by russell
OK, here is some food for thought.
My personal take on this: folks who are, say, younger than forty should not plan on living as well as their folks did.
Sorry about that kids.
Likewise, folks who are, say, fifty and over, and who got hit with big losses over the last couple of years – I'm talking lost jobs, savings, homes – are probably not ever going to live as well as might have before, say, fall of 2008. For a lot of folks, that ground is lost, and is not going to be made up.
Get used to it. It's a great big crap sandwich, and we're all going to eat our bite, some way more than others, until it's all gone.
Jobs may well be returning to the US, but they're gonna pay $10 an hour. Employment at will, limited or no benefits, no retirement other than whatever you put together for yourself.
If you're some form of exceptionally clever fellow and work your behind off, you may find a way to do well. Most folks will basically scrape by, one way or another. For a lot of folks, that's gonna be for their entire productive lives.
But the kind of world I grew up in, where a person of average ability with a reasonable work ethic could expect to find some kind of useful, satifsfying work to do, and achieve a moderate level of basic financial security, is probably not going to happen for a lot of folks. Probably the majority. For quite a while.
Welcome to the new normal. It took us a generation to dig ourselves into this, it's gonna take us at least a generation to dig ourselves back out.
But, but, but….we all have flat screen tv, cell phones, and fresh asparagus year round. Plus you can day trade stocks and futures.
Financial security is highly over-rated.
Welcome to the conservative paradise…a place where the illusion of liberty is more important than its reality, where the incredibly remote chance of becoming wealthy is the same as being wealthy, and where employing the power of government to your social advantage is the very essence of freedom.
But, but, but….we all have flat screen tv, cell phones, and fresh asparagus year round. Plus you can day trade stocks and futures.
Financial security is highly over-rated.
Welcome to the conservative paradise…a place where the illusion of liberty is more important than its reality, where the incredibly remote chance of becoming wealthy is the same as being wealthy, and where employing the power of government to your social advantage is the very essence of freedom.
Russell,
Fifteen years ago, Paul Krugman wrote this essay titled White Collars Turn Blue that you might find either consoling or depressing. I wonder what you make of it, anyway.
The essay is written as a “retrospective” look from the year 2096 at the major changes in the US economy since 1996, so it’s obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek. But only a bit.
–TP
Russell,
Fifteen years ago, Paul Krugman wrote this essay titled White Collars Turn Blue that you might find either consoling or depressing. I wonder what you make of it, anyway.
The essay is written as a “retrospective” look from the year 2096 at the major changes in the US economy since 1996, so it’s obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek. But only a bit.
–TP
Agreed. But it will be less than 10$ per hour (unless there is stronger inflation). Do you think minimum wage laws will survive the onslaught from the right and the effectively non-existent defense from the ‘left’ (politicians, the base may rebel but to no avail)? I see a lot of ‘lower your wages and you can keep your benefits. Promise’…”What promise? Be grateful that we take only your benefits away and postpone lowering your wages…until next week.”
Agreed. But it will be less than 10$ per hour (unless there is stronger inflation). Do you think minimum wage laws will survive the onslaught from the right and the effectively non-existent defense from the ‘left’ (politicians, the base may rebel but to no avail)? I see a lot of ‘lower your wages and you can keep your benefits. Promise’…”What promise? Be grateful that we take only your benefits away and postpone lowering your wages…until next week.”
“the base may rebel but to no avail”
When the base doesn’t vote the base is not effectively rebelling. When the base votes Democratic, things change for the better as they began to do when Obama took office, and as they would continue to do if he had a Democratic Congress.
In other words, it doesn’t have to be this way if the base would quit acting like spoiled children who are “disappointed,” therefore take their ball home.
“the base may rebel but to no avail”
When the base doesn’t vote the base is not effectively rebelling. When the base votes Democratic, things change for the better as they began to do when Obama took office, and as they would continue to do if he had a Democratic Congress.
In other words, it doesn’t have to be this way if the base would quit acting like spoiled children who are “disappointed,” therefore take their ball home.
There’s a basic problem here sapient and I haven’t seen anyone on either side come up with a solution. Democratic politicians have every incentive to shift rightwards if the base doesn’t act like “spoiled children” and instead acts like disciplined party members. They are then free to go seeking money and campaign contributions by shifting rightwards and governing like a centrist and they can show their feisty independence and impress the Serious People by ridiculing their base. On the other hand, if the base rebels either by voting third party or staying home then it helps the Republicans. I see people arguing about this constantly and what strikes me about it is that nobody on the one side ever seems to acknowledge the strength of the other side’s case. I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge even to oneself how rotten the choices are.
There’s a basic problem here sapient and I haven’t seen anyone on either side come up with a solution. Democratic politicians have every incentive to shift rightwards if the base doesn’t act like “spoiled children” and instead acts like disciplined party members. They are then free to go seeking money and campaign contributions by shifting rightwards and governing like a centrist and they can show their feisty independence and impress the Serious People by ridiculing their base. On the other hand, if the base rebels either by voting third party or staying home then it helps the Republicans. I see people arguing about this constantly and what strikes me about it is that nobody on the one side ever seems to acknowledge the strength of the other side’s case. I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge even to oneself how rotten the choices are.
What exactly got better?
What exactly got better?
What Donald said. It is equally true that loyally voting D over and over allows the Ds to sell you out, and that refusing to vote D because they sell you out leads to R wins, which tends to be even worse, at least in the short term.
The R base gets this, and has chosen to accept election losses at times in exchange for better control over their elected officials… I loathe their agenda but I respect the power they wield. I wish the Dem base wielded half as much power. And yet, I don’t want current-day R’s winning elections, so I find myself ultimately doing what Sapient wants me to do: voting D while holding my nose.
What Donald said. It is equally true that loyally voting D over and over allows the Ds to sell you out, and that refusing to vote D because they sell you out leads to R wins, which tends to be even worse, at least in the short term.
The R base gets this, and has chosen to accept election losses at times in exchange for better control over their elected officials… I loathe their agenda but I respect the power they wield. I wish the Dem base wielded half as much power. And yet, I don’t want current-day R’s winning elections, so I find myself ultimately doing what Sapient wants me to do: voting D while holding my nose.
As for Russell’s pessimism… well, yeah. In truth, you’re describing something that has been happening for some time, but was papered over (via debt).
We can all hope that a game-changer comes along and saves us, but in the meantime, managing the “new normal” (which is really the old normal, but now we can’t avoid looking at it) responsibly is important.
As for Russell’s pessimism… well, yeah. In truth, you’re describing something that has been happening for some time, but was papered over (via debt).
We can all hope that a game-changer comes along and saves us, but in the meantime, managing the “new normal” (which is really the old normal, but now we can’t avoid looking at it) responsibly is important.
My personal take on this: folks who are, say, younger than forty should not plan on living as well as their folks did.
For that matter, folks older than forty should not plan on living as well as their folks did/are in old age.
My dad was a low-paid small-town firefighter; he worked a second, almost-full-time job and practiced his patented version of extreme frugality to make sure we had a decently comfortable life, moving (in the fifties) from poor immigrant working class toward lower middle class, kids going to college (scholarships, cheap in-state tuition within reach of almost everyone), etc.
Along with the low wages, however, he had a great pension with medical benefits. My dad died relatively young (71), but my mom is still living on his pension at 87.
Because of it, she has an expectation of modest financial security and independence that few ordinary working people in my generation can expect as head into old age.
This process has been at work for a long time now. Can you say “downsizing”?
My personal take on this: folks who are, say, younger than forty should not plan on living as well as their folks did.
For that matter, folks older than forty should not plan on living as well as their folks did/are in old age.
My dad was a low-paid small-town firefighter; he worked a second, almost-full-time job and practiced his patented version of extreme frugality to make sure we had a decently comfortable life, moving (in the fifties) from poor immigrant working class toward lower middle class, kids going to college (scholarships, cheap in-state tuition within reach of almost everyone), etc.
Along with the low wages, however, he had a great pension with medical benefits. My dad died relatively young (71), but my mom is still living on his pension at 87.
Because of it, she has an expectation of modest financial security and independence that few ordinary working people in my generation can expect as head into old age.
This process has been at work for a long time now. Can you say “downsizing”?
Now, now, Janie. It’s “rightsizing” dontchaknow.
Now, now, Janie. It’s “rightsizing” dontchaknow.
“What exactly got better?”
Gun and ammo sales.
“What exactly got better?”
Gun and ammo sales.
Oh for crying out loud, Slarti. Really.
Anyway things will get a great deal worse if Republicans have their way. Now, after a life time of just getting by people can expect to have a old age of just getting by ,too. If the Republicans have their way a life time of just getting be by will be followed by an old age of destitution and unnecessary suffering.
Oh for crying out loud, Slarti. Really.
Anyway things will get a great deal worse if Republicans have their way. Now, after a life time of just getting by people can expect to have a old age of just getting by ,too. If the Republicans have their way a life time of just getting be by will be followed by an old age of destitution and unnecessary suffering.
Oh, and Sarah Death Palin hauls her grifter butt around in a better mode of transport.
Oh, and Sarah Death Palin hauls her grifter butt around in a better mode of transport.
Thanks for the non-responsive emoting!
Thanks for the non-responsive emoting!
Donald: “I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge even to oneself how rotten the choices are.”
I agree that there is a problem with keeping Democrats to the left once they get elected. But the first problem is electing them, and keeping them in office for a reasonable period of time.
The first time (in my lifetime) this came up was when Johnson decided not to run again because of his unpopularity as a result of Vietnam. So the ultimate choice was between: Humphrey (about the closest thing to russell’s “socialist” vision as we’ve had, but who was identified with Johnson’s war policies) and Nixon, who was the devil incarnate. Let me see, which one to choose?
Then, after Nixon/Ford, we got (ultimately) Carter. Carter certainly had some unappealing qualities, and maybe wasn’t as effective as we would have liked. But he wasn’t good enough for us – we needed to let Reagan get elected, which was very effective in beginning the dismantling of the social safety net, environmental regulation, the FCC, etc. Excellent choice!
So 12 years of Reagan/Bush, then we got Clinton elected. Okay, Clinton – the most rightwing choice because he was the only one who would appeal to the lovely, independent-minded “Reagan Democrats.” But Democrats couldn’t maintain their enthusiasm in sufficient numbers to vote in midterm elections, so we got Gingrich and the Kenneth Starr reality show.
It seems a bit silly to complain about Democrats not doing enough for us when we can’t even keep a solid Democratic-led government for more than 2 years at a time. Let’s worry about moving Democrats leftward after they feel a bit more secure about being elected in the first place.
As to what Democrats were able to do in the first two years of Obama’s term: a lot. He faced the worst economic crisis seen for almost a century, the depth of which was misrepresented, unprecedented foreign policy debacles, a major environmental disaster, and had to work with a dysfunctional Congress, not to mention a reactionary Supreme Court. And whatever you might think about him “worrying about reelection,” of course he has to worry about reelection, or we’ll be taking another two steps back.
I’ll be voting for him with gratitude, and am not holding my nose at all.
Donald: “I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge even to oneself how rotten the choices are.”
I agree that there is a problem with keeping Democrats to the left once they get elected. But the first problem is electing them, and keeping them in office for a reasonable period of time.
The first time (in my lifetime) this came up was when Johnson decided not to run again because of his unpopularity as a result of Vietnam. So the ultimate choice was between: Humphrey (about the closest thing to russell’s “socialist” vision as we’ve had, but who was identified with Johnson’s war policies) and Nixon, who was the devil incarnate. Let me see, which one to choose?
Then, after Nixon/Ford, we got (ultimately) Carter. Carter certainly had some unappealing qualities, and maybe wasn’t as effective as we would have liked. But he wasn’t good enough for us – we needed to let Reagan get elected, which was very effective in beginning the dismantling of the social safety net, environmental regulation, the FCC, etc. Excellent choice!
So 12 years of Reagan/Bush, then we got Clinton elected. Okay, Clinton – the most rightwing choice because he was the only one who would appeal to the lovely, independent-minded “Reagan Democrats.” But Democrats couldn’t maintain their enthusiasm in sufficient numbers to vote in midterm elections, so we got Gingrich and the Kenneth Starr reality show.
It seems a bit silly to complain about Democrats not doing enough for us when we can’t even keep a solid Democratic-led government for more than 2 years at a time. Let’s worry about moving Democrats leftward after they feel a bit more secure about being elected in the first place.
As to what Democrats were able to do in the first two years of Obama’s term: a lot. He faced the worst economic crisis seen for almost a century, the depth of which was misrepresented, unprecedented foreign policy debacles, a major environmental disaster, and had to work with a dysfunctional Congress, not to mention a reactionary Supreme Court. And whatever you might think about him “worrying about reelection,” of course he has to worry about reelection, or we’ll be taking another two steps back.
I’ll be voting for him with gratitude, and am not holding my nose at all.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this is actually the new normal. It’s a transition to something that’s probably worse.
First, offshoring has made the US labor market uncompetitive. Short of erecting huge tariff walls, the only solution to that is to wait for equilibrium, and that means that US labor prices will fall until they meet the rising labor prices of the developing world. That’ll take–what? 10 years? 15? 20? But eventually, there really will be equilibrium and prices will slowly rise as the developing world becomes, well, developed. So this is a temporary, albeit lengthy, problem.
But there’s another problem that’s permanent, and only gets worse over time: Automation causes productivity to skyrocket, which means that there’s downward pressure on labor demand pretty much forever. (Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)
I see no way to reverse this trend. If you legislate a certain amount of labor content in goods and services, there’s always going to be somebody offshore that’s willing to use the technology to undercut American labor. But there ought to be a silver lining to this, eventually. Goods and services become really, really, really cheap. So eventually the flatscreens and lattes for the poor actually become reality, as long we we’re willing to acknowledge that you need a welfare state that’s capable of providing a decent standard of living for the chronically unemployed.
This is where things will get sticky. The latest innovations–especially medical innovations–are always going to be too expensive to be provided to everybody on the government’s dime. So you’re going to continue to have huge perceived wealth inequality, irrespective of how well the unemployed are living. So: how good a standard of living is required before the unemployed aren’t stressed-out any more? My guess is that, if I’m living off of the government and somebody else has more stuff than I do, I’ll continue to think that I’m impoverished. So the flatscreen and latte discussion, even though kinda silly right now, will become a crucially important piece of social consensus.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this is actually the new normal. It’s a transition to something that’s probably worse.
First, offshoring has made the US labor market uncompetitive. Short of erecting huge tariff walls, the only solution to that is to wait for equilibrium, and that means that US labor prices will fall until they meet the rising labor prices of the developing world. That’ll take–what? 10 years? 15? 20? But eventually, there really will be equilibrium and prices will slowly rise as the developing world becomes, well, developed. So this is a temporary, albeit lengthy, problem.
But there’s another problem that’s permanent, and only gets worse over time: Automation causes productivity to skyrocket, which means that there’s downward pressure on labor demand pretty much forever. (Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)
I see no way to reverse this trend. If you legislate a certain amount of labor content in goods and services, there’s always going to be somebody offshore that’s willing to use the technology to undercut American labor. But there ought to be a silver lining to this, eventually. Goods and services become really, really, really cheap. So eventually the flatscreens and lattes for the poor actually become reality, as long we we’re willing to acknowledge that you need a welfare state that’s capable of providing a decent standard of living for the chronically unemployed.
This is where things will get sticky. The latest innovations–especially medical innovations–are always going to be too expensive to be provided to everybody on the government’s dime. So you’re going to continue to have huge perceived wealth inequality, irrespective of how well the unemployed are living. So: how good a standard of living is required before the unemployed aren’t stressed-out any more? My guess is that, if I’m living off of the government and somebody else has more stuff than I do, I’ll continue to think that I’m impoverished. So the flatscreen and latte discussion, even though kinda silly right now, will become a crucially important piece of social consensus.
From Tony P.’s link to an article written in 1996 but set in 2096:
If you record a magnificent concert, next week bootleg CDs will be selling in Shanghai.
Heh.
(It’s an interesting article, but I found that bit of future-casting to be amusing.)
From Tony P.’s link to an article written in 1996 but set in 2096:
If you record a magnificent concert, next week bootleg CDs will be selling in Shanghai.
Heh.
(It’s an interesting article, but I found that bit of future-casting to be amusing.)
“So the ultimate choice was between: Humphrey (about the closest thing to russell’s “socialist” vision as we’ve had, but who was identified with Johnson’s war policies) and Nixon, who was the devil incarnate. Let me see, which one to choose?”
Um, maybe one could vote for Humphrey while expressing some unhappiness about the choice? A vote for Humphrey was the lesser of two evils but when you do that you are in fact sending a message–it’s okay to wage an unjust war so long as you are better than the other guy. One way to mitigate that a little is to voice one’s disgust. It’s a very unsatisfactory solution (and any third party advocate reading me would die laughing or throw up) and it still leaves the politician rewarded with one’s vote (or alternatively, it gives him an opportunity to posture and show his feistiness by attacking his base), but it’s better than just pretending that everything is fine. And as for the devil incarnate (good grief), Nixon by current standards was a liberal. He was a mad bomber in Vietnam, but so was LBJ. He was very anti-leak, which got him into a bit of trouble, but then Obama is very anti-leak too. Krugman (citing Bruce Bartlett, who I’m going to link ) says Nixon governed as more of a liberal than Obama has.
“Let’s worry about moving Democrats leftward after they feel a bit more secure about being elected in the first place.”
But that will make them feel less secure, won’t it? The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure. They might offend some self-described centrist. You are restating my problem, but putting off the solution into some hypothetical future that will never arrive.
“So the ultimate choice was between: Humphrey (about the closest thing to russell’s “socialist” vision as we’ve had, but who was identified with Johnson’s war policies) and Nixon, who was the devil incarnate. Let me see, which one to choose?”
Um, maybe one could vote for Humphrey while expressing some unhappiness about the choice? A vote for Humphrey was the lesser of two evils but when you do that you are in fact sending a message–it’s okay to wage an unjust war so long as you are better than the other guy. One way to mitigate that a little is to voice one’s disgust. It’s a very unsatisfactory solution (and any third party advocate reading me would die laughing or throw up) and it still leaves the politician rewarded with one’s vote (or alternatively, it gives him an opportunity to posture and show his feistiness by attacking his base), but it’s better than just pretending that everything is fine. And as for the devil incarnate (good grief), Nixon by current standards was a liberal. He was a mad bomber in Vietnam, but so was LBJ. He was very anti-leak, which got him into a bit of trouble, but then Obama is very anti-leak too. Krugman (citing Bruce Bartlett, who I’m going to link ) says Nixon governed as more of a liberal than Obama has.
“Let’s worry about moving Democrats leftward after they feel a bit more secure about being elected in the first place.”
But that will make them feel less secure, won’t it? The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure. They might offend some self-described centrist. You are restating my problem, but putting off the solution into some hypothetical future that will never arrive.
‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
I’m an absolute amateur in economic theory, but I think this statement is essentially correct. We have faced this condition now for half a century with much of the productivity improvement effects on employment absorbed by what might be termed the ‘nonproduction’ sectors: service industries (travel and entertainment, as examples) and government (includes public education). Now, perhaps this alternative is saturated.
What else can be done (after new business resulting from technological advances)? I think I see existing businesses using a greater number of ‘contractors’, particularly to handle matters not core to the business. These ‘contractors’ are generally viewed as self-employed and many do work for multiple businesses. Another option is ‘voluntary’ unemployment, where the effects of productivity improvement are spread across industry so that more people work, but for fewer hours. It also appears to me that the educational process has skewed our productive capacities in ways that lead to unemployment under the conditions we face. Vocational training is non-existent in many locations in the country.
‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
I’m an absolute amateur in economic theory, but I think this statement is essentially correct. We have faced this condition now for half a century with much of the productivity improvement effects on employment absorbed by what might be termed the ‘nonproduction’ sectors: service industries (travel and entertainment, as examples) and government (includes public education). Now, perhaps this alternative is saturated.
What else can be done (after new business resulting from technological advances)? I think I see existing businesses using a greater number of ‘contractors’, particularly to handle matters not core to the business. These ‘contractors’ are generally viewed as self-employed and many do work for multiple businesses. Another option is ‘voluntary’ unemployment, where the effects of productivity improvement are spread across industry so that more people work, but for fewer hours. It also appears to me that the educational process has skewed our productive capacities in ways that lead to unemployment under the conditions we face. Vocational training is non-existent in many locations in the country.
What exactly got better?
Sotomayor and Kagan instead of Alito and Roberts as SCOTUS nominees (and Meier and Gonzales, remember?)
