By Octopus
The Director’s Blog of the Congressional Budget Office released this report earlier today. It confirms everything we know about income inequality, and everything the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have said from the start:
[Income] for households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.If the language of the CBO summary seems understated, the accompanying graph screams louder than words:
Growth in Real After-Tax Income from 1979 to 2007
Devils in the detail: Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of the population benefited from a more than twofold increase in household income, whereas the middle quintiles – representing 60 percent of the national population – saw their income share decline by 3 percent. Income for the lowest quintile fell by more than 7 percent. Thus, the rich got richer while the living standards of most Americans dropped significantly.
- 275 percent growth for the highest income earners (top 1%),
- 65 percent for the 5th Quintile (less the 1% top earners),
- 40 percent for Quintiles 2 through 4,
- 18 percent for the bottom Quintile.
Bottom line: The so-called American Dream has vanished with no upward mobility for the middle class - especially for the younger generation with few career prospects to pay back their college loans.
Of course, the GOP always sees things differently. Under their PR lens, they have demonized everyone on unemployment as indolent loafers and suspected drug users. They have blamed public sector deficits on overpaid and over privileged public sector workers. They no longer consider Social Security and Medicare as ‘earned benefits’ but as burdensome ‘entitlements.’ Big Brother, they insist, has no business looking after little brother. And all Occupy Wall Street protesters shall be demonized as unwashed, unemployed, drug-addled, sex-crazed socialist hippies hell bent on income redistribution. Any heretic who challenges the gospel of ‘privatize profits and socialize risks' shall be pilloried and scorned. Thus spoke House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Thus spoke Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And thus spoke their media prophet, descending and condescending from Mount Rush.
Under the Republican PR lens, a humble breadcrumb shall turn into a mighty bread loaf. Modest morsels shall once again grace every table under the supply-side orthodoxy of more tax cuts for the rich and less benefits for the middle class. America's hallowed corporations will move your job to a third world country unless you agree to turn America into a third world country. Austerity and ritual sacrifice shall renew the land, and mandatory voter photo IDs will herald in a new Golden Age of Perpetual Feudalism.
If readers think I am overstating the case, here again is former Republican staffer Mike Lofgren, who writes in Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult:
The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public.My closing question for today: When will middle-class Republicans finally see the light and leave the cult before it’s too late.
(…)
Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric ... Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?
Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme, since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million.
(…)
Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries, the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.
When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to "prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that fact.
(…)
All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business press … More important politically, Republicans' myths about taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale "values voters," who may have been attracted to the GOP for other reasons ... but who now accept this misinformation as dogma.
An article in Raw Story this morning corroborates your figures but the jobs? Why hire Americans who insist on being treated at least as well as farm animals when you can incorporate off shore, build those little iToys or those ridiculous swoopy shoes in the Far East for 10% of the cost while jacking up prices to an absurd level. You must be some kind of Commie talking as though that mythical American dream were real and not just a carrot to dangle in front of the donkey.
ReplyDeletethe reason they're fighting so hard to dismiss and misrepresent this OWS movement is fear -- the same fear of a slave rebellion that swept the US, especially after the revolution in Haiti; the same fear of a serf's rebellion after the Russian revolution -- and they have every reason to be afraid.
But really, the last Depression was blamed simultaneously on too much government spending and the laziness of American workers who would rather live in tent cities down by the tracks and beg for handouts than do an honest day's work.
That coven of misbegotten miscreants has been singing the same damned song since 1929 but each new generation of born yesterday "It's my money and I want all of it" cretins won't listen to any of it even if they could hear it over the din of lies and propaganda.
Hell, I have to accept it, there's no hope and the only options are to embrace the horror, learn to deal with it or find a way off the planet of the apes.
NEVER, Octopus, NEVER will middleclass citizens leave their beloved Republican Party. Some of it is generational, church influence, and a deep seeded hate for Liberals...IMHO
ReplyDeleteI was reluctant to sign on to the OWS thing, mainly because I feared the right would demonize them, provoke violence, and in the end it would be seen as subversive or somehow anti-American. But their causes (too many to name) are just, and THAT's what has conservatives so worried.
ReplyDeleteGood post, and great comment by Capt. Fogg.
Here is proof that trickle-down is truly only a trickle. The top 1% sees a 275% growth and the bottom 20% see an 18% growth. The top 1% growth is 1528% greater than the bottom 20%. Let me spell it out.
ReplyDeleteONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT PERCENT GREATER
Truly, only a miniscule amount of money has trickled down from the top 1%.
And where do you think all their money came from? The hard labor of the other 99%. That's where!
WE ARE THE 99%!
A return to "classical liberalism" and a ethical and true capitalism is what is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe graphs really drives home the point that really initiated the OWS movement.
Crony capitalism, corporatism, and taxpayer bailout have got to go.
The GOP, once a party of ideas has become little more than a pampered group of reactionaries. Well, the base and party power structure anyway.
My two cents worth.
When will middle-class Republicans finally see the light and leave the cult before it’s too late.
ReplyDeleteI think they have. They self-identify as "independents" now, say they "vote for the candidate, not the party."
The question I want answered is, When will middle-class "independents" finally see the light and realize that there is no such thing as a reasonable, normal Republican? A lot of people in Tennessee voted for Bill Haslam for governor, thinking he was the least crazy of the bunch. And in all fairness, the Democratic candidate was beyond weak. Yet even our "reasonable" Republican governor has signed on to all of the wackadoodle crap -- the Voter ID law, overturning Nashville's non-discrimination ordinance (so much for that "local control" stuff! That only applies on conservative issues!), defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, etc. etc. etc.
