal-Mart employees are paid so low they have to rely on public assistance programs funded by taxpayers. Parenti provides little evidence to support either of these parts. Attempts at researching the first part of the claim have yielded evidence compiled by LeRoy’s non-profit research organization that asserts Wal-Mart has received over a billion dollars in payouts. Attempts at researching the second part of the claim have yielded information that shows Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of recipients of Medicaid in at least one state. Interestingly, the Wal-Mart spokesperson in the Raine article corroborates the U.S. House Committee study in that both assert half of Wal-Mart’s employees receive healthcare through Wal-Mart. The difference is that the Wal-Mart spokesperson asserts another 40 percent of employees receive healthcare from “other sources.” Per the U.S. House Committee study, the “other sources,” at least in the case of Wisconsin, is the Medicaid program. Such evidence lends strong support to the second part of Parenti’s claim. However, the U.S. House Committee study worked in hypotheticals in that they took the actual number of enrollees in Wisconsin’s Medicaid program and calculated that if these employees enrolled in other assistance programs the cost would be the given figure. While the study lends strong support for Parenti’s claims, ultimately further work in researching how many Wal-Mart employees nationwide are enrolled in Medicaid programs, how many actually receive food assistance and housing assistance, as well as the actual associated taxpayer costs would strengthen Parenti’s claim even further. Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch has a link to check what subsidies have been awarded to Wal-Marts in various states, and once the individual state information is pulled up they offer a link to check how much taxpayers are funding healthcare costs for Wal-Mart employees in the state but this link pulls up only an error message.

Parenti’s Third Claim: Job Creation

The third claim presented by Parenti asserts, “Eugene, Oregon, provided $12 million for a corporation to cut down an impressive stand of historic giant trees and build a parking garage and apartments that created only a few jobs. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, gave Exxon a $14 million tax break in exchange for a net gain of one job (by Exxon’s own estimate). Michigan gave a company $81 million to build a mill that created only thirty-four permanent jobs-which comes to $2.3 million per job” (Parenti 2008; 68). Parenti cites Greg LeRoy in The Great American Jobs Scam as his source for this claim. LeRoy is the only source cited for these claims. Two of the references Parenti offers regarding Eugene, Oregon and Michigan were unable to be located in the LeRoy text. However, in regard to Parenti’s reference to Exxon, LeRoy asserts Exxon received property tax breaks for ten years and created no new jobs (LeRoy 2005; 34). LeRoy supports this with a study by Zack Nauth with the Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice (LeRoy 2005; 221). The Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice is a non-governmental organization that focuses on economic investigative research (Wiser.org 2013). The organization collected Louisiana’s property tax exemption records from 1980-1989 and found that for the $2.5 billion of tax breaks companies received, no new permanent jobs were created (Good Jobs First 2010).

LeRoy details numerous other instances of corporate tax breaks and subsidies that resulted in very few jobs or even layoffs. For example, LeRoy details the multi-million dollar tax break Raytheon received from Massachusetts before laying off thousands of employees, supported with documents from Raytheon and numerous newspaper articles (LeRoy 2005; 10-14; 213-214). In another example LeRoy details how IBM received $659 million dollars in subsidies then laid off 7,000 people, supported by numerous newspaper articles (LeRoy 2005;17-18; 216). In yet another example, LeRoy details how in North Carolina FedEx received $115.5 million in subsidies at a cost of $77,000 per job and Nucor received $161 million in subsidies at a cost of $536,000 per job (LeRoy 2005; 35). LeRoy supports these claims with newspaper articles and an academic report conducted for the local chamber of commerce (LeRoy 2005; 222). In and extreme example, LeRoy details how Scripps Research Institute received over a billion dollars in subsidies from state and county governments in Florida to create a total of 545 jobs, a cost of $1.9 million per job (LeRoy 2005; 35). LeRoy supports this claim with evidence from an Associated Press newspaper article and Palm Beach county government records (LeRoy 2005; 221-222).

Parenti’s third claim asserts all of the tax breaks and subsidies companies receive from governments result in very few jobs created at very high costs. Evidence provided by LeRoy and the Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice provides strong support for Parenti’s claim. The evidence provided demonstrates how corporate subsidies and tax breaks in very specific cases nationwide has resulted in only a few very costly jobs, no jobs or layoffs. Each of these specific situations could be further researched by investigating LeRoy and the LCTJ’s cited sources and data. Further research could lend additional support for Parenti’s claims or could raise serious questions regarding Parenti’s claims. However, at this time the amount of evidence from different corroborating sources strongly supports Parenti’s claims.