The Obama Administration has been quietly making some attempts to once again enforce existing laws and regulations — environmental and food safety laws most prominently, but some progress on labor law as well.
Monica Goodling and Hans von Spakovsky are no longer at Justice.
The President of the United States speaks, and apparently thinks, in grammatical, connected paragraphs. His demeanor is a model of adult restraint.
John Bolton is no longer connected to the US government. Perle and Wolfowitz likewise.
The vice-President is not competing with the President for control of policy, nor outing CIA arms control specialists in a fit of pique, nor shooting his friends in the face with a shotgun while drunk.
Now, I can easily make a much longer list of things that did not get better, and some of them quite important — but I can’t really think of a list of things that Obama made worse.
What exactly got better?
Sotomayor and Kagan instead of Alito and Roberts as SCOTUS nominees (and Meier and Gonzales, remember?)
The Obama Administration has been quietly making some attempts to once again enforce existing laws and regulations — environmental and food safety laws most prominently, but some progress on labor law as well.
Monica Goodling and Hans von Spakovsky are no longer at Justice.
The President of the United States speaks, and apparently thinks, in grammatical, connected paragraphs. His demeanor is a model of adult restraint.
John Bolton is no longer connected to the US government. Perle and Wolfowitz likewise.
The vice-President is not competing with the President for control of policy, nor outing CIA arms control specialists in a fit of pique, nor shooting his friends in the face with a shotgun while drunk.
Now, I can easily make a much longer list of things that did not get better, and some of them quite important — but I can’t really think of a list of things that Obama made worse.
“But the kind of world I grew up in, where a person of average ability with a reasonable work ethic could expect to find some kind of useful, satifsfying work to do, and achieve a moderate level of basic financial security”
Outside unions, this hasn’t changed in 40 years. I expect, MHO, that the reality is surprising a generation (or two) that expected this somehow, although it didn’t exist widely. The really big change has been in the frugality of the individuals from generation to generation.
My parents generation was not only frugal, but they had a very different view of what financial security was. They felt that if they could live with dignity on their savings and SS they were ok in retirement.
Now, that is considered a bad outcome. Now everyone needs “a number” and expects to live as well in retirement as they live while working.
“But the kind of world I grew up in, where a person of average ability with a reasonable work ethic could expect to find some kind of useful, satifsfying work to do, and achieve a moderate level of basic financial security”
Outside unions, this hasn’t changed in 40 years. I expect, MHO, that the reality is surprising a generation (or two) that expected this somehow, although it didn’t exist widely. The really big change has been in the frugality of the individuals from generation to generation.
My parents generation was not only frugal, but they had a very different view of what financial security was. They felt that if they could live with dignity on their savings and SS they were ok in retirement.
Now, that is considered a bad outcome. Now everyone needs “a number” and expects to live as well in retirement as they live while working.
“Democratic politicians have every incentive to shift rightwards if the base doesn’t act like “spoiled children” and instead acts like disciplined party members.”
That’s not how it works. When Dems lose, they shift rightward. When they win, they shift leftward.
“Democratic politicians have every incentive to shift rightwards if the base doesn’t act like “spoiled children” and instead acts like disciplined party members.”
That’s not how it works. When Dems lose, they shift rightward. When they win, they shift leftward.
“‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)'”
I don’t think so. That’s the “lump of labor fallacy” — the idea that there is a fixed number of things that need doing and that people will pay to have done. Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.
“‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)'”
I don’t think so. That’s the “lump of labor fallacy” — the idea that there is a fixed number of things that need doing and that people will pay to have done. Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.
Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.
But then productivity wouldn’t outpace GDP, given the newer things, violating the “faster than GDP” constraint in the question.
Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.
But then productivity wouldn’t outpace GDP, given the newer things, violating the “faster than GDP” constraint in the question.
‘”‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)'”
I don’t think so. That’s the “lump of labor fallacy” — the idea that there is a fixed number of things that need doing and that people will pay to have done. Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.’
Yes. I should have limited my agreement to those industries incurring the productivity improvement and limited also that the growth is, in fact, less than the productivity improvement. New things to do are always there, but typically come in large waves, We need one now.
‘”‘(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)'”
I don’t think so. That’s the “lump of labor fallacy” — the idea that there is a fixed number of things that need doing and that people will pay to have done. Increased productivity, by itself, frees up resources, which are then spent on other, newer things.’
Yes. I should have limited my agreement to those industries incurring the productivity improvement and limited also that the growth is, in fact, less than the productivity improvement. New things to do are always there, but typically come in large waves, We need one now.
hairshirt,
Yeah, I noticed that bit about CDs when I reread the article before posting the link 🙂
There’s another bit that I thought sure would draw comment from our conservative friends; favorable or unfavorable, I don’t know:
Krugman can be impish when he wants to be, eh? I mean, here he is taking a dig at the sort of conservative old coots like Alan Simpson whose “futurecasts” imply that the next generation of Americans is more likely to run out of money than out of, say, petroleum.
–TP
hairshirt,
Yeah, I noticed that bit about CDs when I reread the article before posting the link 🙂
There’s another bit that I thought sure would draw comment from our conservative friends; favorable or unfavorable, I don’t know:
Krugman can be impish when he wants to be, eh? I mean, here he is taking a dig at the sort of conservative old coots like Alan Simpson whose “futurecasts” imply that the next generation of Americans is more likely to run out of money than out of, say, petroleum.
–TP
(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
Well, since GDP growth is driven mostly by productivity and population growth, this presents a rather unique case.
If we ever attained such a state then we could simply take more leisure and still enjoy a rising standard of living for those of us left. Star Trek had one episode where the planet they encountered had solved the “production problem” and the the inhabitants had vast amounts of leisure time.
I could easily imagine many worse outcomes in the far future.
(Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
Well, since GDP growth is driven mostly by productivity and population growth, this presents a rather unique case.
If we ever attained such a state then we could simply take more leisure and still enjoy a rising standard of living for those of us left. Star Trek had one episode where the planet they encountered had solved the “production problem” and the the inhabitants had vast amounts of leisure time.
I could easily imagine many worse outcomes in the far future.
“That’s not how it works. When Dems lose, they shift rightward. When they win, they shift leftward.”
They haven’t won in several decades then.
“That’s not how it works. When Dems lose, they shift rightward. When they win, they shift leftward.”
They haven’t won in several decades then.
How can ‘the base’ fail to move polices and politicians ‘leftward’ if they vote Democrat (and win) in the general and vote for the ‘leftmost’ candidate in the primary?
If Democrats are winning the general elections they run in, and the left most candidate is wining the nomination in the first place, why would the politics move right?
Politics moved right in 2010 because the Republicans won in 2010.
And now I see that Scott de B beat me to it saying the same thing.
How can ‘the base’ fail to move polices and politicians ‘leftward’ if they vote Democrat (and win) in the general and vote for the ‘leftmost’ candidate in the primary?
If Democrats are winning the general elections they run in, and the left most candidate is wining the nomination in the first place, why would the politics move right?
Politics moved right in 2010 because the Republicans won in 2010.
And now I see that Scott de B beat me to it saying the same thing.
The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure.
partially because there isn’t a large-enough solid-left voting block in congress to give people like that the support they need. instead, there are half-a-chamber of GOP-bots, a fifth of a chamber of Blue Dogs, and a handful of solid progressives who can’t do anything on their own, but have to please the Blue Dogs to get anything done at all.
what progressives need is better liberal representation in Congress, not a mythical pulpit-pounding, cock-swinging, leader/savior President. a more belligerent President will not change GOP votes to Dem, but a better congressional environment would allow room for more soft-progressives to support progressive policies which Obama would likely sign without complaint.
this is what the Tea Party accomplished for the GOP: it got rid of a lot of troublesome centrists and gave them a solid “conservative” base in the House, which allows them to control policy direction.
too many Dems think seem to think policy begins and ends in the White House. it doesn’t. there is real power in the House. it would be worth trying to fill it with progressive Dems, even if that meant having to put up with progressive enemy #1 for another four years.
The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure.
partially because there isn’t a large-enough solid-left voting block in congress to give people like that the support they need. instead, there are half-a-chamber of GOP-bots, a fifth of a chamber of Blue Dogs, and a handful of solid progressives who can’t do anything on their own, but have to please the Blue Dogs to get anything done at all.
what progressives need is better liberal representation in Congress, not a mythical pulpit-pounding, cock-swinging, leader/savior President. a more belligerent President will not change GOP votes to Dem, but a better congressional environment would allow room for more soft-progressives to support progressive policies which Obama would likely sign without complaint.
this is what the Tea Party accomplished for the GOP: it got rid of a lot of troublesome centrists and gave them a solid “conservative” base in the House, which allows them to control policy direction.
too many Dems think seem to think policy begins and ends in the White House. it doesn’t. there is real power in the House. it would be worth trying to fill it with progressive Dems, even if that meant having to put up with progressive enemy #1 for another four years.
” not a mythical pulpit-pounding, cock-swinging, leader/savior President.”
“too many Dems think seem to think policy begins and ends in the White House. it doesn’t. there is real power in the House.”
There are also too many people who think that if one disapproves of Obama’s performance one must have in mind some mythical superhuman figure who could have gotten everything he wanted. I’d settle for someone in the White House who would try to explain to the American people why he has been forced to settle for policies that were much less effective than what he would have gotten with a more liberal Congress. Assuming, of course, that he really wanted much more liberal policies. I think Obama has adopted centrist framing on issues because that’s what he really believes–he probably also thought that the sane members of the Republican Party would work with him.
I’d like to see a more liberal Congress that pushes Obama to the left. I don’t think he’d go willingly, but if he can be shoved rightwards maybe it works both ways.
” not a mythical pulpit-pounding, cock-swinging, leader/savior President.”
“too many Dems think seem to think policy begins and ends in the White House. it doesn’t. there is real power in the House.”
There are also too many people who think that if one disapproves of Obama’s performance one must have in mind some mythical superhuman figure who could have gotten everything he wanted. I’d settle for someone in the White House who would try to explain to the American people why he has been forced to settle for policies that were much less effective than what he would have gotten with a more liberal Congress. Assuming, of course, that he really wanted much more liberal policies. I think Obama has adopted centrist framing on issues because that’s what he really believes–he probably also thought that the sane members of the Republican Party would work with him.
I’d like to see a more liberal Congress that pushes Obama to the left. I don’t think he’d go willingly, but if he can be shoved rightwards maybe it works both ways.
Sapient,
It was not “the left” sitting on its hands that resulted in the 2010 GOP House surge to majority status. It was Blue Dogs losing. The administration did all it could to cater to the whims of these unmitigated losers. Now why did they lose? They exhibited extreme political cowardice. The stench was overwhelming.
So when is the DCCC going to get on these folks and tell them to “man up” and “carry their load”? The Left cannot do it all by themselves, ya’ know.
Heh.
Sapient,
It was not “the left” sitting on its hands that resulted in the 2010 GOP House surge to majority status. It was Blue Dogs losing. The administration did all it could to cater to the whims of these unmitigated losers. Now why did they lose? They exhibited extreme political cowardice. The stench was overwhelming.
So when is the DCCC going to get on these folks and tell them to “man up” and “carry their load”? The Left cannot do it all by themselves, ya’ know.
Heh.
Sometimes I wonder what people mean by terms like “productivity” and “GDP”.
When a barber cuts my hair for $10, does that add $10 to GDP, or not? If he charges $15, does that add $15 to GDP? If he spends 10 minutes either way, is his “productivity” 50% higher in the second case? Or not?
I mention barbers because they seem to me a good example of the class of workers whose “productivity” can hardly have increased much in real terms for about a century. Cab drivers, waiters, teachers, and lots of other workers seem to fall into the same category.
If workers like that do not account for the increase in “productivity” that we hear so much about, then some other classes of workers must do. And we can all name some of those classes: farmers come easily to mind; so do financial analysts.
What puzzles me is this: as farmers become more “productive”, we get fewer of them; as financial analysts become more “productive” we get MORE of them. It’s almost as if The Invisible Hand itself is confused about what “productivity” means.
–TP
Sometimes I wonder what people mean by terms like “productivity” and “GDP”.
When a barber cuts my hair for $10, does that add $10 to GDP, or not? If he charges $15, does that add $15 to GDP? If he spends 10 minutes either way, is his “productivity” 50% higher in the second case? Or not?
I mention barbers because they seem to me a good example of the class of workers whose “productivity” can hardly have increased much in real terms for about a century. Cab drivers, waiters, teachers, and lots of other workers seem to fall into the same category.
If workers like that do not account for the increase in “productivity” that we hear so much about, then some other classes of workers must do. And we can all name some of those classes: farmers come easily to mind; so do financial analysts.
What puzzles me is this: as farmers become more “productive”, we get fewer of them; as financial analysts become more “productive” we get MORE of them. It’s almost as if The Invisible Hand itself is confused about what “productivity” means.
–TP
“If Democrats are winning the general elections they run in, and the left most candidate is wining the nomination in the first place, why would the politics move right?”
This presupposes that Democrats are left-leaning, that progressive who vote for a candidate always get what they hope for, that candidates try to represent the views of ordinary people who supported them, and that the leftmost candidate won the nomination. Are you talking about Obama/Clinton? Among the top three, Edwards was the furthest left, though it turned out he was a sociopath. Obama turns out to have been the same as Clinton. He ran as a “change” agent or people took it that way. He wasn’t. He picked Biden, appointed HRC, and his economic team seems to be dominated by Wall Street sympathizers. Krugman isn’t the only person a little unhappy with his policies there.
“Politics moved right in 2010 because the Republicans won in 2010.”
Obama had the support of a bunch of lefties. They thought they’d won a big victory. Obama then proceeded to talk and govern as a centrist. So he moved to the left of Bush, but to the right of where many of his supporters thought he’d go.
Anyway, this is an old argument, everyone has seen it somewhere if they’re interested, and you can find Krugman or others making the case better than I do.
“If Democrats are winning the general elections they run in, and the left most candidate is wining the nomination in the first place, why would the politics move right?”
This presupposes that Democrats are left-leaning, that progressive who vote for a candidate always get what they hope for, that candidates try to represent the views of ordinary people who supported them, and that the leftmost candidate won the nomination. Are you talking about Obama/Clinton? Among the top three, Edwards was the furthest left, though it turned out he was a sociopath. Obama turns out to have been the same as Clinton. He ran as a “change” agent or people took it that way. He wasn’t. He picked Biden, appointed HRC, and his economic team seems to be dominated by Wall Street sympathizers. Krugman isn’t the only person a little unhappy with his policies there.
“Politics moved right in 2010 because the Republicans won in 2010.”
Obama had the support of a bunch of lefties. They thought they’d won a big victory. Obama then proceeded to talk and govern as a centrist. So he moved to the left of Bush, but to the right of where many of his supporters thought he’d go.
Anyway, this is an old argument, everyone has seen it somewhere if they’re interested, and you can find Krugman or others making the case better than I do.
Donald, I’m sure you’re not surprised that I disagree strongly with Bruce Bartlett. The list that he presents seems to discount entirely the Congress that Obama has worked with (that includes of course, in his first term, an uncooperative Senate). Obama is an artist of the possible. He wants to win real legislative victories, rather than make rhetorical points. Krugman’s constant criticisms similarly fail to take into account the Congress. In other words, what cleek and others here have said.
As to Bartlett’s accusation that Obama “caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever” – that’s ridiculous. The quid pro quo was extended unemployment benefits for thirteen months. In other words, people who otherwise would have had no income had income for 13 more months. Very necessary, very humane, very stimulative, very wise – and definitely a quid pro quo. And the tax cut repeal was not bargained away – tax cuts will be sunset. It makes me mad when I see people like Bartlett complaining about Obama based on a false premise, and someone as smart as you accepting it.
And the fact that Obama “has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans”? Yes, he has. He’s supported longer term deficit reductions for a couple of reasons: 1) the deficit is a Republican talking point that gets in the way of progressive legislative initiatives, and 2) paying interest on the deficit is bad long-term economic policy. Obama has never supported kind of Draconian short-term deficit reductions that dump the pain on middle and lower income Americans that Republicans support. Bartlett’s accusation is dishonest.
As for Krugman, his economic arguments are persuasive, but his political acumen is zero. He pretends that Obama is a dictator and never mentions Congress.
Donald, I’m sure you’re not surprised that I disagree strongly with Bruce Bartlett. The list that he presents seems to discount entirely the Congress that Obama has worked with (that includes of course, in his first term, an uncooperative Senate). Obama is an artist of the possible. He wants to win real legislative victories, rather than make rhetorical points. Krugman’s constant criticisms similarly fail to take into account the Congress. In other words, what cleek and others here have said.
As to Bartlett’s accusation that Obama “caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever” – that’s ridiculous. The quid pro quo was extended unemployment benefits for thirteen months. In other words, people who otherwise would have had no income had income for 13 more months. Very necessary, very humane, very stimulative, very wise – and definitely a quid pro quo. And the tax cut repeal was not bargained away – tax cuts will be sunset. It makes me mad when I see people like Bartlett complaining about Obama based on a false premise, and someone as smart as you accepting it.
And the fact that Obama “has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans”? Yes, he has. He’s supported longer term deficit reductions for a couple of reasons: 1) the deficit is a Republican talking point that gets in the way of progressive legislative initiatives, and 2) paying interest on the deficit is bad long-term economic policy. Obama has never supported kind of Draconian short-term deficit reductions that dump the pain on middle and lower income Americans that Republicans support. Bartlett’s accusation is dishonest.
As for Krugman, his economic arguments are persuasive, but his political acumen is zero. He pretends that Obama is a dictator and never mentions Congress.
It seems like there is a great opportunity for someone to look at the last 60 years and draw some conclusions.
So the question awaiting analysis is: what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since? I know there are a lot of ideology-based answers (from both right and left) already available. But someone really ought to examine the evidence and come up with some reality-based answers.
If we knew why things went right when they did, we might be able to figure out how to make it happen again. Or, if you want to revel in negativity, we might discover that the only way to have things go well for an extended period is to run up bills for the next generation to pay. But either way, it would be good to know, not just believe.
It seems like there is a great opportunity for someone to look at the last 60 years and draw some conclusions.
So the question awaiting analysis is: what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since? I know there are a lot of ideology-based answers (from both right and left) already available. But someone really ought to examine the evidence and come up with some reality-based answers.
If we knew why things went right when they did, we might be able to figure out how to make it happen again. Or, if you want to revel in negativity, we might discover that the only way to have things go well for an extended period is to run up bills for the next generation to pay. But either way, it would be good to know, not just believe.
“Welcome to the new normal. It took us a generation to dig ourselves into this, it’s gonna take us at least a generation to dig ourselves back out.”
Why do you say “us”, paleface?
“Welcome to the new normal. It took us a generation to dig ourselves into this, it’s gonna take us at least a generation to dig ourselves back out.”
Why do you say “us”, paleface?
Frankly, I don’t see a political consensus for “digging ourselves out” of the fix we’re in. And that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. We’re watching America dissolve right before our eyes.
Frankly, I don’t see a political consensus for “digging ourselves out” of the fix we’re in. And that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. We’re watching America dissolve right before our eyes.
“Frankly, I don’t see a political consensus for “digging ourselves out” of the fix we’re in. And that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans.”
Well, the debt ceiling crisis sucked up a lot of air, which is why Obama insisted that any future debt ceiling issue had to be put off until after 2012. In the fall, you will see a “digging ourselves out.” The Democrats are anticipating the tax cuts expiring, which will create revenue. If they are elected in 2012, they will have money to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects, etc.
But that leaves us with the cruel fact that some jobs have left for good, or may come back paying less than a comfortable income. Unless there’s a new technology, or something unanticipated that will require workers, we’ll have to have a real conversation about wealth distribution. If people making $30,000,000 won’t work as hard if they have to pay taxes, maybe they should job-share. Or something.
“Frankly, I don’t see a political consensus for “digging ourselves out” of the fix we’re in. And that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans.”
Well, the debt ceiling crisis sucked up a lot of air, which is why Obama insisted that any future debt ceiling issue had to be put off until after 2012. In the fall, you will see a “digging ourselves out.” The Democrats are anticipating the tax cuts expiring, which will create revenue. If they are elected in 2012, they will have money to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects, etc.
But that leaves us with the cruel fact that some jobs have left for good, or may come back paying less than a comfortable income. Unless there’s a new technology, or something unanticipated that will require workers, we’ll have to have a real conversation about wealth distribution. If people making $30,000,000 won’t work as hard if they have to pay taxes, maybe they should job-share. Or something.