No matter how sane they appear, if there's an R after the name they're going to sign on to all the crazy stuff the nutters in "the base" demand.
SB - Really. Have we facts and a breakdown {empirical data} on all this to analyze. Or is it more a matter of partisan opinion?
ReplyDeleteNot that partisan opinion is necessarily always a bad thing.
RN,
ReplyDeleteYou are beginning to sound like a progressive! :)
Captain,
ReplyDeleteI reserve my last comment for you (see below).
Sue,
If Mike Lofren (the former Republican staffer with 28 years of Congressional experience) can do it, there is always hope.
Squatlo,
The OWS folks have proved themselves, and I think we should close ranks and embrace their cause. Even former Tea Party folks have joined in (I’ll look for the link and return later).
Jerry,
Thank you for doing the math. I can add only one more point. The current level of income inequality is at all-time high, and history has shown that this level of hardship and instability is a major underlying cause of recessions and depressions. If we are unable to correct the injustice/ imbalance, there will be more catastrophes soon to unfold.
RN,
Once upon a time, the GOP was the party of Eisenhower, Javits, Keating, Rockefeller, Jerry Ford, and others. In today’s Republican Party, these long-gone servants of the public trust would be vilified and drummed out of the party. There are no more moderate and reasonable voices left. Also, a word on party loyalty. It has the surface appearance of being a virtue but, in practice, it has become impediment to critical thinking, analysis, debate, and votes of conscience. I have the same harsh words for Democrats who have also sold out to corporatist benefactors. Sometimes I wish we could scrap the whole damn system and start from scratch.
SoBe,
Yes, our side needs better candidates, but this may no longer be possible given the steep admission price. There is no way to enter politics these days without a wealthy benefactor behind you (and the plutocrats pick buffoons as candidates whom they can control).
When I consider the sorry state of the world, I cannot blame just the Republicans, the Evangelicals, the Wingers and misfits alone. It seems the default condition of the human species has always been one of chicanery and corruption. This is the way it has been since the beginning of history – and, in all probability, always will be. When I reach this point, I always find myself agreeing with Captain Fogg, our resident Misanthrope-in-Chief. It is why I decided long ago to throw my lot in with the cephalopods and refuse to follow the human lemmings over the cliff.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteAnother fine post you've gotten us into.
RN,
Heck, almost any kind of capitalism would be better than the oligarchic, plutocratic nonsense we have at present – it’s thoroughly corrupt and has badly damaged our political process. But it’s also important to realize, I think, that capitalism of any sort isn’t a perpetual-perfection wealth-generating machine – like any human system, it requires tending. There would be much work to do to establish a more or less fair version, and work to do to keep it from going the way of any such system over time. Large formations like this never exist in a pure state; from their early development onwards, they’re “always already” something other than pure, and latent within them are forces that would eventually tear them apart if they’re not kept at bay, redirected, etc. That's where I take issue with the libertarian view, which I think doesn't usually take full account of this problem, full account of the historical development of market forces and forms.
We probably would all be laid low for a week at the number of people who need to see, understand and start forming new opinions on the basis of what that graph shows, but who would instead look at it and not really get it. Whether because of poor education, weakness in assimilating graphical representations or ideological blindness, there is a gap that's dangerous for our society and democracy.
ReplyDeleteI say that in part because, as you can see, this information has been in the making for a long time. Earlier graphs showed the same trend, though not to the current extreme. And yet, so many people voted for selfish idiots who, in the face of a perfect setup for ballooning deficits and horrendous debt, cut taxes repeatedly and in huge amounts for those concentrating ever more of the wealth needed for a healthy, prosperous economy.
This situation raises disturbing questions about how capable Americans are of rational decision making so that democratic self-governance doesn't lead to wreck and ruin for most of them — at their own hands.
Southern Beale, you made an excellent point and did it well. Former Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel and Jim Jeffords, conservatives all, got disgusted and jumped ship, or in Chafee's case got primaried out, during the Bush/extremist era. Today's Republican Party is no more the Republican Party of the Eisenhower era than today's economy is the economy of the 1950's. Both have changed drastically, and not for the better for most.
ReplyDeleteA huge problem for the left is the right's mastery of the airways, printed media and internet as venues for their propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI work with people who owe everything they have to the benefits and wages they got from union negotiation. They listen to Rush and hate unions.
A truly despicable talking point the right uses in response to the income disparity is that in America those who work harder are rewarded. This implies that if you're not wealthy you don't work hard. Yet there are millions like the guys I work with that work hard, yet buy into this crap. Their bigotry is used to keep them republicans.
I was thinking for a while OWS is better without a spokesperson. maybe it needs one to clarify the message to the working Americans.
Jerry - Actually this time I shall take that as a compliment.
ReplyDeleteIn actuality my views do not nicely fit into any one "corral" if you will. Classical Liberalism is really my foundation, with fiscal conservatism one pillar and social libertarianism the other.
Octo - Again we find agreement. Even Reagan {supply side} would not have been a republican republican by the standards of the party today.
Bloggingdino - Excellent points. I shall think them through as I mull over them.