Parenti’s Fourth Claim: “Dramatic Spike in Jobs and General Prosperity”

The fourth claim presented by Parenti asserts, “GOP leaders maintain that tax cuts to big business and wealthy investors are necessary to induce an economic growth that in turn will create millions of new jobs and bring a rise in government revenues. In fact, there is little evidence to support this scenario […] There was no dramatic spike in jobs and general prosperity, neither when this supply-side policy was tried under President Reagan in the 1980s nor under President Bush Jr. twenty years later” (Parenti 2008; 73). Parenti cites David Sylvester’s article “Revisiting ‘Reaganomics,’” in the San Jose Mercury News, dated July 20, 2003 as his source for this claim. The article by Sylvester is unable to be located either by searching online nor by searching LexisNexis. However, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau relates to Parenti’s claim. First regarding employment, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows during Ronald Reagan’s presidential term from January 1981 to 1989, unemployment began at 7.6 percent peaked at 9.7 percent in 1983 and ended at 5.5 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013). During George W. Bush’s presidential term from January 2001 to 2009, unemployment began at 4.1 percent peaked at 6 percent in 2003 and ended at 5.8 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013). Since 1947, unemployment has ranged from the lowest it has ever been at 2.9 percent (in 1953) to the highest it has ever been at 9.7 percent (in 1982) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013). In fact, in the first few years of both Reagan’s and W. Bush’s terms, unemployment increased. By the end of each of their terms, unemployment flat lined at around the mean of 5.77 percent.

Second, regarding general prosperity, the U.S. Census Bureau, shows adjusted for inflation, in 1967 the income for the lowest fifth of the population was $1,600 while the income for the top five percent was $28,110 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Income). The top five percent made approximately 17 times more than the lowest fifth. The Census Bureau data also shows incomes in 2012 are the highest they have ever been, with the lowest fifth making $11,490 while the top five percent make $318,052 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Income). The top five percent in 2012 make approximately 27 times more than the lowest fifth. During Reagan’s term the income for the lowest fifth began at $4,310 and ended at $6,465 while the income for the top five percent began at $69,485 and ended at $124,215 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Income). The top five percent made approximately 16 times as much as the lowest fifth at the beginning of Regan’s term and approximately 19 times as much at the end of Regan’s term. During Bush’s term the income for the lowest fifth began at $10,136 and ended at $11,656 while the income for the top five percent began at $260,464 and ended at $294,709 (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Income). Throughout Bush’s term the top five percent made approximately 25 times as much as the lowest fifth.

The U.S. Census Bureau also provides information on poverty levels. According to this data, from 1981 to 1989 poverty levels fluctuated between 17.5 percent to 20.3 percent and from 2001 to 2009 poverty levels fluctuated between 16.1 percent to 17 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Poverty). From 1968 to 2012 poverty levels have fluctuated from the lowest during that time frame of 15.6 percent (in 2000) to the highest of 20.3 percent (in 1982-1983) (U.S. Census Bureau 2013; Poverty). Poverty levels were the highest between the years of 1968 to 2012 for two consecutive years during the period of 1982-1983, during Reagan’s presidential term. Poverty levels were the lowest between the years of 1968 to 2012 in 2000, right before W. Bush’s term then poverty levels increased over W. Bush’s presidential term to end the term at 17.9 percent.

Parenti’s claim is that there was no dramatic increase in employment and general prosperity during either Reagan nor W. Bush’s presidential terms. The data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau strongly supports Parenti’s claim. According to this data, unemployment increased during the first few years of both Reagan and W. Bush’s terms and then flat lined to the mean. While unemployment increased then flat lined during Reagan and W. Bush’s terms, the top five percent prospered with an income of approximately 16-19 times during Reagan’s term to 25 times during W. Bush’s term that of the lowest fifth of Americans. Further, poverty levels were the highest since 1968 during Reagan’s term and were the lowest since 1968 right before W. Bush’s term then increased during W. Bush’s term. The supply-side claim is clear; if this economic approach is taken, then overtime unemployment will drastically decrease and wealth will be dispersed lifted people out of poverty. How exactly a “dramatic spike in jobs and general prosperity” is defined could be debatable, but it certainly doesn’t mean a decrease then flat line in employment levels, an increase and/or sustaining of income inequality and an increase in poverty levels.

Conclusion: Shifting the Burden of Proof

To conclude, one of Parenti’s claims is debatable and several of his claims were unable to be substantiated. Parenti’s claim regarding most Americans working for small businesses is disputable because evidence from at least two sources shows just under half of all Americans work for small businesses. Parenti’s references to corporate subsidies in Oregon and Michigan are unable to be substantiated. Parenti cites only LeRoy in regard to these claims but these references were unable to be located in LeRoy’s text. Several news sources, specifically the Associated Press article referenced in Parenti’s first claim and the San Jose Mercury article by Sylvester cited in Parenti’s fourth claim, were unable to be located.