Welcome to the new normal. It took us a generation to dig ourselves into this, it’s gonna take us at least a generation to dig ourselves back out.
If it is the new normal, it is not because of some inevitable change in the US economy or in the quality of the US worker compared to the quality of the foreign workforce, or in the competitiveness of the global economy.
The US worker is near the top of the list when it comes to productivity per hour. US corporations are making record profits.
If US workers are going to have to get used to living less well than their parents, it is because their parents lived in a very rich country where productive workers kept a large share of the profits they produced, and they now live in a very rich country where corporations owned by an ever smaller group of people keep a large and ever growing share of the profits the workers produce.
This is the result of decisions that have been made. Decisions in how to tax, how to spend, how to decide legal issues, how to decide campaign spending issues, how to decide labor rights issues.
If workers are going to have to do with less, it is because of political decisions the workers have made, and because of political decisions they refuse to make, and because of sacrifices they refuse to make, and because of the way they have allowed their enemies to divide them.
It has nothing to do with China, it has nothing to do with globalism, it has nothing to do with an aging populace, it has nothing to do with health care costs and it has nothing to do with a lack of skills or education.
The productivity is there and the profit is there and the money can go to the workers or it can go to the tiny group of people that own the vast majority of the businesses.
It is up to the people to decide what normal will be.
Welcome to the new normal. It took us a generation to dig ourselves into this, it’s gonna take us at least a generation to dig ourselves back out.
If it is the new normal, it is not because of some inevitable change in the US economy or in the quality of the US worker compared to the quality of the foreign workforce, or in the competitiveness of the global economy.
The US worker is near the top of the list when it comes to productivity per hour. US corporations are making record profits.
If US workers are going to have to get used to living less well than their parents, it is because their parents lived in a very rich country where productive workers kept a large share of the profits they produced, and they now live in a very rich country where corporations owned by an ever smaller group of people keep a large and ever growing share of the profits the workers produce.
This is the result of decisions that have been made. Decisions in how to tax, how to spend, how to decide legal issues, how to decide campaign spending issues, how to decide labor rights issues.
If workers are going to have to do with less, it is because of political decisions the workers have made, and because of political decisions they refuse to make, and because of sacrifices they refuse to make, and because of the way they have allowed their enemies to divide them.
It has nothing to do with China, it has nothing to do with globalism, it has nothing to do with an aging populace, it has nothing to do with health care costs and it has nothing to do with a lack of skills or education.
The productivity is there and the profit is there and the money can go to the workers or it can go to the tiny group of people that own the vast majority of the businesses.
It is up to the people to decide what normal will be.
Duff Clarity, good comment.
Duff Clarity, good comment.
From Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:
Rush Limbaugh continues to use racially-charged language in going after the president: “Today on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh described a new Oreo that will have both chocolate and vanilla cream as a ‘biracial’ cookie and said that ‘it isn’t going to be long before it’s going to be called the Or-Bam-eo or something like this.’ Limbaugh later called it the ‘Or-Bam-eo’ himself.”
So that’s another thing that Obama faces. I’m not sure how many people Limbaugh speaks for, at this point, but still…. When we’re talking about the dynamics of the President/Congress/Courts/ the people / the media …. Sasha has a point.
From Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:
Rush Limbaugh continues to use racially-charged language in going after the president: “Today on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh described a new Oreo that will have both chocolate and vanilla cream as a ‘biracial’ cookie and said that ‘it isn’t going to be long before it’s going to be called the Or-Bam-eo or something like this.’ Limbaugh later called it the ‘Or-Bam-eo’ himself.”
So that’s another thing that Obama faces. I’m not sure how many people Limbaugh speaks for, at this point, but still…. When we’re talking about the dynamics of the President/Congress/Courts/ the people / the media …. Sasha has a point.
One thing that never gets any better, in further answer to Slart’s question way up thread, is the quality of the nigger jokes among the murderous c*ocksucking vermin in the Republican confederate political and media sewer.
Not a single conservative, not even the black jagoffs recruited into that fascist, racist piece of sh*t organization is willing to call out Limbaugh et al on this filth.
Moe Lane, that punk vermin co8ksucker, hasn’t got the guts to put a bullet in Limbaugh’s fucking fat racist mouth.
There is going to be great bloody scythe run through the 20 million or so hateful f*cking vermin in this country.
It stops now.
One thing that never gets any better, in further answer to Slart’s question way up thread, is the quality of the nigger jokes among the murderous c*ocksucking vermin in the Republican confederate political and media sewer.
Not a single conservative, not even the black jagoffs recruited into that fascist, racist piece of sh*t organization is willing to call out Limbaugh et al on this filth.
Moe Lane, that punk vermin co8ksucker, hasn’t got the guts to put a bullet in Limbaugh’s fucking fat racist mouth.
There is going to be great bloody scythe run through the 20 million or so hateful f*cking vermin in this country.
It stops now.
One of the other voluteers at the dog rescue leaves rightwing printouts around the break room. On Monday it was a “joke” about Obama beig an affirmative action pick for Prez who got fired for beig useless and whined aobut beig a victim of racism. I have a no-tolerance policy these days for Republican bullshit so I wrote a note on the “joke’ I wrote “This is rude. The grown up way to discuss politics is to discuss facts and policies.” The “joke” dispappeared.
It always amazes me how rightwingers feel so empowered to just thrust their opinions out there as if they had their thoughts cofused with God’s Own Divine Truth. I would never leave a piece of political rhetoric laying around i the break room of …well, anywhere!
There was more Republican bullshit on display on the table today but it was disinformation from some website, nothig racist. I just wrote a factual contradiction of all of the main points.
One of the other voluteers at the dog rescue leaves rightwing printouts around the break room. On Monday it was a “joke” about Obama beig an affirmative action pick for Prez who got fired for beig useless and whined aobut beig a victim of racism. I have a no-tolerance policy these days for Republican bullshit so I wrote a note on the “joke’ I wrote “This is rude. The grown up way to discuss politics is to discuss facts and policies.” The “joke” dispappeared.
It always amazes me how rightwingers feel so empowered to just thrust their opinions out there as if they had their thoughts cofused with God’s Own Divine Truth. I would never leave a piece of political rhetoric laying around i the break room of …well, anywhere!
There was more Republican bullshit on display on the table today but it was disinformation from some website, nothig racist. I just wrote a factual contradiction of all of the main points.
I vote Duff as winner of this thread.
I vote Duff as winner of this thread.
Duff Clarity
Decisions in how to tax, how to spend, how to decide legal issues, how to decide campaign spending issues, how to decide labor rights issues.
Standing ovations for you. Clear answer to (Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
Income inequality, enabled by low marginal tax rate, decides if the economy will shed jobs or not with productivity growth. Economic spending is affected by number of people spending not by number of GDP. Just for example lets say that income inequality is maxed out: One person income is equal to income of the rest of population. Can that person spend as much as the rest of into economic productivity. Nope, he/she will save a lot of it. So there is a lot of “lazy” cash that is also part of the GDP number.
Higher he is taxed, more of that “lazy” cash is redistributed to poor for spending.
Not to forget that low marginal tax rate allows managers to take the profits from productivity growth for themselves, instead sharing it with those that caused it. (Unless someone wants to argue that managers decided to fire the least (short term) useful employees and caused productivity to be raised.)
If profit from productivity is shared with all, then it will raise demand for more services and products so the economy won’t shed jobs in faster productivity then GDP growth.
Duff Clarity
Decisions in how to tax, how to spend, how to decide legal issues, how to decide campaign spending issues, how to decide labor rights issues.
Standing ovations for you. Clear answer to (Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?)’
Income inequality, enabled by low marginal tax rate, decides if the economy will shed jobs or not with productivity growth. Economic spending is affected by number of people spending not by number of GDP. Just for example lets say that income inequality is maxed out: One person income is equal to income of the rest of population. Can that person spend as much as the rest of into economic productivity. Nope, he/she will save a lot of it. So there is a lot of “lazy” cash that is also part of the GDP number.
Higher he is taxed, more of that “lazy” cash is redistributed to poor for spending.
Not to forget that low marginal tax rate allows managers to take the profits from productivity growth for themselves, instead sharing it with those that caused it. (Unless someone wants to argue that managers decided to fire the least (short term) useful employees and caused productivity to be raised.)
If profit from productivity is shared with all, then it will raise demand for more services and products so the economy won’t shed jobs in faster productivity then GDP growth.
Productivity growth was raised by firing people. Productivity is measured in hours needed for output. In short, less workers for same output makes productivity higher. Not total employed per total output within the country.
Productivity growth was raised by firing people. Productivity is measured in hours needed for output. In short, less workers for same output makes productivity higher. Not total employed per total output within the country.
Duff Clarity has it, I think (and said it well enough to lure this oft-lurker into commenting). Everything seems to be trickling up; this is clearly unsustainable barring some kind of return to serfdom.
(It’s almost as though the means of production must belong to the workers.)
It also seems (things are doing a lot of seeming today) that one would be more inclined to parlay what few resources one has into starting a small business if one new that, on the chance that this venture fails, some kind of social “safety net” (to coin a phrase) would guarantee not living and/or dying in sickly squalor for the rest of one’s days.
If only our infrastructure was crumbling so that we’d have an excuse to pay a bunch of people to fix it.
Duff Clarity has it, I think (and said it well enough to lure this oft-lurker into commenting). Everything seems to be trickling up; this is clearly unsustainable barring some kind of return to serfdom.
(It’s almost as though the means of production must belong to the workers.)
It also seems (things are doing a lot of seeming today) that one would be more inclined to parlay what few resources one has into starting a small business if one new that, on the chance that this venture fails, some kind of social “safety net” (to coin a phrase) would guarantee not living and/or dying in sickly squalor for the rest of one’s days.
If only our infrastructure was crumbling so that we’d have an excuse to pay a bunch of people to fix it.
Nice job of stirring the pot a bit, Russell. A couple of observations.
When I lived in France in the mid 80’s, I got some stickers that I still have that have various people (to represent various tranches of society) looking horrified with the catchphrase ‘Au secours! La droite revient!”). Thinking about what has happened with basically all the major Western democracies, it seems that there is something inevitable about the right returning, so I wonder if the complaints about Obama’s failure to do something actually paper over the potential inevitability of a rightward shift.
Another things that has me thinking of this is a thread on SSJ-Japan. Unfortunately, the archive is not threaded, and they ask that you request the author’s permission to quote, so I’ll just point you the the intial post, which is here. A lot of folks weigh in and one of the questions concerns why the DPJ, a left of center party that finally was able to take over the government in 2009 (essentially, Japan has been run in the postwar period, with a very brief hiccup, by the rather right LDP party) is so incompetent and it is interesting that the discussion parallels the discussions about Obama that I see here. Japan is a much more conservative country than the US, which is why, probably in the next 6 months, an election will be called and the LDP will be able to take over, despite, in a lot of ways, learning nothing from their previous mistakes, while I still think that Obama has a good chance to win in 2012.
This is all to say that there seems to be something less American about these problems and more global.
Nice job of stirring the pot a bit, Russell. A couple of observations.
When I lived in France in the mid 80’s, I got some stickers that I still have that have various people (to represent various tranches of society) looking horrified with the catchphrase ‘Au secours! La droite revient!”). Thinking about what has happened with basically all the major Western democracies, it seems that there is something inevitable about the right returning, so I wonder if the complaints about Obama’s failure to do something actually paper over the potential inevitability of a rightward shift.
Another things that has me thinking of this is a thread on SSJ-Japan. Unfortunately, the archive is not threaded, and they ask that you request the author’s permission to quote, so I’ll just point you the the intial post, which is here. A lot of folks weigh in and one of the questions concerns why the DPJ, a left of center party that finally was able to take over the government in 2009 (essentially, Japan has been run in the postwar period, with a very brief hiccup, by the rather right LDP party) is so incompetent and it is interesting that the discussion parallels the discussions about Obama that I see here. Japan is a much more conservative country than the US, which is why, probably in the next 6 months, an election will be called and the LDP will be able to take over, despite, in a lot of ways, learning nothing from their previous mistakes, while I still think that Obama has a good chance to win in 2012.
This is all to say that there seems to be something less American about these problems and more global.
The fundamental problem is, of course, growing income inequality. However, growing income inequality means that the beneficiaries of the inequality have a lot of money to spend, and they can choose to spend it on a) hiring people to lie about how inequality is either good or doesn’t exist (politicians and journalists of virtually all stripes, that is) and b) hiring thugs to beat up or kill people who are not persuaded by the lies.
In other words, not only is the system broken, but it is becoming increasingly broken because of the logic of the system. There is no force which encourages things to get better, and nobody is working to mend the situation. Within the system, all you can do is vote for a politician who will promote unequal distribution of wealth; you can’t vote for a politician who proposes to make the distribution more equal, because such politicians are prevented from running and the very discussion of such policies is kept out of the media.
Basically, the Western political system has become a version of the late Soviet Union, except that you get to vote for your own choice of Brezhnev.
The fundamental problem is, of course, growing income inequality. However, growing income inequality means that the beneficiaries of the inequality have a lot of money to spend, and they can choose to spend it on a) hiring people to lie about how inequality is either good or doesn’t exist (politicians and journalists of virtually all stripes, that is) and b) hiring thugs to beat up or kill people who are not persuaded by the lies.
In other words, not only is the system broken, but it is becoming increasingly broken because of the logic of the system. There is no force which encourages things to get better, and nobody is working to mend the situation. Within the system, all you can do is vote for a politician who will promote unequal distribution of wealth; you can’t vote for a politician who proposes to make the distribution more equal, because such politicians are prevented from running and the very discussion of such policies is kept out of the media.
Basically, the Western political system has become a version of the late Soviet Union, except that you get to vote for your own choice of Brezhnev.
The Right has a large advantage because things go their way when nothing happens to counter the problems. Solving the massive problems requires something to be done. By simply preventing that (and ‘justifying’ it as saving money) they can reach a lot of their goals (like non-enforcement of laws and regulations). A special case is the deliberate lowering of revenue by simply not appropriating money for the actual collection of taxes and the checks that due taxes are actually paid.
Btw, I expect demands for the return of tax farming to arrive any day (what I call the re-publicanization). The private sector (latin: privare = to rob; secare = to cut up/off) does everything better, or so I hear.
The Right has a large advantage because things go their way when nothing happens to counter the problems. Solving the massive problems requires something to be done. By simply preventing that (and ‘justifying’ it as saving money) they can reach a lot of their goals (like non-enforcement of laws and regulations). A special case is the deliberate lowering of revenue by simply not appropriating money for the actual collection of taxes and the checks that due taxes are actually paid.
Btw, I expect demands for the return of tax farming to arrive any day (what I call the re-publicanization). The private sector (latin: privare = to rob; secare = to cut up/off) does everything better, or so I hear.
The Creator: “Basically, the Western political system has become a version of the late Soviet Union, except that you get to vote for your own choice of Brezhnev.”
Again, I don’t buy this because it lets the voters off the hook. Although gerrymandering makes it more and more difficult to get Democrats in office, it’s still possible for voters to learn about the issues, decide on the better candidate, and go to the polls. It can get better. We must make it better.
Much of our history has been about our struggle and ability to make things better. If that’s a cultural myth, it’s one that we can make come true, as many very brave people have done bit by bit. Our system allows us to take control of our future if we collectively make intelligent choices. We need to keep up the fight, and remember that it can be slow and requires incredible perseverance.
The Creator: “Basically, the Western political system has become a version of the late Soviet Union, except that you get to vote for your own choice of Brezhnev.”
Again, I don’t buy this because it lets the voters off the hook. Although gerrymandering makes it more and more difficult to get Democrats in office, it’s still possible for voters to learn about the issues, decide on the better candidate, and go to the polls. It can get better. We must make it better.
Much of our history has been about our struggle and ability to make things better. If that’s a cultural myth, it’s one that we can make come true, as many very brave people have done bit by bit. Our system allows us to take control of our future if we collectively make intelligent choices. We need to keep up the fight, and remember that it can be slow and requires incredible perseverance.
” so I wonder if the complaints about Obama’s failure to do something actually paper over the potential inevitability of a rightward shift.”
Uh, no. There’s been a steady rightward drift in our politics on economic issues since the 70’s. I think I became dimly aware of it when Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” was on public TV, which was around 79 or 80. Then Reagan came. I vaguely recall reading there have been rightwing think tanks hard at work putting their ideas into the press, something which started sometime in the 70’s. That was also the period of stagflation when liberal economists didn’t seem to know what to do, and the supply siders came along with their nostrum which was initially ridiculed, but like rightwingers tend to do, they won by sheer persistance and a refusal to adopt the terms of their opponents. But anyway economic issues have been framed in rightwing terms ever since then and the complaint that some of us have about Obama is not that he could have obtained more if he’d fought harder (I don’t know), but that he himself adopts their framing of the issues. But he’s just a symptom of the larger trend.
” so I wonder if the complaints about Obama’s failure to do something actually paper over the potential inevitability of a rightward shift.”
Uh, no. There’s been a steady rightward drift in our politics on economic issues since the 70’s. I think I became dimly aware of it when Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” was on public TV, which was around 79 or 80. Then Reagan came. I vaguely recall reading there have been rightwing think tanks hard at work putting their ideas into the press, something which started sometime in the 70’s. That was also the period of stagflation when liberal economists didn’t seem to know what to do, and the supply siders came along with their nostrum which was initially ridiculed, but like rightwingers tend to do, they won by sheer persistance and a refusal to adopt the terms of their opponents. But anyway economic issues have been framed in rightwing terms ever since then and the complaint that some of us have about Obama is not that he could have obtained more if he’d fought harder (I don’t know), but that he himself adopts their framing of the issues. But he’s just a symptom of the larger trend.
what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since?
part of it has to be that nearly all of our economic competition was in ruins thanks to WWII. that set us up for some good times. but eventually, other countries caught up.
what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since?
part of it has to be that nearly all of our economic competition was in ruins thanks to WWII. that set us up for some good times. but eventually, other countries caught up.
Yet more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/18/1008223/-Shorter-Tom-Coburn:-Obama-got-unfair-advantages-from-being-black?via=blog_1
This sh*t can stop one way or the other.
How do subhuman Christianist Republican vermin want it?
Yet more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/18/1008223/-Shorter-Tom-Coburn:-Obama-got-unfair-advantages-from-being-black?via=blog_1
This sh*t can stop one way or the other.
How do subhuman Christianist Republican vermin want it?
So, you’re saying that they fired the lower-productivity workers, or the workers in occupations that have seen fewer productivity growth. You can’t get productivity growth by getting rid of people across the board, I don’t think.
So, you’re saying that they fired the lower-productivity workers, or the workers in occupations that have seen fewer productivity growth. You can’t get productivity growth by getting rid of people across the board, I don’t think.
what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since?.
Well, since 1950 U.S. society has decided, in general, that maybe government should provide some services to the non-white population, whereas before that we didn’t really feel the need. And the people who have disagreed with that decision, or providing services to the poor generally, have been trying to escape its effects ever since.
what went right during the middle of the last century, and what has gone wrong since?.
Well, since 1950 U.S. society has decided, in general, that maybe government should provide some services to the non-white population, whereas before that we didn’t really feel the need. And the people who have disagreed with that decision, or providing services to the poor generally, have been trying to escape its effects ever since.
There’s some strange notions going around here. First, I get that there are unemployed but income inequality per se means little to me if those who are employed and have income can live at a current standard.
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
There’s some strange notions going around here. First, I get that there are unemployed but income inequality per se means little to me if those who are employed and have income can live at a current standard.
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Change the word “livelihood” in that final question to Russell’s more accurate formulation of “crap sandwich” and the answer to the question — “Nothing” — isn’t as harmless as you seem to believe.
Change the word “livelihood” in that final question to Russell’s more accurate formulation of “crap sandwich” and the answer to the question — “Nothing” — isn’t as harmless as you seem to believe.
Uh, no. There’s been a steady rightward drift in our politics on economic issues since the 70’s.
I thought that was what I said, or at least what I was trying to say, but with the added point that, while acknowledging the persistence of the right, the fact that it seems to have happened pretty much everywhere suggests something deeper is going on. It is not ‘our’ politics, it seems to be pretty much everyone’s. Scandanavia is sort of outpost, like something out of a zombie flick, but the rest of the world has been taken over.
I found this 2009 French piece that has one of the signs and, if my french hasn’t completely escaped me, is pretty much the same as Countme-in’s comments and my feelings. I don’t say this to support sapient’s call to vote for Obama and like it (though I’m probably a lot closer to that position than you are, Donald) but to note that it doesn’t seem like just us.
Uh, no. There’s been a steady rightward drift in our politics on economic issues since the 70’s.