I understand from Octo you are quite knowledgeable with respect to the works of Karl Marx. I recently did a short post at my site {with information given me by another who studied Marx 32 years ago} because I have grown tired of the misrepresentation of his works. I have only a cursory knowledge of Marx and his economic theories but it is enough to know the reactionary right {and even just normal conservative) have misrepresented his theories.
So my question for you is... Where would you recommend I start studying his theories. Without having to read any pro's or con's of the subject matter.
I'm discouraged and hopeful at the same time. Discouraged to see that my children are working twice as hard as we did at the point where they are now in their lives, and just keeping up. These are young adults with degrees up the ying-yang and fighting to keep their heads above water.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, I see the OWS gaining attention and strength, with conservatives and liberals [not the pols] beginning to reach out to one another to do something about this terrible inequality.
There ARE more of us, and we do have power. We need to use it wisely.
RN,
ReplyDeleteI meant it as a compliment. Could it be you are becoming more "rational"?
Rational,
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd have to recommend The German Ideology for its emphasis on materialist history as opposed to reading history by means of conceptual abstractions; and from Capital Volume 1, the early chapters where Marx sets forth the basics of his theory of labor. "The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof" is a particularly interesting chapter because it provides a window into Marx's fundamental critique of a system he thought was historically necessary but that was also turning the world upside down, so that only things matter, not people or the labor they perform.
I've long said that while we may not like Marx's solutions or prescriptions for a better world, he's still one of the best analysts of how capitalism works, what makes it tick -- cuts through a lot of nonsense, I think. Marx wasn't exactly a warm and fuzzy chap, but most of his detractors have never read a word of what he wrote. He was an astute critic, and we fail to read him at our peril, we who want to keep a "free market" system going smoothly and benefiting the great majority of people who are subject to it, just as Adam Smith hoped it would do.
A modern text worth looking at is David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity, which deals with all sorts of stuff lucidly but addresses economics in contemporary contexts.
Joe Hagstrom wrote: "A huge problem for the left is the right's mastery of the airways, printed media and internet as venues for their propaganda."
ReplyDeleteWe need a few more George Soroses to fund a propaganda infrastructure bigger and more omnipresent than the right-wing noise machine. Do you have any idea how many media markets have wall-to-wall Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, not just on one station but two, three, four stations, so one or more of them is on every hour of the day and night? Do you realize how many people get only basic cable, where Fox News and CNN come with the package, but MSNBC is an upper-tier option only? Then there are all the right-wing newspapers, magazines, colleges and universities, and think tanks. The noise machine is huge and extremely well funded. It's everywhere, it's all the time and deeply entrenched.
If liberal/Democrats were to start today with a budget of several billion, we might be able to match the right-wing noise machine in 12 to 15 years.
"A truly despicable talking point the right uses in response to the income disparity is that in America those who work harder are rewarded."
You're right. That's not only despicable, it's wildly untrue. Most of the super rich were born into wealth — the biggest single predictor of future wealth in America. Meanwhile, a shrinking percentage achieve great wealth through hard work, invention, exceptional talent, etc.
For some of the hardest-working people in the country, check out those who care for the elderly Alzheimer's and invalid cases in nursing homes. Look at those who harvest tomatoes, oranges, apples and so on. Unless one of them wins a lottery, they're not getting rich, either.
It's even come out recently that since Reagan put us on a dead-end path, America has gone from having one of the highest rates of upward mobility among advanced industrialized nations to having the absolute lowest.
These are things your co-workers need to learn and think about, for their kids' sake, if not their own.
Jerry Critter, a free-market system needs oversight and regulation the way a nuclear reactor needs knowledgeable and attentive operators. One is powered by ambition and greed, the other by nuclear fission. Either, if allowed to go out of control, can make a real mess of things. As we've seen, again and so painfully, over the past four years.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the paradox of a free-market, capitalist economic system is that, politically, those who are its biggest fans and boosters should never be allowed full control of it, while those who are most leery of its rough edges and potential for doing harm should always be in control of it.
Trying to show that the rich are getting richer faster is rather pointless, as conservatives don't deny it. They simply think it is OK.
ReplyDeleteThere is an axiomatic break in the concept of economic justice. Unless that is addressed, other arguments are basically irrelevant.
JMyste,
ReplyDeleteOf course, there is an axiomatic disconnect; and all arguments about what constitutes economic justice are pointless too. Concepts of good and evil are self-evident and represented by the protagonists and antagonists of a tale. This is not a gentleman’s disagreement between Gandalf and Saruman but an epic struggle for Middle earth – to free the conscience of King Théoden from the malign influence of GrÃma Wormtongue.
John's correct... why is it a problem how much anyone else makes? Anyway, I question this part of your bottom line:
ReplyDelete"Bottom line: The so-called American Dream has vanished with no upward mobility for the middle class..."
I don't see anything in the chart that demonstrates income mobility is over. In fact, I recall a recent study that showed income mobility is more active than ever: people are moving up and down the ladder pretty swiftly (and no, it's not just downward movement).
I guess I don't see how the income gap leads to the conclusion that there is no upward mobility for the middle class. I don't think the evidence supports the conclusion.
John,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that conservatives don't deny it. The problem is that all the rest of the people don't realize it.
I am mesmerized by your unexpected response:
ReplyDeleteall arguments about what constitutes economic justice are pointless too. Concepts of good and evil are self-evident and represented by the protagonists and antagonists of a tale.