However, additional evidence has been found which corroborates and supports Parenti’s claims. Regarding Parenti’s first claim, evidence from three separate agencies (namely, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Small Business Administration) supports the claim that small businesses contribute the most to long term net job creation. Regarding Parenti’s second claim, evidence provided by LeRoy and Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch, supported by numerous resources, supports Parenti’s claim regarding up to a billion dollars of payouts to Wal-Mart to open stores. Evidence from Raine and the U.S. House Committee study (both of which cite, among other sources, academic studies), of which appears to be corroborated in part by a Wal-Mart spokesperson, supports the claim that Wal-Mart employees rely heavily on Medicaid public assistance programs. Regarding Parenti’s third claim, vast amounts of evidence supplied by LeRoy and the Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice (supported by evidence from news sources, government records and academic studies) supports the claim that corporate tax breaks and subsidies have routinely resulted in only a very few costly jobs or layoffs. Regarding Parenti’s fourth claim, raw data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau shows that during Reagan and W. Bush’s terms unemployment increased then flat lined, poverty increased and income inequality increased and/or remained the same, which supports the claim that the “trickle down” theory of economics does not result in a “dramatic spike in jobs and general prosperity.”

Parenti’s overall argument is that many corporate welfare programs do nothing to help the larger society, so we ought to limit these programs. Ultimately, Parenti had one claim that was debatable, and this claim regarding most Americans working for small businesses is comparatively a minor claim considering the overall argument. Parenti had several claims that were simply unable to be substantiated, meaning no evidence could be found to support or not support these claims. The claims regarding corporate subsidies in Oregon and Michigan, based on this analysis, have to simply be set aside without assent to the truth or falsity of the claims until evidence can be supplied that does offer compelling reasons to assent one way or the other to the matter. Other evidence supporting and corroborating Parenti’s claims is substantial. Evidence emerged supporting several of Parenti’s claims even when several of Parenti’s cited sources were unable to be located. Almost all of Parenti’s claims are strongly supported, therefore these claims strongly support Parenti’s overall argument. At this point, the burden of proof rests with the supply-side, “trickle down,” economic theorist because strong supporting evidence has been given that demonstrates a central tenant (namely, corporate welfare programs) of their theory does not work. Until the supply-side economic theorist provides compelling evidence showing corporate welfare programs do work, we as a society ought to limit these costly programs.

References

American Small Business League. “About the ASBL.” American Small Business League. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.asbl.com/aboutus.html).

American Small Business League. “The Issues: How and Why Large Corporations Receive the Majority of U.S. Federal Small Business Contracts Every Year.” American Small Business League. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.asbl.com/issues.html).

Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 2013. The Low-Wage Drag on our Economy: Wal-Mart’s Low Wages and Their Effect on Taxpayers and Economic Growth. Washington, DC: U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf).

Dilger, Robert Jay. 2013. Small Business Administration and Job Creation. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41523.pdf).

Good Jobs First. “AccountableUSA-Louisiana.” Good Jobs First. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/states/louisiana).

Helfand, Jessica, Akbar Sadeghi, and David Talan. 2007. Employment Dynamics: Small and Large Firms over the Business Cycle. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/03/art3full.pdf)

LeRoy, Greg. 2005. The Great American Jobs Scam. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.greatamericanjobsscam.com/ pages/preview-book.html).

Parenti, Michael. 2008. Democracy for the Few. Stamford, CT: Thomson-Wadsworth.

Raine, George. 2004. “Wal-Marts Cost State.” SFGate. August 3. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Wal-Marts-cost-state-study-says-Retailer-2704118.php).

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.” Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Statistics about Business Size (Including Small Business). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Historical Income Tables: Income Inequality.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Historical Poverty Tables.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ data/historical/index.html).

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch. “About Us.” Good Jobs First. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/about.html).

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch. “Resources.” Good Jobs First. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/resources.html).

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch. “How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State.” Good Jobs First. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/index.html).

Wiser.org. “Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice.” WiserEarth. Retrieved November 24, 2013 (http://www.wiser.org/organization/view/0185f398f225586c248e043926472337).

Advertisements

Lady Anne Conway’s Vitalism

I argue these are the premise/conclusion forms of two distinct arguments Conway holds and that these two arguments combined form Conway’s vitalism.

Argument for Infinity of Creatures:

(P1) God’s nature is to act.

(p2) God acts by creating creatures.

(P3) Where God exists, God creates.

(P4) God exists in all infinite spaces.

(C5) God acts by creating creatures in all infinite spaces.

–> What this argument gives Conway is infinite creatures and no empty space; monads.

Argument for No Dead Matter:

(P1) God is the creator of all creatures.

(P2) God’s communicable attributes and reality are of life.

(P3) God creates creatures analogous to God’s communicable attributes and reality.

(P4) Dead matter does not share the same attributes nor the same reality with God.

(L5) Dead matter is not a creature of God. (P1-P4)

(P6) If dead matter is not a creature of God, then dead matter does not exist.

(P7) Dead matter is not a creature of God. (L5)

(C8) Dead matter does not exist.

–> What this gives Conway is the conclusion that all that exists is essentially alive spirit.

–> Put these two arguments together and this gives Conway infinite monads, exisiting in infinite spaces, that are all essentially alive spirit–>i.e. Conway’s vitalism.

These arguments were taken from chapter 2, chapter 3, and chapter 7 of Conway’s Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy. Link: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/conway1692_1.pdf