I thought that was what I said, or at least what I was trying to say, but with the added point that, while acknowledging the persistence of the right, the fact that it seems to have happened pretty much everywhere suggests something deeper is going on. It is not ‘our’ politics, it seems to be pretty much everyone’s. Scandanavia is sort of outpost, like something out of a zombie flick, but the rest of the world has been taken over.
I found this 2009 French piece that has one of the signs and, if my french hasn’t completely escaped me, is pretty much the same as Countme-in’s comments and my feelings. I don’t say this to support sapient’s call to vote for Obama and like it (though I’m probably a lot closer to that position than you are, Donald) but to note that it doesn’t seem like just us.
What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Directly or indirectly?
What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Directly or indirectly?
What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
At some point, deserving doesn’t matter, because the whole system will collapse if there is no one to buy the output from the widget. Henry Ford was smart enough to know this. He and J.P. Morgan couldn’t buy enough cars to make it worth producing them.
What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
At some point, deserving doesn’t matter, because the whole system will collapse if there is no one to buy the output from the widget. Henry Ford was smart enough to know this. He and J.P. Morgan couldn’t buy enough cars to make it worth producing them.
I really should have phrased it as “deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
I really should have phrased it as “deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Why should the capitalist get anything? Only the inventor and the workers have produced anything in this example. All the capitalist contributes is government fiat.
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Why should the capitalist get anything? Only the inventor and the workers have produced anything in this example. All the capitalist contributes is government fiat.
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Each worker could work one day in ten at her old wages and put herself to productive use elsewhere the other nine.
Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?
If I, as the capitalist, have 100 employed to produce 1000 widgets, along comes the inventor who trades me an idea or a tool so that the 1000 widgets are produced by 10 laborers, this may look like a labor productivity improvement (and by some definitions, it may be), but the result was not from anything the 100 employees (now 10) did. What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?
Each worker could work one day in ten at her old wages and put herself to productive use elsewhere the other nine.
Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?
This seems relevant somehow:
The differences in attitude towards redistributive taxes are not just between countries but also within them, and economists have several explanations as to why. When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a major role. Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially homogeneous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transferring some resources from richer to poorer people through the fiscal system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programmes were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations.
…
Social divisions also play a role in determining who within a society prefers greater redistributive taxation. In America blacks—who are more likely to benefit from welfare programmes than richer whites—are much more favourably disposed towards redistribution through the fiscal system than white people are. A 2001 study looked at over 20 years of data from America’s General Social Survey and found that whereas 47% of blacks thought welfare spending was too low, only 16% of whites did. Only a quarter of blacks thought it was too high, compared with 55% of whites. In general (though not always), those who identify with a group that benefits from redistribution seem to want more of it.
Them. Those people.
This seems relevant somehow:
The differences in attitude towards redistributive taxes are not just between countries but also within them, and economists have several explanations as to why. When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a major role. Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially homogeneous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transferring some resources from richer to poorer people through the fiscal system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programmes were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations.
…
Social divisions also play a role in determining who within a society prefers greater redistributive taxation. In America blacks—who are more likely to benefit from welfare programmes than richer whites—are much more favourably disposed towards redistribution through the fiscal system than white people are. A 2001 study looked at over 20 years of data from America’s General Social Survey and found that whereas 47% of blacks thought welfare spending was too low, only 16% of whites did. Only a quarter of blacks thought it was too high, compared with 55% of whites. In general (though not always), those who identify with a group that benefits from redistribution seem to want more of it.
Them. Those people.
‘Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?’
I think it is related to the principle of private property. The laborer becomes a capitalist by turning accumulated wealth (private property) into a productive resource (producing something that can be exchanged for someone else’s product of value).
‘Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?’
I think it is related to the principle of private property. The laborer becomes a capitalist by turning accumulated wealth (private property) into a productive resource (producing something that can be exchanged for someone else’s product of value).
Goodoleboy: “What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?”
Model62: “Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?”
I would say that the default assumption under which capital and labor operate, works most of the time, under the rule of law and a reasonable social contract, enforced by government.
The 90 trudge off to their separate fates.
But at some points in history, “assumption” becomes “presumption” on the part of capital and even further a kind of taunting sadism as we see and hear now among the capital class toward labor and the social contract.
Then, the “lucky duckies” take a look at one another, and like the apes’ organized, vengeful behavior in the recent “Planet of the Apes”, society finds itself in big f*cking trouble.
Goodoleboy: “What makes the 90, who now must find their livelihood elsewhere (maybe with the widget inventor) deserving of the fruits of the improvement (except if they have capital invested in the production)?”
Model62: “Why is the default assumption that productivity gains and surplus ought to flow first to capital?”
I would say that the default assumption under which capital and labor operate, works most of the time, under the rule of law and a reasonable social contract, enforced by government.
The 90 trudge off to their separate fates.
But at some points in history, “assumption” becomes “presumption” on the part of capital and even further a kind of taunting sadism as we see and hear now among the capital class toward labor and the social contract.
Then, the “lucky duckies” take a look at one another, and like the apes’ organized, vengeful behavior in the recent “Planet of the Apes”, society finds itself in big f*cking trouble.
By taunting sadism, an example would be John Kasich’s big swinging d*ck threats after he was elected Governor of Ohio that “you can get on the bus, or we will run you over with the bus, etc.”
Rinse and repeat in New Jersey, Florida, Wisconsin, the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.
Let me tell you something, you poke people with a stick enough times and they begin to operate under the fundamental rules dictated by their reptilian brain stems, not the Rodney King “can’t we all get along” assumptions.
When cracker Eric Erickson at Redrum threatens to point his wife’s shotgun at a Census Bureau employee who happens to knock politely on his door and ask him the questions on the American Community Survey, my reptilian brain stem wishes I was that Census worker, just to see if Eric’s wife can handle it.
By taunting sadism, an example would be John Kasich’s big swinging d*ck threats after he was elected Governor of Ohio that “you can get on the bus, or we will run you over with the bus, etc.”
Rinse and repeat in New Jersey, Florida, Wisconsin, the U.S. House of Representatives, etc.
Let me tell you something, you poke people with a stick enough times and they begin to operate under the fundamental rules dictated by their reptilian brain stems, not the Rodney King “can’t we all get along” assumptions.
When cracker Eric Erickson at Redrum threatens to point his wife’s shotgun at a Census Bureau employee who happens to knock politely on his door and ask him the questions on the American Community Survey, my reptilian brain stem wishes I was that Census worker, just to see if Eric’s wife can handle it.
Rick Perry, fresh from a week of sadistic taunting, chokes on crow, blames it on a popover (hat tip to commie Muslim faggot, if you believe his hate mail, DKos):
‘Inside the café, Gail Mitchell and a companion grilled him: “You said Social Security was unconstitutional.”
“Social Security’s going to be there for those folks,” Perry answered his inquisitors, making reference to the elderly.
“But you said Social Security is unconstitutional,” Mitchell repeated.
“I don’t think I — I’m sorry, you must have,” Perry said before stopping himself.
Instead of elaborating, Perry stuffed a generous piece of popover in his mouth. (Perry called them “pop ups.”)
“I’ve got a big mouthful,” Perry said and then ordering a glass of water. He later tripped over one of the women standing at his side pressing him on Social Security.
“I’m sorry, sweetheart,” Perry said’
Then his concealed laser-pointer pistol went off and he shot himself in the right testicle.
Rick Perry, fresh from a week of sadistic taunting, chokes on crow, blames it on a popover (hat tip to commie Muslim faggot, if you believe his hate mail, DKos):
‘Inside the café, Gail Mitchell and a companion grilled him: “You said Social Security was unconstitutional.”
“Social Security’s going to be there for those folks,” Perry answered his inquisitors, making reference to the elderly.
“But you said Social Security is unconstitutional,” Mitchell repeated.
“I don’t think I — I’m sorry, you must have,” Perry said before stopping himself.
Instead of elaborating, Perry stuffed a generous piece of popover in his mouth. (Perry called them “pop ups.”)
“I’ve got a big mouthful,” Perry said and then ordering a glass of water. He later tripped over one of the women standing at his side pressing him on Social Security.
“I’m sorry, sweetheart,” Perry said’
Then his concealed laser-pointer pistol went off and he shot himself in the right testicle.
“I thought that was what I said, or at least what I was trying to say,”
I understood that. I was objecting to the notion that people who are disappointed with Obama are unaware of the rightward drift is somehow all his fault or even primarily his fault and have somehow missed what’s been going on for decades now. He’s more of a symptom of the rightwing drift–he is what passes for a progressive President these days.
As for its inevitability, it was presumably inevitable that the right would launch an ideological counterattack and would have plenty of funding to do it. They’ve taken the rhetorical high ground. I think various writers have talked about this, though I’m a little hazy on which ones at the moment. Within the US, maybe Kevin Phillips and Perlstein and Thomas Frank, among others, but I’m not sure.
“I thought that was what I said, or at least what I was trying to say,”
I understood that. I was objecting to the notion that people who are disappointed with Obama are unaware of the rightward drift is somehow all his fault or even primarily his fault and have somehow missed what’s been going on for decades now. He’s more of a symptom of the rightwing drift–he is what passes for a progressive President these days.
As for its inevitability, it was presumably inevitable that the right would launch an ideological counterattack and would have plenty of funding to do it. They’ve taken the rhetorical high ground. I think various writers have talked about this, though I’m a little hazy on which ones at the moment. Within the US, maybe Kevin Phillips and Perlstein and Thomas Frank, among others, but I’m not sure.
Oops. I started to edit my post above, got distracted, and sent it before checking. It was supposed to read–
I was objecting to the notion that people who are disappointed with Obama are unaware of the rightward drift that has been going on for decades now.
Oops. I started to edit my post above, got distracted, and sent it before checking. It was supposed to read–
I was objecting to the notion that people who are disappointed with Obama are unaware of the rightward drift that has been going on for decades now.
“it was presumably inevitable that the right would launch an ideological counterattack and would have plenty of funding to do it. They’ve taken the rhetorical high ground. ”
What? The right has taken the rhetorical high ground? Do tell. Coburn complains that Obama wants to create a culture of dependency because Obama “has advantages” because of affirmative action; Limbaugh does his Oreo stunt; Rick Perry says that we need to have a President that can be “respected.” Rhetorical high ground? Who are you referring to, and who are they kidding?
“it was presumably inevitable that the right would launch an ideological counterattack and would have plenty of funding to do it. They’ve taken the rhetorical high ground. ”
What? The right has taken the rhetorical high ground? Do tell. Coburn complains that Obama wants to create a culture of dependency because Obama “has advantages” because of affirmative action; Limbaugh does his Oreo stunt; Rick Perry says that we need to have a President that can be “respected.” Rhetorical high ground? Who are you referring to, and who are they kidding?
By the time the global costs equilibrium is reached, the USA (and most of the other developed Western countries) will exhibit fairly well-developed, persistent, self-reinforcing social class systems, and many of the fine cultural and political characteristics of such systems.
Clintonites may admire their handiwork. These splendid historical developments would not have been possible without them.
Marxists, on the other hand, will simply laugh at the unsurprising fate of the post-WWII welfare states.
By the time the global costs equilibrium is reached, the USA (and most of the other developed Western countries) will exhibit fairly well-developed, persistent, self-reinforcing social class systems, and many of the fine cultural and political characteristics of such systems.
Clintonites may admire their handiwork. These splendid historical developments would not have been possible without them.
Marxists, on the other hand, will simply laugh at the unsurprising fate of the post-WWII welfare states.
Thanks for the clarification, Donald. I didn’t mean to imply that people who opposed Obama were unaware of the rightward drift of the US. What I was trying to get at was that there is a rightward drift to the whole world. I think that Hartmut’s 4:49, along with the way voting blocs have developed in developed countries, comes close to a possible answer.
Thanks for the clarification, Donald. I didn’t mean to imply that people who opposed Obama were unaware of the rightward drift of the US. What I was trying to get at was that there is a rightward drift to the whole world. I think that Hartmut’s 4:49, along with the way voting blocs have developed in developed countries, comes close to a possible answer.
I think it is related to the principle of private property. The laborer becomes a capitalist by turning accumulated wealth (private property) into a productive resource (producing something that can be exchanged for someone else’s product of value).
Awesome. Since there’s nothing inevitable about private property, we’re free to rejigger the terms to better suit us.
Because we’re in an expansive mood, let’s say we compromise at “work one day in ten, but get paid 70% of former wages” (setting aside a little something for capital and management for their contribution).
I think it is related to the principle of private property. The laborer becomes a capitalist by turning accumulated wealth (private property) into a productive resource (producing something that can be exchanged for someone else’s product of value).
Awesome. Since there’s nothing inevitable about private property, we’re free to rejigger the terms to better suit us.
Because we’re in an expansive mood, let’s say we compromise at “work one day in ten, but get paid 70% of former wages” (setting aside a little something for capital and management for their contribution).
‘ Since there’s nothing inevitable about private property, we’re free to rejigger the terms to better suit us.’
That’s likely the only way you will get what you imagine is your ‘fair share’, but then you may be hard pressed to keep it.
‘ Since there’s nothing inevitable about private property, we’re free to rejigger the terms to better suit us.’
That’s likely the only way you will get what you imagine is your ‘fair share’, but then you may be hard pressed to keep it.
“…but then you may be hard pressed to keep it.”
Interesting. So what makes certain outcomes easier to “keep” than others?
“…but then you may be hard pressed to keep it.”
Interesting. So what makes certain outcomes easier to “keep” than others?
I could be wrong, but I suspect what Donald Johnson meant by “rhetorical high ground” was actually “they’ve taken all of the rhetorical low ground and they are winning.”
There is no rhetorical high ground left in the discourse in America.
The lower one digs, the more the seething mob shows up on election day.
My chosen course is to find the lowest ground possible and undermine from there.
When in doubt, dig deeper. The enemy (the domestic one, worse than al Qaeda) thinks they want chaos. Give them their desired results and then dig deeper to see if they can handle the true meaning of deep.
In Vietnam, both sides fought over meaningless hills and called it a victory for the day.
Meanwhile, one side was digging tunnels.
Who won?
I could be wrong, but I suspect what Donald Johnson meant by “rhetorical high ground” was actually “they’ve taken all of the rhetorical low ground and they are winning.”
There is no rhetorical high ground left in the discourse in America.
The lower one digs, the more the seething mob shows up on election day.
My chosen course is to find the lowest ground possible and undermine from there.
When in doubt, dig deeper. The enemy (the domestic one, worse than al Qaeda) thinks they want chaos. Give them their desired results and then dig deeper to see if they can handle the true meaning of deep.
In Vietnam, both sides fought over meaningless hills and called it a victory for the day.
Meanwhile, one side was digging tunnels.
Who won?
The high ground is not the moral high ground, which I think is what sapient was trying to talk about.
The high ground is the ground from which you conquer.
I think what Donald Johnson meant is that the right are winning the war, ideologically, which is blindingly obvious. (Look at the way in which Democrats have learned to spout Republican-created memes.)
Of course, they are actually winning because they are powerful, and that is why you cannot expect the future to be as good as the past. If you want a good future, you will first have to overthrow the government.
Good luck trying that, I regret to say.
The high ground is not the moral high ground, which I think is what sapient was trying to talk about.
The high ground is the ground from which you conquer.
I think what Donald Johnson meant is that the right are winning the war, ideologically, which is blindingly obvious. (Look at the way in which Democrats have learned to spout Republican-created memes.)
Of course, they are actually winning because they are powerful, and that is why you cannot expect the future to be as good as the past. If you want a good future, you will first have to overthrow the government.
Good luck trying that, I regret to say.
‘So what makes certain outcomes easier to “keep” than others?’
For example, earned outcomes have greater staying power than rejiggered outcomes. In this society, wealth earned has greater staying power than wealth redistributed, Many here have even pointed this out in arguments against inherited wealth.
‘So what makes certain outcomes easier to “keep” than others?’
For example, earned outcomes have greater staying power than rejiggered outcomes. In this society, wealth earned has greater staying power than wealth redistributed, Many here have even pointed this out in arguments against inherited wealth.
For example, earned outcomes have greater staying power than rejiggered outcomes. In this society, wealth earned has greater staying power than wealth redistributed, Many here have even pointed this out in arguments against inherited wealth.
This is a fair point and is part of the reason why, for example, the U.S. doesn’t have a 100% marginal tax rate at any level of income or a federally administered “wealth tax” outside the estate tax area, but the word “earned” here is doing a lot of work.
It seems to lack a certain “there but for the grace of god go i” kind of quality, IMHO.
For example, earned outcomes have greater staying power than rejiggered outcomes. In this society, wealth earned has greater staying power than wealth redistributed, Many here have even pointed this out in arguments against inherited wealth.
This is a fair point and is part of the reason why, for example, the U.S. doesn’t have a 100% marginal tax rate at any level of income or a federally administered “wealth tax” outside the estate tax area, but the word “earned” here is doing a lot of work.
It seems to lack a certain “there but for the grace of god go i” kind of quality, IMHO.
Nixon by current standards was a liberal.
Mr. Johnson, just to be clear, by current standards absolutely every single Republican President of the 20th century (including Reagan) was a liberal — and probably a socialist.
On the standards of the 1970s or 1980s, Obama is definitely a conservative. (Just part of the long tradition of blacks with an overall conservative view of the world.) Only in today’s bizzare political climate can he be seen as anything else. And even now, I would argue that his approach to the world is more conservative than not. But don’t expect the majority of today’s Republicans to see that.
Nixon by current standards was a liberal.
Mr. Johnson, just to be clear, by current standards absolutely every single Republican President of the 20th century (including Reagan) was a liberal — and probably a socialist.
On the standards of the 1970s or 1980s, Obama is definitely a conservative. (Just part of the long tradition of blacks with an overall conservative view of the world.) Only in today’s bizzare political climate can he be seen as anything else. And even now, I would argue that his approach to the world is more conservative than not. But don’t expect the majority of today’s Republicans to see that.
‘the word “earned” here is doing a lot of work.
It seems to lack a certain “there but for the grace of god go i” kind of quality, IMHO.’
I agree with this. In the real world, how does one tell the difference between what is ‘earned’ and what results from ‘good fortune’. And if one could tell the difference, how does this change actions.
‘the word “earned” here is doing a lot of work.
It seems to lack a certain “there but for the grace of god go i” kind of quality, IMHO.’
I agree with this. In the real world, how does one tell the difference between what is ‘earned’ and what results from ‘good fortune’. And if one could tell the difference, how does this change actions.
“earned incomes have greater staying power than rejiggered incomes”
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/will-the-middle-class-vanish.html
I would conclude that the highest earned incomes, when you include unearned investment income, have greater staying power than low earned incomes and now, for many reasons, than middle class earned incomes.
I would advise rejiggering as we go, rather than saving it all up for the inevitable “Big Apocalyptic Rejigger” that Larry Kudlow mistakes for the trickling down light at the end of the tunnel.
“earned incomes have greater staying power than rejiggered incomes”
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/will-the-middle-class-vanish.html
I would conclude that the highest earned incomes, when you include unearned investment income, have greater staying power than low earned incomes and now, for many reasons, than middle class earned incomes.
I would advise rejiggering as we go, rather than saving it all up for the inevitable “Big Apocalyptic Rejigger” that Larry Kudlow mistakes for the trickling down light at the end of the tunnel.
Heh.
Trickleitizing the eschaton.
Heh.
Trickleitizing the eschaton.
I would like to add a few thoughts about GOB’s widget example.
First, in the specific case provided, yes, it would probably make sense for 9 out of 10 production workers to find another career, and yes, the capital investor should probably get all or most of the gain from the improvement in productivity.
The reason for that is that it is the investor’s contribution to the factors of production that have created the added value.
If you make the good thing happen, you should be first in line for the reward. And if you’re the only contributor to the good thing happening, it should probably be a very short line.
But IMO it’s worth fleshing this example out so that it looks more like the real world.
It’s unlikely that the investor’s goal will simply be to make exactly the same widgets, in the exact same amount, for less money. It’s more likely that the investor will want to make better widgets, in which case the workers may move up to higher-value-added tasks. And/or the investor will want to use the added productivity to make more widgets, so as to increase market share and revenue.
In both cases, fewer or perhaps no workers are laid off. The same folks just create more value. Win!
Another piece that is missing here is the contribution of the workers to making the technical advance actually work. There are very few truly turnkey innovations that require nothing beyond being purchased, plugged in, and turned on in order to make the 1,000 flowers bloom. In most cases, there is significant effort involved in making the damned thing work well in the actual context in which it has to work. A lot of that effort requires hands-on shop floor knowledge and experience. So, in most real life cases, all of the added value is not coming from the guy who writes the check.