I bow to you, sir.
John,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I was a bit rushed when I left the above comment but on further reflection, this is what I should have said: “In a morality tale about the epic struggle between the forces of good and evil, the characters of the protagonist and the antagonist are sharply drawn as the embodiment of this struggle. Generally, morality tales have predictable outcomes, but the more interesting subplots are in the temporal realm where ordinary people, when confronted by chance or by fate, are forced to make moral decisions. This is where outcomes are less predictable, sometimes comic, sometimes tragic, but always more engaging.”
The above post is written in two parts: 1 – Raw stats on income inequality, and 2 – GOP propaganda responses that include victim blame, deception, denunciation, projection, and concealment.
In a sense, politics is a real life morality play with an uncertain outcome. In this context, I use the word ‘propaganda’ in the same sense John Milton used the phrase “stealth and guile.” In Paradise Lost, Satan is the first propagandist, and evil is defined as the perversion of goodness. In the temporal world of politics, we still engage ourselves in morality plays.
Heathen: “ I don't think the evidence supports the conclusion.”
ReplyDeleteThree decades of wage stagnation and three years of deep recession do not create conditions conducive to upward mobility, and there is no way to argue the point otherwise. As Mike Lofgren - the former Republican staffer who got fed up the cult - asks: “So, where are the jobs?”
Relative to other industrialized countries, the United States ranks BELOW Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, German, and France on an upward mobility scale. Furthermore, men in the 30s earn less today than men of their father’s generation. You can read all about it at The Economic Mobility Project.
And before you refute this statement, “the younger generation with few career prospects to pay back their college loans,” I suggest you read this NYT article, In Grim Job Market, Student Loans Are a Costly Burden.
Heathen, you should do your own homework before asking me to do this research for you.
Octo, I didn't ask you to do any research. You provided a chart that demonstrated the income gap and claimed upward mobility had vanished for the middle class. Non sequiter.
ReplyDeleteYou now follow no upward mobility with "where are the jobs?" Another non sequiter. I wasn't looking for an argument; I was pointing out that your evidence doesn't back your conclusion. So you offered another piece of evidence that still doesn't back your conclusion. I'm impressed.
I'm not sure how you can claim "three decades of wage stagnation" when President Obama's own economic report demonstrates otherwise (p. 54). Figure 6 of the report you linked even contradicts your statement. Impressed again.
bloggingdino - Thank you for the information.
ReplyDeleteRational,
ReplyDeleteYou are very welcome.
Heathen,
I don't suppose Octo is suggesting that upward mobility has somehow been forbidden but rather that today is a far cry from the 1950s with its easy expectations of an "onward, ever upward" economy. All you have to do is open your eyes and ears -- numbers won't tell the whole story. Millions of Americans seem frightened these days, anxious that they're going to lose everything they have. Who can blame them?
The recent reports about massive income inequality say what they say: there's a unbelievably huge gap between the wealthiest people and "average" people. The gap has always been large and nobody really expects parity of incomes, but now the gap is more like an instance of a "wealth disparity sublime" than anything a sustainable capitalist order should be generating. It's clear that much of the nation's wealth is flowing into a very small number of pockets, and anybody who thinks that's a healthy development is a deluded creature of pure ideology.
Well isn't this timely. Not the study I referenced earlier, but published today: Tracking the same households over time shows significant income mobility.
ReplyDeleteApparently reports like the ones mentioned above all have one major flaw: they mistake income brackets with actual people. When you track actual individuals over time, you see that 50% of households move from one quintile to another (measured from 2001-2007).
Lest you think they only move down, 44% in the lowest quintile moved to a higher one. I wasn't going to try and debate income mobility since I couldn't find the original study, but I just happened to find this one while browsing at Cafe Hayek.
Bloggingdino,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Perhaps our visitor meets the definition of “a deluded creature of pure ideology.” This is not my first ‘reef’ encounter with said creature who, I know from experience, turns zits into mountain ranges - if you indulge him too much.
Heathen,
Here is the problem with your graph, Figure 3-1, Progress in U.S. Real Income Per Person Since 1820, (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis – Maddison, 2008). One problem is the time interval. You cannot tell from visual inspection exactly where the time interval ends, whether it is 2010 (the last date shown on the X-axis - a logical impossibility), 2008 (the actual date of the study), or 2007 (the most likely end point).
Another problem is the visual impression with no numerical detail, no accompanying table, no breakdowns, no adjustments for business cycles, and no interpretative summary beyond this statement: “economic growth is a defining feature of U.S. history,” which is tantamount to saying “the United States has been a country since 1776.” Wow, Heathen, I am so impressed with your analytical and critical skills.
Look at the plot interval between 1932 and 1938 (squinting is not an educated guess for me). From roughly 1932 through 1938, the slope rises sharply upward suggestive of rapid growth; yet everyone knows these were Depression years and hardly good times for America.
Heathen, my point is this: Looking at this graph reminds me of Rumi, Tales from Masnavi, about the proverbial elephant in the dark. Yet, you have either a reading impediment, a learning disability, a stubborn streak, or your Gestalt is fundamentally dishonest.
The above post is internally consistent with respect to the data and the findings:
“Devils in the detail: Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of the population benefited from a more than twofold increase in household income, whereas the middle quintiles – representing 60 percent of the national population – saw their income share decline by 3 percent. Income for the lowest quintile fell by more than 7 percent. Thus, the rich got richer while the living standards of most Americans dropped significantly.
Nuff said.
I will concede the argument and allow you to walk away believing you got the better end of it.
ReplyDeleteHeathen,
ReplyDeleteRef: Your comment @ 8:25 PM, October 28, 2011. Yes, I looked at that data, and these are the problems:
First the source: American Enterprise Institute, a partisan stink tank renowned for shoehorning data to fit GOP talking points (if it isn’t behind the cupboard, look under the couch). Now, pleeeze, do me a favor! Don’t fetch more data from the Heritage Shack. Their data are riddled with Kochroaches!
Second: The study interval: 2001 to 2007 – before the Great Recession.
Third: No disclosure as to sample size and selection methodology. Obviously minorities are impacted more adversely; yet there are no demographic breakdowns.
It seems there are comments critical of the study. Inasmuch as the critics have spared me the analysis work, I shall rely on their impressions:
Tom Cantlon (October 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm): “So 27% went down during the booming bubble? Some always go down because of sickness and such but 27% during good times? That’s terrible. That’s something to look into. I hate to think what these numbers would be now after the crash [me too].”
Nicole C (October 28, 2011 at 2:34 pm): “ Figure 1 displaying income distribution explains why mobility is so easy for lower groups, because the variance within each is to tiny due to the fact the distribution of income is anything but normal, rendering any analysis based on quantiles statistically insignificant.”
Ref: your comment @ 9:37 PM, October 28, 2011. This comment thread was NOT an exercise in getting the better of anyone until you turned it into one. Behind the stats and numbing numbers, there is a moral argument - millions of people who lost jobs, assets, homes, and, yes, even families due to despair. And the next generation, children of the so-called American Dream, worked hard to get an education only to find themselves deeply in debt - going nowhere. For them, the work-reward promise has turned into a lie – and the Dream into a nightmare. Meanwhile, the GOP is holding the country HOSTAGE with filibustering, legislative gridlock, and partisan posturing. IMMORAL! And UNFORGIVABLE!
Bloggingdino,
See what I go through? It maketh the cephalopod want to inketh the aquarium and torment the dogfish.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteNo point wasting any more time on him.
What an interesting discussion! I'm no economist, but it seems that given the minimal growth in real after tax income in all groups except the top 1%, that Octo's conclusion as to the lack of middle class upward mobility are valid. It doesn't appear that any minimal changes in real after tax income for the middle class would represent any substantial change in spending ability as one would have to factor in costs of living increases. In addition, Octo provides an important bit of detail-the middle quintile numbers represent an income share decrease of 3%. Definitely appears to support concluding a lack of upward mobility.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the chart Octo. I like a good visual image, you know what they say about a picture.
Thanks Shaw for sprinkiling in a little hope, "I'm discouraged and hopeful at the same time." After Pandora opened that box, the only thing that offered redemption was that there was one creature left at the bottom, a shining light called hope. OWS may well be that light.
Heathen Republican wrote: ". . .why is it a problem how much anyone else makes?"
ReplyDeleteJustice Louis Brandeis once wrote, "We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Brandeis was right, and time has proven him right. What he meant by that is that great wealth concentrated in few hands corrupts the political system and ultimately controls, or at least holds excessive sway, over government. The result is that those few wealthy hands hold not only great market power and other economic power, but also great political power. The people, what they need and want, can and do easily get shoved aside.
In short, we're talking plutocracy if not fascism.
Our political system has been a sick puppy for some time because of money poisoning. Lobbyists eat away at resources that could and should be directed to the common good. Meanwhile, the political right does its best to destroy the very notion there is such a thing as the common good, or that there should be such a thing.
BTW, the above explanation also explains the OWS protests.
All,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for allowing this thread to be hijacked, although I think the above exchange with Heathen Republican has served a useful purpose. The Heathen represents a perfect example of Mike Lofgren’s point about the GOP’s campaign of disinformation.
Dearest Sister,
I support the 99 percent and the OWS movement. I’m even thinking of starting a coral reef chapter to keep our waters blue - and free of that dreaded red tide. On a more earthbound note, I am very concerned about Election Year 2012, which may be the pivotal event that either preserves democracy as we know it, or lets the barbarians through the gate. Two tracks conspiring at the same time: 1 – The GOP assault on labor rights and middle class earned benefits; and 2 - district gerrymandering and mandatory voter photo IDs that will suppress voter turnout and ensure electoral hegemony for the party of the plutocracy.
SWA
Thank you for the Brandeis quotation. It meshes perfectly with the findings of the CBO report and supports the point of this post.
All,
ReplyDeleteWhile I obviously don't like the income disparity in the top 1% and the top 20% vs. everyone else, I don't think those who are OK with it are automatically disingenuous because of it.
I think the first step to solve the problem should be to tax the increased earnings more fairly, meaning less flatly. Tax philosophy in America is grossly unfair. We seem to want everyone to put some skin in the game, even those with no skin, and we don’t care how many children or elderly people go hungry to make it happen. The next step would be real campaign finance reform, which would force politicians to represent the majority. As things are, they must bow to those who pay their campaign bills and that happens to be corporations and wealthier people. If they stand up to those who finance their campaigns, they simply will not be elected, and while virtuous, they will be ineffective as their political careers die.