Another point I would make is that in real life, layoffs are driven as much by financial considerations as by efficiencies gained from technical advances. Companies often talk a good game, but labor is rarely actually viewed as a form of real human capital. Most often it is viewed as a pure cost center, and is often one of the first things cut if the numbers don’t look so good.
The idea that you might, for example, tell capital investors that they’re simply not going to make quite so much money this quarter, in order that the enterprise can hold on to the human capital that is represented by their employees, sounds like the ravings of a madman.
Quite often, people are let go so other folks can make their numbers. This may result in an increase in productivity, but quite often that is the result of the remaining folks being told that if they don’t double down and produce more, they’re next.
More bricks, said Pharoah, and no more straw for you, either. It’s a reality. I’ve got my own war stories on that point, and I’m sure quite a number of other folks on this board do as well.
For whatever reason, it’s common now to talk about capital investors as if they “create” jobs, and that somehow the rest of us are all simply the beneficiaries of their largesse.
Capital is a necessary factor of production. As such, folks who supply it deserve a reward. They may not be contributing at a hands-on shop floor level, but they are putting their money at risk.
But capital by itself does nothing. Even wonderful, whiz-bang, modern high-tech capital goods are basically nothing more than highly expensive doorstops without the participation of actual, real live human effort.
The US economy, even in it’s current crap state (a state not created, I do not hesitate to point out, by the vagaries of labor) generates great big towering piles of wealth.
Everybody should get a slice, because everybody helps to create it.
I would like to add a few thoughts about GOB’s widget example.
First, in the specific case provided, yes, it would probably make sense for 9 out of 10 production workers to find another career, and yes, the capital investor should probably get all or most of the gain from the improvement in productivity.
The reason for that is that it is the investor’s contribution to the factors of production that have created the added value.
If you make the good thing happen, you should be first in line for the reward. And if you’re the only contributor to the good thing happening, it should probably be a very short line.
But IMO it’s worth fleshing this example out so that it looks more like the real world.
It’s unlikely that the investor’s goal will simply be to make exactly the same widgets, in the exact same amount, for less money. It’s more likely that the investor will want to make better widgets, in which case the workers may move up to higher-value-added tasks. And/or the investor will want to use the added productivity to make more widgets, so as to increase market share and revenue.
In both cases, fewer or perhaps no workers are laid off. The same folks just create more value. Win!
Another piece that is missing here is the contribution of the workers to making the technical advance actually work. There are very few truly turnkey innovations that require nothing beyond being purchased, plugged in, and turned on in order to make the 1,000 flowers bloom. In most cases, there is significant effort involved in making the damned thing work well in the actual context in which it has to work. A lot of that effort requires hands-on shop floor knowledge and experience. So, in most real life cases, all of the added value is not coming from the guy who writes the check.
Another point I would make is that in real life, layoffs are driven as much by financial considerations as by efficiencies gained from technical advances. Companies often talk a good game, but labor is rarely actually viewed as a form of real human capital. Most often it is viewed as a pure cost center, and is often one of the first things cut if the numbers don’t look so good.
The idea that you might, for example, tell capital investors that they’re simply not going to make quite so much money this quarter, in order that the enterprise can hold on to the human capital that is represented by their employees, sounds like the ravings of a madman.
Quite often, people are let go so other folks can make their numbers. This may result in an increase in productivity, but quite often that is the result of the remaining folks being told that if they don’t double down and produce more, they’re next.
More bricks, said Pharoah, and no more straw for you, either. It’s a reality. I’ve got my own war stories on that point, and I’m sure quite a number of other folks on this board do as well.
For whatever reason, it’s common now to talk about capital investors as if they “create” jobs, and that somehow the rest of us are all simply the beneficiaries of their largesse.
Capital is a necessary factor of production. As such, folks who supply it deserve a reward. They may not be contributing at a hands-on shop floor level, but they are putting their money at risk.
But capital by itself does nothing. Even wonderful, whiz-bang, modern high-tech capital goods are basically nothing more than highly expensive doorstops without the participation of actual, real live human effort.
The US economy, even in it’s current crap state (a state not created, I do not hesitate to point out, by the vagaries of labor) generates great big towering piles of wealth.
Everybody should get a slice, because everybody helps to create it.
income inequality per se means little to me if those who are employed and have income can live at a current standard.
Sorry, another quick comment on this specific point.
If all of life was a matter of getting your three hots and a cot, I’d find this argument persuasive.
There is, however, more to life than that, and a lot of the whole of life happens in, or is strongly affected by what happens in, the public sphere.
When 20% of the population owns something like 85% of the wealth, which is true of the US right now, what results is, for all intents and purposes, de facto disenfranchisement.
There’s been a lot of noise about whether folks making more than $250K should be considered rich.
I personally find that to be a distraction, because there are private entities – individuals, corporations, special interest organizations – that hold and are happy to spend *billions* of dollars to further their interests.
When differences in wealth become truly extreme, which IMO they are in this nation right now, the ability to have any practical influence on public policies and outcomes becomes the province of an increasingly small part of the population.
Do you want to live that way? I don’t.
income inequality per se means little to me if those who are employed and have income can live at a current standard.
Sorry, another quick comment on this specific point.
If all of life was a matter of getting your three hots and a cot, I’d find this argument persuasive.
There is, however, more to life than that, and a lot of the whole of life happens in, or is strongly affected by what happens in, the public sphere.
When 20% of the population owns something like 85% of the wealth, which is true of the US right now, what results is, for all intents and purposes, de facto disenfranchisement.
There’s been a lot of noise about whether folks making more than $250K should be considered rich.
I personally find that to be a distraction, because there are private entities – individuals, corporations, special interest organizations – that hold and are happy to spend *billions* of dollars to further their interests.
When differences in wealth become truly extreme, which IMO they are in this nation right now, the ability to have any practical influence on public policies and outcomes becomes the province of an increasingly small part of the population.
Do you want to live that way? I don’t.
Add to Russell’s all valid points:
And one of the greatest benefits of our system is that when the new and improved widgets reach the broader market at lower prices, we have a broad array of winners.
I dislike negative actions taken for the wrong reasons, as well. The most just outcome when human capital is extremely abused is some deserved serious negative result for the enterprise in the marketplace.Same when the abuse is directed toward the consumer. Reed Hastings started Netflix after feeling abused by Blockbuster’s cumulative late fees, if that story is true. That’s a good outcome, as long as you are not Blockbuster.
Add to Russell’s all valid points:
And one of the greatest benefits of our system is that when the new and improved widgets reach the broader market at lower prices, we have a broad array of winners.
I dislike negative actions taken for the wrong reasons, as well. The most just outcome when human capital is extremely abused is some deserved serious negative result for the enterprise in the marketplace.Same when the abuse is directed toward the consumer. Reed Hastings started Netflix after feeling abused by Blockbuster’s cumulative late fees, if that story is true. That’s a good outcome, as long as you are not Blockbuster.
I always use Ostwald Ripening as an analogy for how accumulation of wealth works. Inequalities naturally grow. Or as a favorite Bible quote of the followers of supply-side Jesus goes: To him who has much even more shall be given and from him who has little even that shall be taken. (Too lazy to find the exact King James wording). Or to go LotR.: The [Dwarven] ring needs gold to make gold.
I always use Ostwald Ripening as an analogy for how accumulation of wealth works. Inequalities naturally grow. Or as a favorite Bible quote of the followers of supply-side Jesus goes: To him who has much even more shall be given and from him who has little even that shall be taken. (Too lazy to find the exact King James wording). Or to go LotR.: The [Dwarven] ring needs gold to make gold.
‘If all of life was a matter of getting your three hots and a cot, I’d find this argument persuasive.
There is, however, more to life than that, and a lot of the whole of life happens in, or is strongly affected by what happens in, the public sphere.’
A discussion of this can get complicated quickly, for sure. I don’t disagree with your premise if, in the society under discussion, reasonable effort does not, on average, yield an acceptable living standard. We had a successful 20th century because reasonable individual effort did result in an acceptable standard. Economic growth is critical. Economic growth creates new wealth. If our system is working such that all that new wealth winds up in the pockets of the already extremely wealthy, we get the sad results you are lamenting, and I lament as well.
Here’s kinda my bottom line. I was born and grew up dirt poor in Georgia. I managed to squeak by through public school and went to college on a merit scholarship (I don’t know if such exist anymore). Over a fifty year period, I was able to move from the bottom decile to the top decile. This happened while many people were filthy rich and getting richer all the time. As long as this is possible for people with ability and initiative, I’m OK with it. When it becomes not possible, not good. We may be at the tipping point. I do not agree that a redistribution of wealth, without policies that foster future economic growth, is a satisfactory solution.
‘If all of life was a matter of getting your three hots and a cot, I’d find this argument persuasive.
There is, however, more to life than that, and a lot of the whole of life happens in, or is strongly affected by what happens in, the public sphere.’
A discussion of this can get complicated quickly, for sure. I don’t disagree with your premise if, in the society under discussion, reasonable effort does not, on average, yield an acceptable living standard. We had a successful 20th century because reasonable individual effort did result in an acceptable standard. Economic growth is critical. Economic growth creates new wealth. If our system is working such that all that new wealth winds up in the pockets of the already extremely wealthy, we get the sad results you are lamenting, and I lament as well.
Here’s kinda my bottom line. I was born and grew up dirt poor in Georgia. I managed to squeak by through public school and went to college on a merit scholarship (I don’t know if such exist anymore). Over a fifty year period, I was able to move from the bottom decile to the top decile. This happened while many people were filthy rich and getting richer all the time. As long as this is possible for people with ability and initiative, I’m OK with it. When it becomes not possible, not good. We may be at the tipping point. I do not agree that a redistribution of wealth, without policies that foster future economic growth, is a satisfactory solution.
Inequalities naturally grow.
Yes. My favorite analogy for this (repeating myself, I’m sure, but then this discussion is endlessly repeated on this blog) is that water always flows downhill … to where there’s already plenty of water.
If we want water at the top of the hill, we have to actively intervene: we have to pump it.
Whether the “pump” is progressive tax rates; minimum wage laws; union activity; worker ownership; a miraculous change in human nature away from the notion that grabbing, whether under cover of the law or otherwise, obscenely more than your share of the goodies is tantamount to “deserving” or “earning” what you’ve grabbed; or — most likely — some eternally struggled-for combination of the above — without the pump, the water just keeps flowing downhill to where there’s already plenty of water.
Actually, as I write this out, I am reminded — a new connection, at least one little thing to make the day more interesting — that in nature, water flows downhill and makes ponds and lakes and oceans, but even there, “nature” ensures that water gets back to the top of the hill: evaporation, cloud formation and movement, rain.
But even that’s not the whole story. I once read — pre-internet, don’t have time to search for the photocopy of the article — that without life on earth, i.e. if there were nothing but bodies of water and rocks and sand, the average rainfall over the whole planet would be about 11 inches a year. Because of living things that have created soil, and that absorb and give up moisture themselves, the average rainfall is 29* inches. That is, the water gets cycled and cycled, almost two whole extra times, because there’s life on this planet.
What could be the equivalent in terms of sharing/cycling the wealth amongst human beings more equitably?
*Wikipedia says 39 inches.
Inequalities naturally grow.
Yes. My favorite analogy for this (repeating myself, I’m sure, but then this discussion is endlessly repeated on this blog) is that water always flows downhill … to where there’s already plenty of water.
If we want water at the top of the hill, we have to actively intervene: we have to pump it.
Whether the “pump” is progressive tax rates; minimum wage laws; union activity; worker ownership; a miraculous change in human nature away from the notion that grabbing, whether under cover of the law or otherwise, obscenely more than your share of the goodies is tantamount to “deserving” or “earning” what you’ve grabbed; or — most likely — some eternally struggled-for combination of the above — without the pump, the water just keeps flowing downhill to where there’s already plenty of water.
Actually, as I write this out, I am reminded — a new connection, at least one little thing to make the day more interesting — that in nature, water flows downhill and makes ponds and lakes and oceans, but even there, “nature” ensures that water gets back to the top of the hill: evaporation, cloud formation and movement, rain.
But even that’s not the whole story. I once read — pre-internet, don’t have time to search for the photocopy of the article — that without life on earth, i.e. if there were nothing but bodies of water and rocks and sand, the average rainfall over the whole planet would be about 11 inches a year. Because of living things that have created soil, and that absorb and give up moisture themselves, the average rainfall is 29* inches. That is, the water gets cycled and cycled, almost two whole extra times, because there’s life on this planet.
What could be the equivalent in terms of sharing/cycling the wealth amongst human beings more equitably?
*Wikipedia says 39 inches.
The new normal, which I feel has been in place for several years, has left me feeling disenfranchised. (I imagine many poor and working-class Americans feel likewise.)
Rick Perry and Tom Coburn do not speak for me. We could not be farther apart on economic and social issues.
The Tea Party does a great job of capturing anger (something President Obama does not), but has no sense of compassion, empathy or generosity. To them, these are values only a socialist could embrace.
Yet I feel no connection with this president, either.
His fault? Or mine?
It’s little wonder his enemies don’t listen to him any longer, I often find myself tuning out President Obama.
I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.
How about a townhall of unemployed Americans?
Or, as Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters wondered out loud yesterday in extreme frustration, where was the stop at a black community?
An inner city?
I relate to Detroit more than Corn Cob, Iowa, Mr. President.
The new normal, for me, is one of constantly being one or two mortgage payments behind, of regularly paying the utility bill late, of not even the possibility of a vacation, of putting off the purchase of a good pair of shoes because there’s always another bill that has to be paid first.
This is the America I live in. Rick Perry doesn’t recognize it. But neither doesn’t President Obama.
The new normal, which I feel has been in place for several years, has left me feeling disenfranchised. (I imagine many poor and working-class Americans feel likewise.)
Rick Perry and Tom Coburn do not speak for me. We could not be farther apart on economic and social issues.
The Tea Party does a great job of capturing anger (something President Obama does not), but has no sense of compassion, empathy or generosity. To them, these are values only a socialist could embrace.
Yet I feel no connection with this president, either.
His fault? Or mine?
It’s little wonder his enemies don’t listen to him any longer, I often find myself tuning out President Obama.
I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.
How about a townhall of unemployed Americans?
Or, as Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters wondered out loud yesterday in extreme frustration, where was the stop at a black community?
An inner city?
I relate to Detroit more than Corn Cob, Iowa, Mr. President.
The new normal, for me, is one of constantly being one or two mortgage payments behind, of regularly paying the utility bill late, of not even the possibility of a vacation, of putting off the purchase of a good pair of shoes because there’s always another bill that has to be paid first.
This is the America I live in. Rick Perry doesn’t recognize it. But neither doesn’t President Obama.
The new normal, which I feel has been in place for several years, has left me feeling disenfranchised. (I imagine many poor and working-class Americans feel likewise.)
Rick Perry and Tom Coburn do not speak for me. We could not be farther apart on economic and social issues.
The Tea Party does a great job of capturing anger (something President Obama does not), but has no sense of compassion, empathy or generosity. To them, these are values only a socialist could embrace.
Yet I feel no connection with this president, either.
His fault? Or mine?
It’s little wonder his enemies don’t listen to him any longer, I often find myself tuning out President Obama.
I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.
How about a townhall of unemployed Americans?
Or, as Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters wondered out loud yesterday in extreme frustration, where was the stop at a black community?
An inner city?
I relate to Detroit more than Corn Cob, Iowa, Mr. President.
The new normal, for me, is one of constantly being one or two mortgage payments behind, of regularly paying the utility bill late, of not even the possibility of a vacation, of putting off the purchase of a good pair of shoes because there’s always another bill that has to be paid first.
This is the America I live in. Rick Perry doesn’t recognize it. But neither does President Obama.
The new normal, which I feel has been in place for several years, has left me feeling disenfranchised. (I imagine many poor and working-class Americans feel likewise.)
Rick Perry and Tom Coburn do not speak for me. We could not be farther apart on economic and social issues.
The Tea Party does a great job of capturing anger (something President Obama does not), but has no sense of compassion, empathy or generosity. To them, these are values only a socialist could embrace.
Yet I feel no connection with this president, either.
His fault? Or mine?
It’s little wonder his enemies don’t listen to him any longer, I often find myself tuning out President Obama.
I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.
How about a townhall of unemployed Americans?
Or, as Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters wondered out loud yesterday in extreme frustration, where was the stop at a black community?
An inner city?
I relate to Detroit more than Corn Cob, Iowa, Mr. President.
The new normal, for me, is one of constantly being one or two mortgage payments behind, of regularly paying the utility bill late, of not even the possibility of a vacation, of putting off the purchase of a good pair of shoes because there’s always another bill that has to be paid first.
This is the America I live in. Rick Perry doesn’t recognize it. But neither does President Obama.
‘If we want water at the top of the hill, we have to actively intervene: we have to pump it.’
I like your theme, and have a sense that the identification of what is needed, in terms of results, has merit. For those with libertarian leanings, process often carries greater weight than results. For those with wealth, the result seems to be important, at least for many of them. The most difficult part to understand is why no amount ever seems to be sufficient. So, there are at least two categories of people in opposition to most approaches to priming the pump, the libertarians and the rich.
‘I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.’
Votes?
‘If we want water at the top of the hill, we have to actively intervene: we have to pump it.’
I like your theme, and have a sense that the identification of what is needed, in terms of results, has merit. For those with libertarian leanings, process often carries greater weight than results. For those with wealth, the result seems to be important, at least for many of them. The most difficult part to understand is why no amount ever seems to be sufficient. So, there are at least two categories of people in opposition to most approaches to priming the pump, the libertarians and the rich.
‘I’m smart enough to not begrudge the man a vacation. But I did wonder what the point was of his just-completed bus tour through postcard-worthy settings though lilly-white middle America.’
Votes?
GoodOldBoy, thanks, and I in turn like your observation that there are both process reasons and results reasons for people’s ways of looking at these issues.
I tend to be a very abstract, big picture, back to first principles thinker. On the one hand, that makes me desperately ineffectual in the ruckus and detail orientation of practical politics. On the other hand, when these discussions come up I am constantly frustrated because we (“we” in the broadest sense) go around and around the same points, and yet a lot of it is talking past each other because we are starting from different first principles (sometimes conscious, sometimes not) and unexamined or at least unstated underlying assumptions. Sometimes I think that if people would just state their first principles — by which I mean, more or less, axioms that can’t be “proven” — the discussion would just stop, because it would be apparent at the outset that people are working from different and incompatible axioms, and therefore are inevitably going to come to different conclusions.
Then, I suppose, how much fun would that be? 😉
One of my first principles is that we are all in this together, and we ought at some level to be taking care of each other, not just ourselves. (Or is that two principles?)
Working that out in practice is another thing entirely.
GoodOldBoy, thanks, and I in turn like your observation that there are both process reasons and results reasons for people’s ways of looking at these issues.
I tend to be a very abstract, big picture, back to first principles thinker. On the one hand, that makes me desperately ineffectual in the ruckus and detail orientation of practical politics. On the other hand, when these discussions come up I am constantly frustrated because we (“we” in the broadest sense) go around and around the same points, and yet a lot of it is talking past each other because we are starting from different first principles (sometimes conscious, sometimes not) and unexamined or at least unstated underlying assumptions. Sometimes I think that if people would just state their first principles — by which I mean, more or less, axioms that can’t be “proven” — the discussion would just stop, because it would be apparent at the outset that people are working from different and incompatible axioms, and therefore are inevitably going to come to different conclusions.
Then, I suppose, how much fun would that be? 😉
One of my first principles is that we are all in this together, and we ought at some level to be taking care of each other, not just ourselves. (Or is that two principles?)
Working that out in practice is another thing entirely.
‘GoodOldBoy, thanks, and I in turn like your observation that there are both process reasons and results reasons for people’s ways of looking at these issues.’
You get a positive reaction from me for the text and meaning of your comment.
And here’s the thing. If the wealthy willingly relinquished their excessive portion of wealth, we still face the problem of constructive deployment of that wealth. This is a re-statement of the Right’s never-ceasing question on government social spending. And the actual need is to figure out a way to re-align the ongoing stream of wealth creation so that the results are not skewed like now. I won’t contest the attractiveness of the outcome envisioned by ‘priming the pump’, but I have many doubts about how to get there. Some of the very wealthy have decided how to relinquish their wealth, some positive, some not so.
‘GoodOldBoy, thanks, and I in turn like your observation that there are both process reasons and results reasons for people’s ways of looking at these issues.’
You get a positive reaction from me for the text and meaning of your comment.
And here’s the thing. If the wealthy willingly relinquished their excessive portion of wealth, we still face the problem of constructive deployment of that wealth. This is a re-statement of the Right’s never-ceasing question on government social spending. And the actual need is to figure out a way to re-align the ongoing stream of wealth creation so that the results are not skewed like now. I won’t contest the attractiveness of the outcome envisioned by ‘priming the pump’, but I have many doubts about how to get there. Some of the very wealthy have decided how to relinquish their wealth, some positive, some not so.
I think that if people would just state their first principles … the discussion would just stop
LOL.
I think it would stop for about three minutes, while everybody’s heads exploded, and then the real ruckus would begin.
Sounds like fun to me. 🙂
I think that if people would just state their first principles … the discussion would just stop
LOL.
I think it would stop for about three minutes, while everybody’s heads exploded, and then the real ruckus would begin.
Sounds like fun to me. 🙂
Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?
Yes, as a matter of arithmetic. That is, GDP is (productivity per worker) times (number of workers). So the only way GDP can decline if productivity/worker increases is if the number of workers drops.
Somebody check me on this: If productivity grows faster than GDP, then the economy will shed jobs, even if growth is good, right?
Yes, as a matter of arithmetic. That is, GDP is (productivity per worker) times (number of workers). So the only way GDP can decline if productivity/worker increases is if the number of workers drops.
I was born and grew up dirt poor in Georgia. I managed to squeak by through public school and went to college on a merit scholarship (I don’t know if such exist anymore). Over a fifty year period, I was able to move from the bottom decile to the top decile. This happened while many people were filthy rich and getting richer all the time. As long as this is possible for people with ability and initiative, I’m OK with it.
Not trying to throw gas on the embers here, but the thing that strikes me about this is that this whole system of getting ahead is attributable not to a conservative urge, but to liberal efforts. It was progressive taxation that allowed public schools to be built, and I’m having a hard time imagining that the idea of merit scholarships and identifying people who deserved a break has any position in a conservative constellation, either now or back then. That there was massive inequality back then does not seem to be an argument that massive inequality is necessary for such things, but more that these things can happen in spite of such conditions.
I was born and grew up dirt poor in Georgia. I managed to squeak by through public school and went to college on a merit scholarship (I don’t know if such exist anymore). Over a fifty year period, I was able to move from the bottom decile to the top decile. This happened while many people were filthy rich and getting richer all the time. As long as this is possible for people with ability and initiative, I’m OK with it.
Not trying to throw gas on the embers here, but the thing that strikes me about this is that this whole system of getting ahead is attributable not to a conservative urge, but to liberal efforts. It was progressive taxation that allowed public schools to be built, and I’m having a hard time imagining that the idea of merit scholarships and identifying people who deserved a break has any position in a conservative constellation, either now or back then. That there was massive inequality back then does not seem to be an argument that massive inequality is necessary for such things, but more that these things can happen in spite of such conditions.
A grey-haired old professor once told me that the numerical solution of every linear equation in engineering is 7.36 — you just have to express it in the right units: acre-microns per millifortnight per troy ounce, or something like that.
I mention this because I find it funny; I am reminded of it by the discussion around GoodOleBoy’s widget parable. Both those things may be evidence of a twisted mind, I admit.
In any case, I want to add something to what Russell observed about GOB’s capitalist. To paraphrase, Russell pointed out that it would be an odd sort of capitalist who is not interested in “growth” — who is content, in GOB’s postulation, to keep producing a mere 1000 widgets even after the inventor “trades” him an innovation so remarkable that it increases worker productivity 10-fold.
The thing I want to add is that GOB’s “inventor” is not necessarily a customary unit like a foot-pound or a kilowatt, either. The inventor’s “innovation” could easily be the bright idea to cut widget production costs 10-fold by simply relocating the widget plant to a place where wages are 10% of what he pays his current workers.
GOB can correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect he had in mind an innovation something like the cotton gin or the sewing machine, not something like “offshoring” or “outsourcing”. If we define “productivity” in the right units, then the latter can be every bit as productivity-enhancing as the former. And of course the inventors who invent them and the capitalists who fund them “deserve” to reap all the rewards, as GOB would seem to imply.
But it’s important to keep the units straight. Otherwise you can keep getting the same answer (e.g a 7.36% corporate tax rate) regardless what the question is.
–TP
A grey-haired old professor once told me that the numerical solution of every linear equation in engineering is 7.36 — you just have to express it in the right units: acre-microns per millifortnight per troy ounce, or something like that.
I mention this because I find it funny; I am reminded of it by the discussion around GoodOleBoy’s widget parable. Both those things may be evidence of a twisted mind, I admit.
In any case, I want to add something to what Russell observed about GOB’s capitalist. To paraphrase, Russell pointed out that it would be an odd sort of capitalist who is not interested in “growth” — who is content, in GOB’s postulation, to keep producing a mere 1000 widgets even after the inventor “trades” him an innovation so remarkable that it increases worker productivity 10-fold.
The thing I want to add is that GOB’s “inventor” is not necessarily a customary unit like a foot-pound or a kilowatt, either. The inventor’s “innovation” could easily be the bright idea to cut widget production costs 10-fold by simply relocating the widget plant to a place where wages are 10% of what he pays his current workers.
GOB can correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect he had in mind an innovation something like the cotton gin or the sewing machine, not something like “offshoring” or “outsourcing”. If we define “productivity” in the right units, then the latter can be every bit as productivity-enhancing as the former. And of course the inventors who invent them and the capitalists who fund them “deserve” to reap all the rewards, as GOB would seem to imply.
But it’s important to keep the units straight. Otherwise you can keep getting the same answer (e.g a 7.36% corporate tax rate) regardless what the question is.
–TP
[Sorry if this comes through twice…The comment software is behaving weirdly.]
Having been reminded of “merit scholarships,” I would like to ask GOB where the virtues came from that made him (or me) “deserving” of such help.
I did absolutely nothing to earn the qualities and circumstances that made me eligible for the merit scholarships I received.
I had the luck to be born with certain talents, one of which was the motivation to work hard to develop some of the others.
I had the luck to be born into a family that valued education as a way to rise in the world, so I got a lot of encouragement to excel in school (I was the first person on both sides of my family to go to college).
I had the luck to live in a stable community with decent schools that gave me access to teachers who nurtured me and guidance counselors who at least tried to guide me. (Their horizons were not as wide as mine but I appreciated their good intentions.)
I was very full of myself when I was 18, but looking back, I don’t see why I “deserved” more help in getting started on adult life than people who were less lucky than I in their talents and circumstances. Nor do I see why the fact that I was lucky enough to be born who and where I was born makes me “deserve” a better life than people who weren’t so lucky.
The notion that anyone has “earned” a billion dollars is, according to my first principles, ridiculous. We all get what we get as players in a game with a certain set of rules. The rules aren’t laws of the universe, they’re contingent. Who invented and codified “property rights” if not the people who had already grabbed the property? Though I’m up for trying to change the codification through anything but peaceful means, Countme-in’s framings of the situation notwithstanding, I don’t see anything sacred about any particular codification.
[Sorry if this comes through twice…The comment software is behaving weirdly.]
Having been reminded of “merit scholarships,” I would like to ask GOB where the virtues came from that made him (or me) “deserving” of such help.
I did absolutely nothing to earn the qualities and circumstances that made me eligible for the merit scholarships I received.
I had the luck to be born with certain talents, one of which was the motivation to work hard to develop some of the others.
I had the luck to be born into a family that valued education as a way to rise in the world, so I got a lot of encouragement to excel in school (I was the first person on both sides of my family to go to college).
I had the luck to live in a stable community with decent schools that gave me access to teachers who nurtured me and guidance counselors who at least tried to guide me. (Their horizons were not as wide as mine but I appreciated their good intentions.)
I was very full of myself when I was 18, but looking back, I don’t see why I “deserved” more help in getting started on adult life than people who were less lucky than I in their talents and circumstances. Nor do I see why the fact that I was lucky enough to be born who and where I was born makes me “deserve” a better life than people who weren’t so lucky.
The notion that anyone has “earned” a billion dollars is, according to my first principles, ridiculous. We all get what we get as players in a game with a certain set of rules. The rules aren’t laws of the universe, they’re contingent. Who invented and codified “property rights” if not the people who had already grabbed the property? Though I’m up for trying to change the codification through anything but peaceful means, Countme-in’s framings of the situation notwithstanding, I don’t see anything sacred about any particular codification.
Though I’m up for trying to change the codification through anything but peaceful means
Yikes — *not* up for trying……
I.e., naive as it makes me, I’m still willing to go through channels, lol.
Though I’m up for trying to change the codification through anything but peaceful means
Yikes — *not* up for trying……
I.e., naive as it makes me, I’m still willing to go through channels, lol.
re: GOB’s rags to riches story:
GOB, congratulations. Nobody can take your life story away from you, and nothing I say is meant to dishonor your achievements.
But, what lj said, in that GOB grew up in an era when a serious effort was being made to assist people who were poor. Also, I don’t know GOB’s particular story or circumstances, but extraordinary things happen to many people in peculiar circumstances. An interesting example is Rupert Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng Murdoch.
The thing is, children all have potential. It’s not always a matter of character or personality whether or not they achieve it. Every loving parent wants to give his or her own children every advantage, knowing that, although his or her children are “the best”, they need to have nurturing (nutrition, discipline, safety, education, love, etc.) to succeed. Government can’t provide all of those things, but it can help in a huge way (WIC, Head Start, etc. come to mind).
And what about people who aren’t smart, or suffer from mental illness, or just don’t “cut it”? Do they just get left by the side of the road while the eminent Rush Limbaugh makes $50,000,000 a year? Repeat, $50,000,000 a year. Okay, fine. Whatever. $50,000,000 a year to call Obama an oreo.
re: GOB’s rags to riches story:
GOB, congratulations. Nobody can take your life story away from you, and nothing I say is meant to dishonor your achievements.
But, what lj said, in that GOB grew up in an era when a serious effort was being made to assist people who were poor. Also, I don’t know GOB’s particular story or circumstances, but extraordinary things happen to many people in peculiar circumstances. An interesting example is Rupert Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng Murdoch.
The thing is, children all have potential. It’s not always a matter of character or personality whether or not they achieve it. Every loving parent wants to give his or her own children every advantage, knowing that, although his or her children are “the best”, they need to have nurturing (nutrition, discipline, safety, education, love, etc.) to succeed. Government can’t provide all of those things, but it can help in a huge way (WIC, Head Start, etc. come to mind).
And what about people who aren’t smart, or suffer from mental illness, or just don’t “cut it”? Do they just get left by the side of the road while the eminent Rush Limbaugh makes $50,000,000 a year? Repeat, $50,000,000 a year. Okay, fine. Whatever. $50,000,000 a year to call Obama an oreo.
Good comments, with kudos to GoodOldboy and a tip of the hat to BTFB.
sapient, Limbaugh’s annual suck on what’s left of the productive economy has kachinged up to $51,000,000 just since the oreo comment, the fat man knowing and milking his racist Republican Confederate audience as he does.
He’s signed on to a bonus option of $10,000,000 for the months leading up to the 2012 election for unlimited use of the word “pickaninny” in reference to the President’s daughters.
And let’s not forget the private audiences of ten or less wealthy Republican donors, where, over steaks and cigars, he will roar the “N” word no less than four dozen times as part of the obligatory “what’s wrong with this great country of ours” speech.
Word is that Rep. Allen West will warm up the room for Limbaugh’s appearance by serving canapes while dressed as Harriet Tubman. Unfortunately, for Democrats, Joe Biden will remark at some point that West/Tubman is/was a clean, well-spoken man/woman.
Glenn Beck, not to be outdone, is tapping into the rich Israeli right-wing hate market by regaling them with the news that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of liberal and moderate Israelis who are protesting their economic plight are part of self-hating kike George Soros’ evil plan to thwart the Book of Revelations, and if there is anything right-wingers hate, it’s messing with the End Days.
Texas Governor Rick Perry will host the annual drag a Federal official to their death rodeo in his fine State.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona is suiting up a chain gang of 100,000 Mexicans in pink underwear to sort of conga-line across the country to South Carolina during the Fall 2012 election season to bring in Tea Partier’s crops free of charge, since out of work legal Americans have suddenly threatened to do the work at the Federal minimum wage, an abomination to modern economic theory.
Erick Erickson at Redrum and Roger Ailes at FOX are keeping a close eye on all of these developments and might upgrade their respective grifts by specifying in more descriptive terms who “those people”, whom they refer to around the clock, might be.
Michelle Bachmann will set up and personally distribute the smooches in her the “Kiss a Gay Man And Change His Life Kissing Booth” in Republican primary states for the duration of the campaign.
Good comments, with kudos to GoodOldboy and a tip of the hat to BTFB.
sapient, Limbaugh’s annual suck on what’s left of the productive economy has kachinged up to $51,000,000 just since the oreo comment, the fat man knowing and milking his racist Republican Confederate audience as he does.
He’s signed on to a bonus option of $10,000,000 for the months leading up to the 2012 election for unlimited use of the word “pickaninny” in reference to the President’s daughters.
And let’s not forget the private audiences of ten or less wealthy Republican donors, where, over steaks and cigars, he will roar the “N” word no less than four dozen times as part of the obligatory “what’s wrong with this great country of ours” speech.
Word is that Rep. Allen West will warm up the room for Limbaugh’s appearance by serving canapes while dressed as Harriet Tubman. Unfortunately, for Democrats, Joe Biden will remark at some point that West/Tubman is/was a clean, well-spoken man/woman.
Glenn Beck, not to be outdone, is tapping into the rich Israeli right-wing hate market by regaling them with the news that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of liberal and moderate Israelis who are protesting their economic plight are part of self-hating kike George Soros’ evil plan to thwart the Book of Revelations, and if there is anything right-wingers hate, it’s messing with the End Days.
Texas Governor Rick Perry will host the annual drag a Federal official to their death rodeo in his fine State.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona is suiting up a chain gang of 100,000 Mexicans in pink underwear to sort of conga-line across the country to South Carolina during the Fall 2012 election season to bring in Tea Partier’s crops free of charge, since out of work legal Americans have suddenly threatened to do the work at the Federal minimum wage, an abomination to modern economic theory.
Erick Erickson at Redrum and Roger Ailes at FOX are keeping a close eye on all of these developments and might upgrade their respective grifts by specifying in more descriptive terms who “those people”, whom they refer to around the clock, might be.
Michelle Bachmann will set up and personally distribute the smooches in her the “Kiss a Gay Man And Change His Life Kissing Booth” in Republican primary states for the duration of the campaign.
Just once, I would like to have a conservative show up here, or anywhere, to tell us about their reverse “riches-to-rags” story, in which they have squandered their talents and resources in a life of unproductive ennui as they worked themselves down the ladder and as a result, in accordance with their first principles, have decided to starve themselves to death and forgo all medical care since they are short of cash.
Just once, I would like to have a conservative show up here, or anywhere, to tell us about their reverse “riches-to-rags” story, in which they have squandered their talents and resources in a life of unproductive ennui as they worked themselves down the ladder and as a result, in accordance with their first principles, have decided to starve themselves to death and forgo all medical care since they are short of cash.
Not to be left out, Paul Ryan has finally figured out how to combine the money making principles of “Atlas Shrugged” with his responsibilities as the elected representative of all of his constituents by, instead of those untidy public meetings wherein speech is, if you’ll pardon the expression, free, his constituents will now be charged $15 a head to let him know what’s on their minds.
Raising one’s free voice in support of, say, Obamacare will produce an additional charge of disorderly conduct, unlike Tea Party festivals of previous Augusts, although if you keep your mouth shut, your $15 bucks will let you enter the raffle for whom gets to give John Galt a happy ending at each gathering.
Not to be left out, Paul Ryan has finally figured out how to combine the money making principles of “Atlas Shrugged” with his responsibilities as the elected representative of all of his constituents by, instead of those untidy public meetings wherein speech is, if you’ll pardon the expression, free, his constituents will now be charged $15 a head to let him know what’s on their minds.
Raising one’s free voice in support of, say, Obamacare will produce an additional charge of disorderly conduct, unlike Tea Party festivals of previous Augusts, although if you keep your mouth shut, your $15 bucks will let you enter the raffle for whom gets to give John Galt a happy ending at each gathering.
The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure…..partially because there isn’t a large-enough solid-left voting block in congress to give people like that the support they need.
Can we stipulate that left/right polling numbers are almost meaningless? Look at polling data generated by specific questions. You will find that a majority of Americans are often – in terms of our present political spectrum – very left wing. You will also find that the American People are, in some ways – in the same terms – right wing. So explain to me how it makes sense for public officials to make major policy decisions based on ideological-indentification polling data.
Bottom line: Republicans lead – they lead us off a cliff, but they lead. Democrats no longer lead, and that includes Obama. The recent debate between the technocratic view that rhetoric (from Obama) doesn’t matter at all vs the idea that it’s critical, completely misses this point, I think.
The GOP’s form of ‘leadership’ is not spelled with a capital ‘L’ – they are pandering to fear, etc. But they have a point of view and they never give up. What is the Democratic point of view? There isn’t one. This is not childish whining. BTW, Democratic turnout in 2010 was not due primarily to petulance. Try ‘apathy’.
The instant any liberal places any pressure on any Democrat to shift leftwards, it makes them less secure…..partially because there isn’t a large-enough solid-left voting block in congress to give people like that the support they need.
Can we stipulate that left/right polling numbers are almost meaningless? Look at polling data generated by specific questions. You will find that a majority of Americans are often – in terms of our present political spectrum – very left wing. You will also find that the American People are, in some ways – in the same terms – right wing. So explain to me how it makes sense for public officials to make major policy decisions based on ideological-indentification polling data.
Bottom line: Republicans lead – they lead us off a cliff, but they lead. Democrats no longer lead, and that includes Obama. The recent debate between the technocratic view that rhetoric (from Obama) doesn’t matter at all vs the idea that it’s critical, completely misses this point, I think.
The GOP’s form of ‘leadership’ is not spelled with a capital ‘L’ – they are pandering to fear, etc. But they have a point of view and they never give up. What is the Democratic point of view? There isn’t one. This is not childish whining. BTW, Democratic turnout in 2010 was not due primarily to petulance. Try ‘apathy’.
“Republicans lead – they lead us off a cliff, but they lead. Democrats no longer lead, and that includes Obama.”
Not entirely accurate. Republicans lead “us” off a cliff – that’s true – but “we” follow. Followers are just as important as leaders. Republicans have a core group of people who will follow, who realize it’s important to win, and who will vote. Democrats have a much smaller core. They resist responding to slogans and demagoguery, which is admirable, but they need to discover the importance of discipline. Democrats are unlikely ever to have a leader that they agree with on every detail of policy and strategy. Once they have a leader, they need to follow, or no steps forward will be taken before several steps back will occur.
In these times, apathy is either recklessness, gross negligence or stupidity.
“Republicans lead – they lead us off a cliff, but they lead. Democrats no longer lead, and that includes Obama.”
Not entirely accurate. Republicans lead “us” off a cliff – that’s true – but “we” follow. Followers are just as important as leaders. Republicans have a core group of people who will follow, who realize it’s important to win, and who will vote. Democrats have a much smaller core. They resist responding to slogans and demagoguery, which is admirable, but they need to discover the importance of discipline. Democrats are unlikely ever to have a leader that they agree with on every detail of policy and strategy. Once they have a leader, they need to follow, or no steps forward will be taken before several steps back will occur.
In these times, apathy is either recklessness, gross negligence or stupidity.
In these times, apathy is either recklessness, gross negligence or stupidity.
So glad we got that straightened out.
In these times, apathy is either recklessness, gross negligence or stupidity.
So glad we got that straightened out.
‘Republicans lead “us” of a cliff, but they lead — that’s true, but “we” follow.’
All the more reason to race ahead of them, strap a tactical nuclear weapon to ourselves, and go over the cliff head first with a banshee shriek — just to show them how its done.
The Slim Pickens strategy, except that we need something to make even Slim Pickens wet his chaps.
‘Republicans lead “us” of a cliff, but they lead — that’s true, but “we” follow.’
All the more reason to race ahead of them, strap a tactical nuclear weapon to ourselves, and go over the cliff head first with a banshee shriek — just to show them how its done.
The Slim Pickens strategy, except that we need something to make even Slim Pickens wet his chaps.
Via Balloon Juice:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/08/20/yes-but-the-rich-are-different/
Naomi Klein, who I’m sure is not held in high esteem by some here, regarding the great global saquero by the entitled elite.