That said, I am a little surprised at the angry dismissal of Heathen's comments, as if by offering rebuttal, he had insulted you or tried to trick you. He was giving his honest analysis of the situation and trying to have that analysis challenged. Some blogs want this; others don't.
There is no setting in blogger than states whether the host is open to dissenting views.
Octo, while I have an immense admiration for your intelligence and ability to confront the issues before us all, I am shocked that you would apologize for allowing your blog to be "hijacked" with a dissenting view. I am further completely aghast that you consider a dissent to be an act of hijacking.
JMyste,
ReplyDeleteHeathen has a "history" throughout the liberal blogosphere.
I recall numerous comment threads that turned nasty and offensive when Heathen entered a discussion. Green Eagle, who is a friend of this forum, had an especially unpleasant encounter in this post and comment thread as a representative example, one of many. HR did not come here to engage in a civil debate; he came here with sarcasm and a chip on his shoulder with vendetta in mind.
What you regard as 'angry' and intolerant of dissent, I regard as 'restrained' given prior experiences with him. And repeating what I said earlier: His "Gestalt is fundamentally dishonest."
John Myste,
ReplyDeleteSo you think such commenters stop by to engage in open-minded debates? Nope, that isn't what they're after. They'll just waste your time and repeat the same garbage over and over without the slightest alteration even if you prove them absolutely and entirely wrong five different ways. A minute spent on unproductive, smartass commenters is a minute of your life you'll never get back.
Bloggingdino,
ReplyDeleteA minute spent on unproductive, smartass commenters is a minute of your life you'll never get back.
Do we get the rest of the minutes back?
Octo And BloggingDino,
ReplyDeleteI know Heathen very well. I have debated him dozens of times on various sites. The way he met me, was when I wrote a rather brutal attack of his tax philosophy. Before that, he really didn’t know who I was.
I completely agree that debates with him become circular. At that time I withdraw from the debate and he allows it.
I completely agree that he debates aggressively, and sometimes too aggressively and certainly more overtly aggressively than I ever would. However, my implied aggression and satirical approach is probably no less inappropriate.
I completely know he believes what he says and wants to challenge and to be challenged. Some people consider this a low-toned desire, and I am one of them. However, I also have the same desire. I want to challenge and I want to be challenged. In my case, I love the game of it. I love all games of strategy. In his case, he thinks he is seeking truth or some nonsense like that. I am not sure what his exact cognitive justification is. In the end, I suspect his real motivations are identical to mine.
I agree if you don’t want aggressive debate on your site, it is rude and inappropriate for someone to knowingly force themselves upon you. However, I also know that Heathen typically does not do this. He avoids Dusty Taylor’s site, for example, because he knows she does not want the kind of “entertainment” he delivers. You do not need to point me to sites where he became agitated and aggressive. I know of such sites, from memory. I believe if you find him a year from now, all of that side of him will be gone.
So, in short, I agree with two things. 1. He is too aggressive. 2. His arguments become circular. And I disagree with any idea that he does not believe his positions are accurate and intellectual, or that he wants to “troll” sites. He and I disagree on almost everything. I think the only significant exception is our views of God. Nonetheless, I still believe that he believes what he says reflects the truth.
John Myste,
ReplyDeleteThat's a silly question. Simple dinos like me can see right through it -- the only advantage of having a walnut-sized brain, as my species does. You can either spend the time you have well or badly. How about John Lennon's quip, "Time's not wasted if you enjoyed wasting it"? If you enjoy responding to trolls at great length, be my guest. I have other things to do.
JM,
ReplyDeleteTo each his or her own, of course -- as for moi moi-meme, I don't see any value in conversing with people who are hopelessly and determinedly wrong about nearly everything as well as belligerent and ill-spoken. I'd rather stare at the nearest wall for an hour than talk to a damn 'bagger for ten seconds.
JMyste: “ Do we get the rest of the minutes back?”
ReplyDeleteAlthough I spend much time in Cyberspace, this is my Internet philosophy: Life comes before blogging. When you are part of a blogging community, there is an ethical obligation to respect and protect the personal boundaries of your friends and colleagues.
Some members of this community are retired; some work full-time jobs; some have active families; and all have obligations outside this forum. Many bloggers prefer to keep their personal lives private - their illnesses and setbacks, emergencies, and bereavements – and these are reasons to minimize expectations, respect boundaries, and treat people kindly.
My experience with bloggers looking for an adrenalin fix is that they live inside their own heads, treat others as objects for self-amusement, and demand more from strangers than is reasonable or appropriate. When comment threads turn circular, the net effect is that unwelcome trolls have turned themselves into the focus of attention. Most annoying of all, they have no self-awareness as to their impact on others, nor do they care.
“ I believe if you find him a year from now, all of that side of him will be gone.”
What concerns me now are his current behaviors (and his effect on this forum), not hypothesized behaviors that may or may not turn out to be the case.