She claims to have found a poll of millionaires in the Wall Street Journal (I’ll see if I can find it) which claims 94% of them are afraid of violence in the streets.
As an aside, the figure rose to 94.1% after Rupert Murdoch got the cream pie in the kisser and called his pollster.
I guess they mean by the rest of us, who don’t have the means to riot via flash sell order mob and destroy property and wealth in the financial markets.
Why do I think the wealthy, of which I wish I had earned enough to be one, by which I mean one who would just lay low, tip high, and say thank you for my good fortune rather than fretting sadistically about the cut of pork chops purchased by food stamp recipients, are going to end up loving one thing about government: it’s expensive and unchallenged capacity to protect them and their stuff from chaos.
Via Balloon Juice:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/08/20/yes-but-the-rich-are-different/
Naomi Klein, who I’m sure is not held in high esteem by some here, regarding the great global saquero by the entitled elite.
She claims to have found a poll of millionaires in the Wall Street Journal (I’ll see if I can find it) which claims 94% of them are afraid of violence in the streets.
As an aside, the figure rose to 94.1% after Rupert Murdoch got the cream pie in the kisser and called his pollster.
I guess they mean by the rest of us, who don’t have the means to riot via flash sell order mob and destroy property and wealth in the financial markets.
Why do I think the wealthy, of which I wish I had earned enough to be one, by which I mean one who would just lay low, tip high, and say thank you for my good fortune rather than fretting sadistically about the cut of pork chops purchased by food stamp recipients, are going to end up loving one thing about government: it’s expensive and unchallenged capacity to protect them and their stuff from chaos.
“What? The right has taken the rhetorical high ground? Do tell.”
Sapient, I may not be the clearest writer in the world but after all my complaints about how over the past several decades we’ve seen Republican politicians, paid-for intellectuals at the Heritage Foundation, and economists at the University of Chicago all pushing the notion that guvmint is bad, the free market is always right, and deficits are evil (except when Republicans are in the WH), you might have figured out what I meant by the rhetorical high ground. On economic policy we argue on their turf. It’s presumably why Obama adopts their framework in talking about deficits and the economy in ways that drive Krugman nuts (unless Obama actually believes what he is saying, which is worse).
As for “discipline” you’re not going to get it. This is as unrealistic as anything I’ve seen from Green Party advocates. When a Democratic President takes a position people despise you can’t expect people to shut up about it (leaving aside the question of whether they even should). At best you might hope they will hold their noses and vote for him anyway, which then raises the problem I mentioned in my first post in this thread.
Incidentally, I think part of what we need is a lot of liberals committed to intellectual honesty, which is Bob Somerby’s main complaint about the left. Friday’s post is fairly typical of what he writes–
“http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081911.shtml”
Somerby is a pretty mainstream centrist liberal, as best I can tell, but he’s in a continual state of rage over the sheer stupidity of most of the political discussion that occurs in our country, on both the left and right. Though I’m not sure there are that many people who take Chris Matthews seriously. (At least I hope not.)
“What? The right has taken the rhetorical high ground? Do tell.”
Sapient, I may not be the clearest writer in the world but after all my complaints about how over the past several decades we’ve seen Republican politicians, paid-for intellectuals at the Heritage Foundation, and economists at the University of Chicago all pushing the notion that guvmint is bad, the free market is always right, and deficits are evil (except when Republicans are in the WH), you might have figured out what I meant by the rhetorical high ground. On economic policy we argue on their turf. It’s presumably why Obama adopts their framework in talking about deficits and the economy in ways that drive Krugman nuts (unless Obama actually believes what he is saying, which is worse).
As for “discipline” you’re not going to get it. This is as unrealistic as anything I’ve seen from Green Party advocates. When a Democratic President takes a position people despise you can’t expect people to shut up about it (leaving aside the question of whether they even should). At best you might hope they will hold their noses and vote for him anyway, which then raises the problem I mentioned in my first post in this thread.
Incidentally, I think part of what we need is a lot of liberals committed to intellectual honesty, which is Bob Somerby’s main complaint about the left. Friday’s post is fairly typical of what he writes–
“http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081911.shtml”
Somerby is a pretty mainstream centrist liberal, as best I can tell, but he’s in a continual state of rage over the sheer stupidity of most of the political discussion that occurs in our country, on both the left and right. Though I’m not sure there are that many people who take Chris Matthews seriously. (At least I hope not.)
Weird. I thought I sent in a correction with the link properly typed, but it’s not there. Here is my Somerby link again, so you don’t have to copy and paste–
link
Weird. I thought I sent in a correction with the link properly typed, but it’s not there. Here is my Somerby link again, so you don’t have to copy and paste–
link
Why these times mean that people who don’t see politics the way I do are reckless, negligent, or stupid.
Why these times mean that people who don’t see politics the way I do are reckless, negligent, or stupid.
Donald, thanks for the Bob Somerby link. I agree with his comments about the press – and understand now what you meant about rhetorical high ground. The main problem with the rhetoric though, as your link points out, is not that Democratic politicians embrace it on purpose (although I won’t deny that it is a frustrating problem), but that Republican talking points have shaped the debate in the media, and Democrats can’t be confident that their positions are being accurately portrayed.
Your earlier link to Bruce Bartlett is an example of the latter phenomenon, and Krugman is just as guilty of misrepresenting history – it’s the reason people “despise” Obama’s policies and blame it all on him: the example of “tax cut extension in exchange for no quid pro quo” is what I’m referring to here (although there are more in the link you provided). Of course there was a huge quid pro quo from the point of view of unemployed Americans who were not going to see an extension of their unemployment insurance. There’s some kind of blind faith among some disappointed liberals that Obama could have held out longer and gotten more. There’s just no way to prove that he could get the votes for any better deals. Rather than focus my rage on the possibility that his bargains were inadequate, I’d prefer to point it toward the fact that the American people were incapable in 2010 of delivering up a better Congress. Rather than dreaming of replacing Obama (a man who, by all accounts, would sign whatever progressive legislation reached his desk, not to mention the only reasonably liberal person who has any chance of taking office in 2012) I’d rather figure out how to get him reelected, and how to get some of those good laws before him.
Donald, thanks for the Bob Somerby link. I agree with his comments about the press – and understand now what you meant about rhetorical high ground. The main problem with the rhetoric though, as your link points out, is not that Democratic politicians embrace it on purpose (although I won’t deny that it is a frustrating problem), but that Republican talking points have shaped the debate in the media, and Democrats can’t be confident that their positions are being accurately portrayed.
Your earlier link to Bruce Bartlett is an example of the latter phenomenon, and Krugman is just as guilty of misrepresenting history – it’s the reason people “despise” Obama’s policies and blame it all on him: the example of “tax cut extension in exchange for no quid pro quo” is what I’m referring to here (although there are more in the link you provided). Of course there was a huge quid pro quo from the point of view of unemployed Americans who were not going to see an extension of their unemployment insurance. There’s some kind of blind faith among some disappointed liberals that Obama could have held out longer and gotten more. There’s just no way to prove that he could get the votes for any better deals. Rather than focus my rage on the possibility that his bargains were inadequate, I’d prefer to point it toward the fact that the American people were incapable in 2010 of delivering up a better Congress. Rather than dreaming of replacing Obama (a man who, by all accounts, would sign whatever progressive legislation reached his desk, not to mention the only reasonably liberal person who has any chance of taking office in 2012) I’d rather figure out how to get him reelected, and how to get some of those good laws before him.
O.K., so Naomi Klein is not to everyone’s taste; after all, she’s a snappy dresser for a liberal bomb-thrower, and I suspect is a lousy tipper to boot.
So, instead or in addition, read Alan Abelson’s in this weekend’s, Barron’s Weekly, in which, among other topics, he has a quick conversation with Jeremy Grantham, one of the great investors with success equal to Warren Buffett, (can’t get past the firewall, so no link), founder of GMO, the mutual fund investment firm and a keen, more right than not observer of world markets.
Buy it on the news stand. Read it. He explains the correlation between the dramatic shrinkage in participation in the labor force over the last decade, speculative mortgage debt, where we are today and how we’re going to get out of it.
We’re not, given current retrenchment and austerity policies.
Money quote: ‘Jeremy wistfully longs for the Eisenhower era, when there weren’t such gaping gaps in income. The 1950s and 1960s, he points out, were ‘the heyday of sustained U.S. economic gains.’
My addition: there are many factors at work today not present much in the 1950s and 1960s, but one big difference then was a steeply progressive tax code with high marginal rates at 91%. Name me one successful entrepreneur who quit and ran away to Galtland. Besides Ronald Reagan, I mean, who by that time wasn’t successful, wasn’t an entrepreneur, and lied about running away by turning down film roles. His fallback position, after Bonzo protested equal credit with him, was a series of government jobs at taxpayer expense. Kind of self-stimulus for the moderately talented, though he was good in “King’s Row”.
But, Abelson and Grantham continue: ‘Economic policy-making, he (Grantham) complains, has been between half-hearted Keynsian stimulus and ill-timed “Austrian” cutbacks. “Clearly,” he sighs, “this mishmash has not been effective at job creation.” It has been quite effective at job destruction.’
When you’re done there, pop over to page M2, Charting The Market and look at the plunging stock charts of technology firms with the attending comments for several that demand for their products is plunging because, by and large, government is canceling orders.
Despite the S&P downgrade, everyone is buying Treasuries, (there’s too much government debt, right-wing traders yell into one telephone to Maria Bartiromo, while screaming “buy as much government debt as you can your hands on” into another telephone) driving yields to historic lows.
Seems like a good time, since no one wants to pay taxes, for government to borrow at bargain rates and stimulate.
Or, I can move from Grantham’s table and have lunch with Naomi Klein and help her flash-mob the next saquero.
Meanwhile, a Republican candidate, rediscovers sanity as a platform:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/huntsman-wakes-up.html
It’s a little like discovering that by mistake, a completely reasonable sane person has been confined in the asylum with gibbering lunatics and he found the door wasn’t locked and decided to take a little walk.
O.K., so Naomi Klein is not to everyone’s taste; after all, she’s a snappy dresser for a liberal bomb-thrower, and I suspect is a lousy tipper to boot.
So, instead or in addition, read Alan Abelson’s in this weekend’s, Barron’s Weekly, in which, among other topics, he has a quick conversation with Jeremy Grantham, one of the great investors with success equal to Warren Buffett, (can’t get past the firewall, so no link), founder of GMO, the mutual fund investment firm and a keen, more right than not observer of world markets.
Buy it on the news stand. Read it. He explains the correlation between the dramatic shrinkage in participation in the labor force over the last decade, speculative mortgage debt, where we are today and how we’re going to get out of it.
We’re not, given current retrenchment and austerity policies.
Money quote: ‘Jeremy wistfully longs for the Eisenhower era, when there weren’t such gaping gaps in income. The 1950s and 1960s, he points out, were ‘the heyday of sustained U.S. economic gains.’
My addition: there are many factors at work today not present much in the 1950s and 1960s, but one big difference then was a steeply progressive tax code with high marginal rates at 91%. Name me one successful entrepreneur who quit and ran away to Galtland. Besides Ronald Reagan, I mean, who by that time wasn’t successful, wasn’t an entrepreneur, and lied about running away by turning down film roles. His fallback position, after Bonzo protested equal credit with him, was a series of government jobs at taxpayer expense. Kind of self-stimulus for the moderately talented, though he was good in “King’s Row”.
But, Abelson and Grantham continue: ‘Economic policy-making, he (Grantham) complains, has been between half-hearted Keynsian stimulus and ill-timed “Austrian” cutbacks. “Clearly,” he sighs, “this mishmash has not been effective at job creation.” It has been quite effective at job destruction.’
When you’re done there, pop over to page M2, Charting The Market and look at the plunging stock charts of technology firms with the attending comments for several that demand for their products is plunging because, by and large, government is canceling orders.
Despite the S&P downgrade, everyone is buying Treasuries, (there’s too much government debt, right-wing traders yell into one telephone to Maria Bartiromo, while screaming “buy as much government debt as you can your hands on” into another telephone) driving yields to historic lows.
Seems like a good time, since no one wants to pay taxes, for government to borrow at bargain rates and stimulate.
Or, I can move from Grantham’s table and have lunch with Naomi Klein and help her flash-mob the next saquero.
Meanwhile, a Republican candidate, rediscovers sanity as a platform:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/huntsman-wakes-up.html
It’s a little like discovering that by mistake, a completely reasonable sane person has been confined in the asylum with gibbering lunatics and he found the door wasn’t locked and decided to take a little walk.
Republican talking points have shaped the debate in the media,
Republican talking points continually shape the debate among Democrats too. You can’t blame that on the media, or at least entirely on them.
The only thing I’d add to Donald’s comment is: not only is the hope that the Dems might be super disciplined both highly unrealistic and not necessarily preferable, but that there has never in American politics, as far as I know, been a major Party with the type of quazi-parliamentary discipline the GOP has now. American politics is usually not very Schmittian, and I’m glad of it.
Obama is not weakening politically because Dems to his left complain about him. It makes no sense to say that, on the one hand, true liberals are such a small piece of the Dem coalition that they don’t matter much, but on the other hand, their complaining is somehow responsible for the party’s weakness and could sink Obama, etc. Can’t be both ways.
Liberals complain about Obama (among other reasons) because he is timid, because he insists on trying to reason with people who will clearly not be reasoned with, because he doesn’t seem to understand the moment he is in, and because he is rather conservative (in the true sense of that word). It is a bitter irony that Obama is associated with the word ‘audacity’, because, aside from his personal ambition, he is the least audacious of politicians.
Republicans motivate their base by suggesting that the voter’s and Republic’s very lives depend on the results of the next election. While that is a bit extreme, what, by contrast, do Dem pols do? ‘Win the future’. ‘Yes we can (yes we can what?)’ etc. – and that’s at a time when American life as we knew it really IS on the line, as Russell notes.
It doesn’t take any special genius to see that most Americans are not very ideological, and that Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, mean very little in terms of policy. The person out there who has never voted for a Dem in his life can, without cognitive dissonance, still love the idea of universal health care as well as the right to form unions. I would argue that the low information cohort of even the Tea Party would support universal healthcare if it was boldly framed and had a realistic chance of happening (they certainly seem to like their Medicare). Political self-identification polls are worse than worthless, because they justify spineless behavior on the part of the Dem political ‘pros’ who are so adept at losing or barely not-losing campaigns.
BTW, I would also say that some people (like me) complain about Obama simply because he has made some crucial mistakes, which, added together, are very grave indeed. There are many, but three come to mind: not prioritizing mortgage relief (HAMP was a pathetic failure), not bothering to fill Fed vacancies, and not insisting on a debt ceiling deal in the lame duck. Except for possibly the first, these three are not ideological ‘mistakes’, but just mistakes.
The Dem consultant line is that if a Democrat takes chances, or even is bold rhetorically, the ramifications could be ‘disastrous’. Nowadays my retort to that is ‘”Disastrous” compared to what?’.
On the other hand, I think Sapient does have a point in there: the Democratic party is simply not organized anymore. So many Dem voters want to vote every 4 years and forget about it. Obviously that is never going to work. And Obama is absolutely right that, in the US, political change is very slow and very very hard. But I still think it’s worse than it needs to be.
Republican talking points have shaped the debate in the media,
Republican talking points continually shape the debate among Democrats too. You can’t blame that on the media, or at least entirely on them.
The only thing I’d add to Donald’s comment is: not only is the hope that the Dems might be super disciplined both highly unrealistic and not necessarily preferable, but that there has never in American politics, as far as I know, been a major Party with the type of quazi-parliamentary discipline the GOP has now. American politics is usually not very Schmittian, and I’m glad of it.
Obama is not weakening politically because Dems to his left complain about him. It makes no sense to say that, on the one hand, true liberals are such a small piece of the Dem coalition that they don’t matter much, but on the other hand, their complaining is somehow responsible for the party’s weakness and could sink Obama, etc. Can’t be both ways.
Liberals complain about Obama (among other reasons) because he is timid, because he insists on trying to reason with people who will clearly not be reasoned with, because he doesn’t seem to understand the moment he is in, and because he is rather conservative (in the true sense of that word). It is a bitter irony that Obama is associated with the word ‘audacity’, because, aside from his personal ambition, he is the least audacious of politicians.
Republicans motivate their base by suggesting that the voter’s and Republic’s very lives depend on the results of the next election. While that is a bit extreme, what, by contrast, do Dem pols do? ‘Win the future’. ‘Yes we can (yes we can what?)’ etc. – and that’s at a time when American life as we knew it really IS on the line, as Russell notes.
It doesn’t take any special genius to see that most Americans are not very ideological, and that Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, mean very little in terms of policy. The person out there who has never voted for a Dem in his life can, without cognitive dissonance, still love the idea of universal health care as well as the right to form unions. I would argue that the low information cohort of even the Tea Party would support universal healthcare if it was boldly framed and had a realistic chance of happening (they certainly seem to like their Medicare). Political self-identification polls are worse than worthless, because they justify spineless behavior on the part of the Dem political ‘pros’ who are so adept at losing or barely not-losing campaigns.
BTW, I would also say that some people (like me) complain about Obama simply because he has made some crucial mistakes, which, added together, are very grave indeed. There are many, but three come to mind: not prioritizing mortgage relief (HAMP was a pathetic failure), not bothering to fill Fed vacancies, and not insisting on a debt ceiling deal in the lame duck. Except for possibly the first, these three are not ideological ‘mistakes’, but just mistakes.
The Dem consultant line is that if a Democrat takes chances, or even is bold rhetorically, the ramifications could be ‘disastrous’. Nowadays my retort to that is ‘”Disastrous” compared to what?’.
On the other hand, I think Sapient does have a point in there: the Democratic party is simply not organized anymore. So many Dem voters want to vote every 4 years and forget about it. Obviously that is never going to work. And Obama is absolutely right that, in the US, political change is very slow and very very hard. But I still think it’s worse than it needs to be.
Have a good rest of the weekend, everyone:
Here’s a Hershey’s kiss in parting:
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/john_baer/20110820_John_Baer__Maybe_Hershey_foreign_workers_are_all-day_suckers.html
Have a good rest of the weekend, everyone:
Here’s a Hershey’s kiss in parting:
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/john_baer/20110820_John_Baer__Maybe_Hershey_foreign_workers_are_all-day_suckers.html
I know sensible people are doing something fun right now, but I need to finish up a little, FWIW.
There’s some kind of blind faith among some disappointed liberals that Obama could have held out longer and gotten more [in the lame duck]. There’s just no way to prove that he could get the votes for any better deals.
Obviously, there’s no way to *prove* either side of this question. All we can do is look at the evidence, which suggests that BO and Reid didn’t even try. Reid’s supposed strategy was to deliberately not try to get a debt ceiling deal to make the GOP ‘own’ the debt (if that was his true strategy, it speaks volumes). Of course we don’t know what the Great Sphinx was thinking, but it must have been some variation of one of two things; a.) he didn’t think the GOP would really go through with the Hostage option, or, b.) he wanted to use that eventuality as cover to get cuts he wanted. Either one of those two is pretty appalling.
I would also mention that people like me are not disappointed in Obama because we thought he was going to be a liberal, or because we don’t understand the challenges he’s had to face. Our disappointment is with his *reaction* to those challenges. He seems to simply be a rather diffident person, which might be fine in another moment in history….
I know sensible people are doing something fun right now, but I need to finish up a little, FWIW.
There’s some kind of blind faith among some disappointed liberals that Obama could have held out longer and gotten more [in the lame duck]. There’s just no way to prove that he could get the votes for any better deals.
Obviously, there’s no way to *prove* either side of this question. All we can do is look at the evidence, which suggests that BO and Reid didn’t even try. Reid’s supposed strategy was to deliberately not try to get a debt ceiling deal to make the GOP ‘own’ the debt (if that was his true strategy, it speaks volumes). Of course we don’t know what the Great Sphinx was thinking, but it must have been some variation of one of two things; a.) he didn’t think the GOP would really go through with the Hostage option, or, b.) he wanted to use that eventuality as cover to get cuts he wanted. Either one of those two is pretty appalling.
I would also mention that people like me are not disappointed in Obama because we thought he was going to be a liberal, or because we don’t understand the challenges he’s had to face. Our disappointment is with his *reaction* to those challenges. He seems to simply be a rather diffident person, which might be fine in another moment in history….
Countme-in, I did appreciate your reference to Naomi Klein. I have read (and own) her Shock Doctrine, and think that her points are right on for the most part, including the excerpt posted on Balloon Juice.
I also agree that Europe and the U.S. are wrong to embrace austerity, and that those policies will prolong the recession/depression indefinitely.