I would direct future reading (especially that of M. Heathen) to researchers Wilkinson and Pickett and their excellent 2008 book, "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone." Their data is multinational, comprehensive, income-based and compelling and their findings and conclusions are drawn on 20 years of epidemiological studies linked to income inequality. Upon reading it, Heathen (and others of us) might conclude that the struggle (again...) is not between right and left but between top and bottom. W&P have marvellously discovered that political ideological paths matter less than the successful outcome of more equal societies, Japan and Sweden being good examples of opposite ideological strategies with similar outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAssuming, that is, reason is still possible in within the American discourse.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteWell, in a sense, yes -- Uncle Karl said, after all, that "ideology has no history." But in another sense, it seems to me a mistake to ignore the simple fact that "Right" and "Left" views and operatives might just have something to do with the top/bottom distribution in the first place. The American Right actually FAVORS the most extreme gap between top and bottom imaginable, while what passes for an American Left (feeble and compromised though it may be) at least acknowledges precisely what I gather that the authors of the study you cite are claiming: namely, that the more evenly wealth and opportunity are distributed within a given society, the better everyone in it will do.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteHis intention was nothing more than to offer a dissenting opinion. The rest is what it is on both sides. I still think you are inhospitable to strong dissenting opinions, which is OK, but it is also what it is.
His intention was not trolling. And as for living in ones own head, that is much of what the blogging experience, and writing in general, is and it does not speak to ones life on the outside.
Dino,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't know what the American right is doing. Most if it doesn't make any sense (the list on that score is seemingly endless). I know that conservatism does have values that don't necessarily translate vertically, such as the ability to enjoy rewards for hard work, fair taxation, real punishment for serious crimes, strong family values (which should translate into caring), freedom of speech and assembly, etc.
The American left does seem to be aiming for equality of opportunity and an end to the political selloff of control to the corporate elite, which does match W&P's compass, and seems greatly less fixated on 'controlling' people. It's a basic issue of trust, or lack thereof. But a great deal has been written about that on this forum... What W&P point out from their research is more equal societies, income-wise, are also more trusting. That seems a real gain but one, perhaps, more easily comprehended by the more accommodating liberal mind than by the more controlling conservative.
Healthy societies, like organisms, likely require both orientations. But in the case of modern America, the balance has shifted much too far away from open egalitarian principals, which seems to have more in common with liberalism (which for several decades seems to have been a dirty word in the US).
I think much of the confusion comes from equating the Far Right with Conservatism. The republican Far Right is not conservative. It is the most radical political philosophy around. They are the Radical Far Right, not conservative at all.
ReplyDeleteIn the morning news:
ReplyDelete"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," says Bruce Bartlett, an economist formerly employed in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
There are (were) honest Republicans, but they are almost extinct and far too few of them for captive breeding.
The Edge Columns wrote: "Frankly, I don't know what the American right is doing. Most if it doesn't make any sense. . ."
ReplyDeleteIt makes perfect sense if you can wrap your head around a few facts. Today's GOP has been hijacked by ideologues and bullies with a business mindset. These bullies operate the party and its satellite operations as a business, in the same way the Mafia is a business seeking money and power, but they do it (so far) without the overt violence. The bullies' imperative is winning elections and wielding political power. That's because if they fail to win and wield power, GOP pols, strategists and campaign staffers are of no use to their wealthy patrons, so that the big-money contributions drop off, potentially sealing Republicans' fate unless and until the public goes through one of its periodic "throw the bums out; they've been in power too long" fits of distemper.
Republicans need a lot of money, propaganda and dirty tricks to overcome the fact most Americans usually favor Democratic programs and policies. The public doesn't always like Democratic candidates better, but polls going back to the 1930's consistently show most like Democratic programs and policies better. Republicans also know they're perennially less favored by racial and ethnic minorities.
So, Republicans are ruthless and underhanded. They do things like hold several million unemployed hostage, the way they did a year ago, to get concessions certain to retard the jobs recovery. They balloon the deficit with a series of huge tax cuts, beat the drums for war and do their best to generate fear to make sure they'll win re-election. They don't give a damn about the unemployed, about troops being killed in an unnecessary war. They care about winnng and wielding power, about proving they're worth what they cost their wealthy backers.
Republican pols aren't in politics to perform public service because of any high ideals about serving the public. Not any more. They want to be a self-perpetuating money and power machine. They funnel taxpayers' money and advantages to the wealthy and corporations, they get the money to keep control of the levers of power that can keep them in power in return.
It's a business, in the sense of being a racket, and they are racketeers.
My two cents worth is that I welcome dissenting opinions. I tend to do my own best thinking when my ideas are challenged. I don't seek out conflict but neither do I shy away from it.
ReplyDeleteI find Heathen challenging. I find JM's perception valid that Heathen isn't merely trolling but interested in challenging others' ideology and having his challenged in return. Of course, I have no history with him. As a latecomer to the Zone I respect the climate that is nurtured here. However, I don't find it to be a waste of my time to engage in spirited debate on any subject on which I have a strong opinion.
As much as I am no fan of the GOP, I don't buy into the notion that all Republicans are not to be trusted or respected. I don't recall the exact language but I bleieve it goes along these lines, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Like it or not we are a country not a collection of city-states. We have two major political parties. We have already fought a civil war and it's not a viable option to do so again. We have to work towards finding some common ground where all of our disparate factions can live and function in relative harmony most of the time.
In spite of my dramatic utterances from time to time, I have no desire to leave this country. I want to make this country better. We can't do that if everyone is firmly entrenched in opposing camps and no one is willing to negotiate.
I try to listen to the other side on occasion so that I can better understand how it thinks. It's impossible to effectively defend against an enemy that you don't understand. I think that is a major issue in our so-called war on terrorism. We have never tried to understand the ideology that engenders so much animosity towards everything American among those whom we call terrorists. We can't negotiate a peace because we have no real understanding of what they want from us. What we appear to want from them is to make them be more like us, which is a consummation devoutly wished only by us.
Dear Sister,
ReplyDeleteFamily always comes first, and I cannot disappoint my sister. So if you really, really want a pet troll to torment, how can I refuse! Besides, we have a really, really big dinosaur and a swashbuckling pirate on our side. I suppose we’ll manage.
SWA,
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with your assessment: “Republicans are ruthless and underhanded. They do things like hold several million unemployed hostage, the way they did a year ago, to get concessions certain to retard the jobs recovery.”
Perusing the morning news, these caught my attention: An editorial, Protestors Against Wall Street, and this story, Sarkozy Warns France of New Economic Reality. I think these capture the disconnect between Main Street versus our political leadership. The editorial first:
“ At this point, protest is the message: income inequality is grinding down that middle class, increasing the ranks of the poor, and threatening to create a permanent underclass of able, willing but jobless people. On one level, the protesters, most of them young, are giving voice to a generation of lost opportunity [my bold] … Research shows that such extreme inequality correlates to a host of ills, including lower levels of educational attainment, poorer health and less public investment. It also skews political power …”
Followed by this account of Sarkozy’s statement:
“We will have to revise and adapt our budget plan to the new reality,” Mr. Sarkozy told an estimated 12 million viewers as he revealed that his government had lowered its forecast for next year’s gross domestic product growth to 1 percent from 1.75 percent … “It’s because of this debt crisis that we find ourselves in a situation of having to defend France’s triple-A” credit rating, Mr. Sarkozy said, noting that a rating downgrade would only increase the interest burden on the country’s public debt …”
Here is the hidden conflict residing inside these juxtaposed news accounts. Not just Wall Street but global bond and hedge fund traders are holding the masses hostage through their elected officials.
To put this into perspective, consider the relative positions of debt to percentage of GDP for Greece versus Italy (as of July 2011): Greece – 126%; Italy 116%. Very similar and yet Greece is in crisis but Italy is not. Why? Because virtually all of Italy’s debt is held by private bond holders inside Italy whereas Greece’s debt is held by international bond and hedge fund traders. The key word is “exposure.” Citizens of Italy will not drive up the interest rate on their own national debt, whereas global traders and speculators hold Greece in thrall. Last summer, the interest rate on Greece’s debt was roughly 3.65%. This year it is over 26%. Italy’s interest rate has remained unchanged from a year ago.
These accounts explain why the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to Europe.
SWA,
ReplyDeleteWell put. I think the GOP's movers and shakers, at least, know exactly what they want and what's expected of them. And they don't give a damn about the less-than-seven-figure-earning rubes who keep voting for them.
Sheria,
What you say is well said, but in this reptile’s admittedly ignorant opinion, righties who enjoy a challenge can all go pound sand until the Angel Gabriel blows the trumpet that calls us all to the Last Tea Party in the Sky. That oughtta keep ‘em occupied. It isn’t difficult to infer the ideology of American right-wingers -- they are fueled by defiantly wrong ideas, grandiose delusions, and terror of change or difference. Nothing you or I say to them will change that; they will return to their former views as a dog returneth to its vomit no matter how many times you speak truth to their impotence. Sorrow was ever the only doctor of fools, though in the end it’s personal physician to us all.
I consider the opportunity cost of trying to change addled minds: I could be reading my beloved copy of Homer’s Odyssey, or improving my Latin, or writing a set of fine study questions for another literary work I plan to teach , or drinking a nice hot cup of coffee, or anything at all productive, or even decently unproductive.
Instead of those things, I would be trying to convince some ridiculous, childish, mean-spirited, tiny-souled anonymous jackass to acknowledge that capitalism doesn’t radiate with perfection and perpetuity, or recognize that the “free market” isn’t going to solve our healthcare-access problems in a satisfying way, or see that cutting the tax rate to 1% for teragigabezillionaires won’t be a boon for the economy, or admit that their Obama-birtherism and Obama-hate are functions of the vile bigotry they refuse to acknowledge even to themselves, etc.
I don’t have enough energy or time or interest to make the attempt, futile as it is. These people think things that many or all of us long ago turned over in our minds and rejected as stupidity and benighted barbarism. I’m with Father ‘opkins – their punishment is “to be their sweating selves.” A bit of liberal elitism is good for the soul now and then.
Now, if all y’all want a certified and certifiable righty to flog, I’ll just let my dear brother Baggasaurus Tex, a large, rather stupid and bellicose predator who lives up the road a piece from the watering hole, know, and he will be happy to drop by on occasion and tell you what a pack of Marxist sociopaths and oversensitive libruls you are. He’s always fixing for a rumble, that Baggasaurus Tex. I’ve learned to avoid him.
One more reference apropos to this discussion, Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness by Martin Gilens (2005, Oxford University Press), abstract:
ReplyDelete“… when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent but bear virtually no relationship to the preferences of poor or middle-income Americans. The vast discrepancy I find in government responsiveness to citizens with different incomes stands in stark contrast to the ideal of political equality that Americans hold dear. Although perfect political equality is an unrealistic goal, representational biases of this magnitude call into question the very democratic character of our society.”
And the beat goes on. Here is Paul Krugman’s opinion piece, Oligarchy, American Style (NYT, Nov 3, 2011):
ReplyDelete“” … extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?
Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.”