The problem with these pundits is that they miss the cultural and political process points.
Although we have a huge economic crisis, caused by the very things that they point out, the political problem is complicated by the fact that the United States is still fighting the civil war. If this were just about robber barons, our political system could represent the poor and the middle class by talking about the wealth gap, progressive tax rates, etc. But the fact that the Southern white folks are still “fighting for my rats” (to quote Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels) means that the political rhetoric has to be skewed to parry whatever talking points are given to that group of neoconfederates.
Rather than joining with other people with common economic interests, Southern (and midwestern) white people have embraced the “slaveowners” – just as they did in 1861.
Naomi Klein is a Canadian – she can’t be expected to take into account civil war nuances, and most Americans think we’ve moved on. But we haven’t. Southerners don’t want to support the “union” with their tax dollars, so “austerity” seems a good idea to them. I visited relatives recently (various extended family members), who were talking about “the deficit”. One grand old man stated that for every dollar of taxes we pay, $.42 is paid towards interest on the debt. It’s a talking point that’s persuasive to a lot of people who don’t do the math long enough to realize that if we raised taxes, the percentage would be lower.
Obama isn’t a proponent of austerity. He talks a certain talk so that he shut that conversation down. His “austerity” plan that was timed in such a way not to be austere. Most people can agree that there are cuts (such as defense spending) that can be made. Most people can agree that certain health care provider cuts are justified in the interests of controlling health care costs. Obama wanted to shut off the right in its incessant complaints about the deficit, so that he could move on to propose stimulative measures (within the context of the current Congress).
IWhy is it a good strategy to second-guess Obama at this point, or to abstain, or to “hold your nose” when voting? Why is it not the best strategy for the left to support him fully, to get out the vote to reelect him, while speaking out about our goals (without criticizing him), and finding the leftmost Congressional candidates, and electing them? Certainly for 2012, I don’t know of a better strategy than that. A better strategy, anyone?
Countme-in, I did appreciate your reference to Naomi Klein. I have read (and own) her Shock Doctrine, and think that her points are right on for the most part, including the excerpt posted on Balloon Juice.
I also agree that Europe and the U.S. are wrong to embrace austerity, and that those policies will prolong the recession/depression indefinitely.
The problem with these pundits is that they miss the cultural and political process points.
Although we have a huge economic crisis, caused by the very things that they point out, the political problem is complicated by the fact that the United States is still fighting the civil war. If this were just about robber barons, our political system could represent the poor and the middle class by talking about the wealth gap, progressive tax rates, etc. But the fact that the Southern white folks are still “fighting for my rats” (to quote Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels) means that the political rhetoric has to be skewed to parry whatever talking points are given to that group of neoconfederates.
Rather than joining with other people with common economic interests, Southern (and midwestern) white people have embraced the “slaveowners” – just as they did in 1861.
Naomi Klein is a Canadian – she can’t be expected to take into account civil war nuances, and most Americans think we’ve moved on. But we haven’t. Southerners don’t want to support the “union” with their tax dollars, so “austerity” seems a good idea to them. I visited relatives recently (various extended family members), who were talking about “the deficit”. One grand old man stated that for every dollar of taxes we pay, $.42 is paid towards interest on the debt. It’s a talking point that’s persuasive to a lot of people who don’t do the math long enough to realize that if we raised taxes, the percentage would be lower.
Obama isn’t a proponent of austerity. He talks a certain talk so that he shut that conversation down. His “austerity” plan that was timed in such a way not to be austere. Most people can agree that there are cuts (such as defense spending) that can be made. Most people can agree that certain health care provider cuts are justified in the interests of controlling health care costs. Obama wanted to shut off the right in its incessant complaints about the deficit, so that he could move on to propose stimulative measures (within the context of the current Congress).
IWhy is it a good strategy to second-guess Obama at this point, or to abstain, or to “hold your nose” when voting? Why is it not the best strategy for the left to support him fully, to get out the vote to reelect him, while speaking out about our goals (without criticizing him), and finding the leftmost Congressional candidates, and electing them? Certainly for 2012, I don’t know of a better strategy than that. A better strategy, anyone?
uh oh.
uh oh.
“I would also mention that people like me are not disappointed in Obama because we thought he was going to be a liberal, or because we don’t understand the challenges he’s had to face. Our disappointment is with his *reaction* to those challenges. He seems to simply be a rather diffident person, which might be fine in another moment in history….”
Okay, jonnybutter, so what’s your solution? (I see that I was able to fix my italic mistake.)
“I would also mention that people like me are not disappointed in Obama because we thought he was going to be a liberal, or because we don’t understand the challenges he’s had to face. Our disappointment is with his *reaction* to those challenges. He seems to simply be a rather diffident person, which might be fine in another moment in history….”
Okay, jonnybutter, so what’s your solution? (I see that I was able to fix my italic mistake.)
Okay, jonnybutter, so what’s your solution?
I don’t have a solution in the short term, of course – if there were a short term solution, the political geniuses in the Dem party couldn’t reflexively triangulate and marginalize what used to be a run of the mill liberal like me (and feel so clever doing it). But part of the long term solution is being realistic about where we are.
friendly tweak: I notice you didn’t address the debt ceiling thing, which was badly mishandled by the WH from before the start to the…well, not the ‘finish’, since it’s not really finished, is it?
I guess I would say that other than being realistic about where we are, it also might be worthwhile for Obama supporters to call him on stuff once in a while. Since I am a mere liberal and only a reluctant Democrat, it would be useless for me to do it, but Team O might notice pressure from its staunch supporters.
I admire your fighting the good fight sapient. But I think there’s a bigger problem here than any of us want to face. Republicans can’t have single-handedly mortally wounded liberal democracy in the US. It takes two to tango.
good on you for fixing that italic. Sometimes it works and sometimes…..
Okay, jonnybutter, so what’s your solution?
I don’t have a solution in the short term, of course – if there were a short term solution, the political geniuses in the Dem party couldn’t reflexively triangulate and marginalize what used to be a run of the mill liberal like me (and feel so clever doing it). But part of the long term solution is being realistic about where we are.
friendly tweak: I notice you didn’t address the debt ceiling thing, which was badly mishandled by the WH from before the start to the…well, not the ‘finish’, since it’s not really finished, is it?
I guess I would say that other than being realistic about where we are, it also might be worthwhile for Obama supporters to call him on stuff once in a while. Since I am a mere liberal and only a reluctant Democrat, it would be useless for me to do it, but Team O might notice pressure from its staunch supporters.
I admire your fighting the good fight sapient. But I think there’s a bigger problem here than any of us want to face. Republicans can’t have single-handedly mortally wounded liberal democracy in the US. It takes two to tango.
good on you for fixing that italic. Sometimes it works and sometimes…..
“Obama isn’t a proponent of austerity.”
So freezing federal worker pay was, what, exactly?
“Obama isn’t a proponent of austerity.”
So freezing federal worker pay was, what, exactly?
Freezing federal worker pay was a moderate austerity measure that brought federal workers’ situation in line with most other people in the country so that they wouldn’t remain a focus of resentment. Nobody in the country gets guaranteed paid raises. Most people I know (unless they’re a state or federal worker) haven’t gotten a raise in ten years.
Freezing federal worker pay was a moderate austerity measure that brought federal workers’ situation in line with most other people in the country so that they wouldn’t remain a focus of resentment. Nobody in the country gets guaranteed paid raises. Most people I know (unless they’re a state or federal worker) haven’t gotten a raise in ten years.
Sapient, while I agree with your main point regarding the federal pay freeze, I have to point out, in the interest of accuracy, that pay was going up steadily from 2001 to 2008 and it was only after that both average and median pay started to decline. A small point perhaps which does not affect your larger point that the conservatives and Fox et al. were (and are) effectively creating resentment against government workers and Obama’s move took that one issue off the table.
link here
Of course, the pay freeze was an anti-stimulatory measure but it seems that for the present, perception is more important than actual policy. I would note that Obama has to mollify the DC ‘village’ and I think it is underestimated how difficult a line he has to walk and how right wing memes have come to dominate the media discussion.
I had hoped that the President could have changed the discussion much more than he has but if he pushes too far then he will just validate the charges of “socialist!” that the right wing is throwing out willy-nilly. So far that charge is mainly disregarded (due to the fact that it is utterly ridiculous) but is still pushed so vigorously by the right that it has to contended with.
The whole media debate has gotten twisted, the result of money IMO, but I do not see an easy way to untwist it. One quick example, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves in increased revenue is certainly false in the current circumstance but is still a prevalent talking point that is rarely challenged.
Sapient, while I agree with your main point regarding the federal pay freeze, I have to point out, in the interest of accuracy, that pay was going up steadily from 2001 to 2008 and it was only after that both average and median pay started to decline. A small point perhaps which does not affect your larger point that the conservatives and Fox et al. were (and are) effectively creating resentment against government workers and Obama’s move took that one issue off the table.
link here
Of course, the pay freeze was an anti-stimulatory measure but it seems that for the present, perception is more important than actual policy. I would note that Obama has to mollify the DC ‘village’ and I think it is underestimated how difficult a line he has to walk and how right wing memes have come to dominate the media discussion.
I had hoped that the President could have changed the discussion much more than he has but if he pushes too far then he will just validate the charges of “socialist!” that the right wing is throwing out willy-nilly. So far that charge is mainly disregarded (due to the fact that it is utterly ridiculous) but is still pushed so vigorously by the right that it has to contended with.
The whole media debate has gotten twisted, the result of money IMO, but I do not see an easy way to untwist it. One quick example, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves in increased revenue is certainly false in the current circumstance but is still a prevalent talking point that is rarely challenged.
I had hoped that the President could have changed the discussion much more than he has but if he pushes too far then he will just validate the charges of “socialist!” that the right wing is throwing out willy-nilly. So far that charge is mainly disregarded (due to the fact that it is utterly ridiculous) but is still pushed so vigorously by the right that it has to contended with.
Obama will never mollify either the ‘Village’ or the Right. It is crazy to even try, frankly. I do understand the resentment issue – I think it’s unfounded, but I do understand it (same thing happened in the 30s, btw). But the idea that if O ‘pushes too far’ it will ‘validate the charges of ‘Socialist” is preposterous. See point one. Obama is not even much of a liberal, much less a socialist. If he came out for making the Bush tax cuts permanent and for posting the 10 Commandments on every school wall in the country, he would be called a socialist or something else. ‘Contending’ with a ridiculous charge is falling into a trap. It is contending with it which ‘validates’ it.
This is post-modern politics folks. If you look for sense or rationality, you are wasting your time. I see two alternatives. 1.) pivot and take a chance – you might lose but you might win big, or 2.) die a slow, sure, agonizing death.
I had hoped that the President could have changed the discussion much more than he has but if he pushes too far then he will just validate the charges of “socialist!” that the right wing is throwing out willy-nilly. So far that charge is mainly disregarded (due to the fact that it is utterly ridiculous) but is still pushed so vigorously by the right that it has to contended with.
Obama will never mollify either the ‘Village’ or the Right. It is crazy to even try, frankly. I do understand the resentment issue – I think it’s unfounded, but I do understand it (same thing happened in the 30s, btw). But the idea that if O ‘pushes too far’ it will ‘validate the charges of ‘Socialist” is preposterous. See point one. Obama is not even much of a liberal, much less a socialist. If he came out for making the Bush tax cuts permanent and for posting the 10 Commandments on every school wall in the country, he would be called a socialist or something else. ‘Contending’ with a ridiculous charge is falling into a trap. It is contending with it which ‘validates’ it.
This is post-modern politics folks. If you look for sense or rationality, you are wasting your time. I see two alternatives. 1.) pivot and take a chance – you might lose but you might win big, or 2.) die a slow, sure, agonizing death.
One should also not forget that the other side has not the least scruples to lie about what happens (and gets away with it). Obama cut taxes and got accused of having committed the greatest tax hike in the history of mankind* (or at least in US history). Then there were the death panels. And it is very strongly implied that since Obama took office defense spending has been cut to the bone and that the bones are next (while the parasitic veterans get golden bathtubs**).
The crowning is of course accusing Obama of trying to kill Medicare etc. while at the same time trying to kill Medicare etc.
*I can’t remember which Rightster(s) said that but I am not exaggerating here. Everything is ‘the greatest [insert evil thing or person] in history’ these days.
**OK, that is an exaggeration by me.
One should also not forget that the other side has not the least scruples to lie about what happens (and gets away with it). Obama cut taxes and got accused of having committed the greatest tax hike in the history of mankind* (or at least in US history). Then there were the death panels. And it is very strongly implied that since Obama took office defense spending has been cut to the bone and that the bones are next (while the parasitic veterans get golden bathtubs**).
The crowning is of course accusing Obama of trying to kill Medicare etc. while at the same time trying to kill Medicare etc.
*I can’t remember which Rightster(s) said that but I am not exaggerating here. Everything is ‘the greatest [insert evil thing or person] in history’ these days.
**OK, that is an exaggeration by me.
Point taken, Rogue Dem. But it’s been a very insecure world in the private sector for what seems like a long, long time. I don’t begrudge government employees their jobs, paychecks, etc., but I still would rather have seen their raises frozen (not their jobs eliminated or their pay or benefits cut) rather than terminating unemployment and some of the other draconian measures that were being proposed by the right.
I agree though (and hope) that post-vacation rhetoric should eliminate the austerity talk. I always have felt that, looking at Obama’s actual proposals, most of what he and Democrats have offered are long-term deficit reductions, coupled with short-term stimulus measures. Obviously the big stimulus bill wasn’t big enough, etc.
Point taken, Rogue Dem. But it’s been a very insecure world in the private sector for what seems like a long, long time. I don’t begrudge government employees their jobs, paychecks, etc., but I still would rather have seen their raises frozen (not their jobs eliminated or their pay or benefits cut) rather than terminating unemployment and some of the other draconian measures that were being proposed by the right.
I agree though (and hope) that post-vacation rhetoric should eliminate the austerity talk. I always have felt that, looking at Obama’s actual proposals, most of what he and Democrats have offered are long-term deficit reductions, coupled with short-term stimulus measures. Obviously the big stimulus bill wasn’t big enough, etc.
The problem is not that economic growth has vanished, although it is not as high as it has been at times in the past, it is the inequality. People can do something about inequality, which has been produced by obvious political changes – for example cutting of tax rates for rich people. These changes have clearly not increased overall economic growth. The system has just worked better when it was not slanted towards plutocrats.
The problem is not that economic growth has vanished, although it is not as high as it has been at times in the past, it is the inequality. People can do something about inequality, which has been produced by obvious political changes – for example cutting of tax rates for rich people. These changes have clearly not increased overall economic growth. The system has just worked better when it was not slanted towards plutocrats.
wj: ” Finally, we have the succeeding generations. The may have grown up OK, but there careers are going to be marked by uncertainty, and rising taxes to pay for what retirement benefits the Baby Boomers get. And their prospects for retirement are (whether they realize it yet or not) grim.”
The obvious reasons are that government policy was used to afflict the afflicted and enrich the wealthy (on top of whatever the actual market was doing), and that taxes on the rich are at their lowest point in decades, while their share of income and wealth is at the highest point in 80 years.
If you’re in the top 1%, things have gotten much, much better in the past few decades, far more than simple economic growth would have provided.
That means that the rest of us have taken a huge hit.
In addition, there’s been a highly successful propaganda campaign (think tanks, churces, media) to convince us that we aren’t taking a hit/have to take a hit, and that the rich getting everything isn’t happening/must happen.
We can provide good benefits, we can provide good retirements, we can provide good education, etc. The elites decided that they’d rather pocket the money.
We need class warfare. Or rather, we need to fight back.
wj: ” Finally, we have the succeeding generations. The may have grown up OK, but there careers are going to be marked by uncertainty, and rising taxes to pay for what retirement benefits the Baby Boomers get. And their prospects for retirement are (whether they realize it yet or not) grim.”
The obvious reasons are that government policy was used to afflict the afflicted and enrich the wealthy (on top of whatever the actual market was doing), and that taxes on the rich are at their lowest point in decades, while their share of income and wealth is at the highest point in 80 years.
If you’re in the top 1%, things have gotten much, much better in the past few decades, far more than simple economic growth would have provided.
That means that the rest of us have taken a huge hit.
In addition, there’s been a highly successful propaganda campaign (think tanks, churces, media) to convince us that we aren’t taking a hit/have to take a hit, and that the rich getting everything isn’t happening/must happen.
We can provide good benefits, we can provide good retirements, we can provide good education, etc. The elites decided that they’d rather pocket the money.
We need class warfare. Or rather, we need to fight back.
Barry, you are winning. There are 39% fewer millionaires today than 4 years ago. So enjoy these times of high taxes and high unemployment, because the rich have taken a hit as well.
Barry, you are winning. There are 39% fewer millionaires today than 4 years ago. So enjoy these times of high taxes and high unemployment, because the rich have taken a hit as well.
Actually Dave, the cite states that the number of people whose adjusted annual gross income was $1M or greater fell by 39%.
One year’s adjusted gross income.
You’re a millionaire if your net worth is $1M or more. More realistically and/or practically, if your net worth excluding your primary residence — the value of your liquid or financial assets — is $1M or more.
If your annual income is north of $1M, you’re highly likely to be much, much more than a millionaire.
I’m sure that lots of folks’ incomes dipped from above to below $1M between 2007 and 2009. I’m also not only sure, but can readily demonstrate, that the disparity in income, and even more so in wealth, has grown, inexorably, over the last 30 years, and continues to do so now, today.
If your income was above $1M in 2007, you are almost certainly wealthy today, regardless of what your gross was in 2009.
I say “almost” because some folks will always manage to piss it away. But barring idiots and risk-addict greedheads, if you were pulling down $1M a year in 2007, you’re rich today.
If folks want to talk like we’re all in it together, they need to f**king get all in it together. They could start by giving back the Bush tax cuts. It will cost them less than a nickel on the dollar.
Money, meet mouth.
Short of that, they won’t get a hell of a lot of sympathy, because they don’t need it.
And no, I don’t hate, resent, or otherwise harbor negative attitudes toward wealthy people. I just f**king hate it when they whine.
It’s unseemly.
Also, these are not times of high taxes. On the contrary. Marginal rates are historically extremely low, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is historically low.
Low.
You need to get yourself some better information.
Actually Dave, the cite states that the number of people whose adjusted annual gross income was $1M or greater fell by 39%.
One year’s adjusted gross income.
You’re a millionaire if your net worth is $1M or more. More realistically and/or practically, if your net worth excluding your primary residence — the value of your liquid or financial assets — is $1M or more.
If your annual income is north of $1M, you’re highly likely to be much, much more than a millionaire.
I’m sure that lots of folks’ incomes dipped from above to below $1M between 2007 and 2009. I’m also not only sure, but can readily demonstrate, that the disparity in income, and even more so in wealth, has grown, inexorably, over the last 30 years, and continues to do so now, today.
If your income was above $1M in 2007, you are almost certainly wealthy today, regardless of what your gross was in 2009.
I say “almost” because some folks will always manage to piss it away. But barring idiots and risk-addict greedheads, if you were pulling down $1M a year in 2007, you’re rich today.
If folks want to talk like we’re all in it together, they need to f**king get all in it together. They could start by giving back the Bush tax cuts. It will cost them less than a nickel on the dollar.
Money, meet mouth.
Short of that, they won’t get a hell of a lot of sympathy, because they don’t need it.
And no, I don’t hate, resent, or otherwise harbor negative attitudes toward wealthy people. I just f**king hate it when they whine.
It’s unseemly.
Also, these are not times of high taxes. On the contrary. Marginal rates are historically extremely low, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is historically low.
Low.
You need to get yourself some better information.
We need class warfare. Or rather, we need to fight back.
No, we don’t need class warfare. And no, we don’t need to go around directly fighting, opposing, and generally hating on wealthy people.
What drives the bus here is the law. We need to get the freaking obscene piles of lovely green money out of public policy making.
It’s not that complicated.
“You know the way to stop me / but you don’t have the discipline”.
The process of making public policy in this country is profoundly, profoundly, profoundly corrupt. And the machinery that is so profoundly corrupt is the only mechanism we have to root out the corruption.
It’s pretty much FUBAR at this point, IMO, but we have turned around crap situations before. I’m hoping we can do so again.
But at a minimum it requires folks to at least respect facts. Or at least the idea of facts, even if they have a hard time getting their heads around specific examples.
We need class warfare. Or rather, we need to fight back.
No, we don’t need class warfare. And no, we don’t need to go around directly fighting, opposing, and generally hating on wealthy people.
What drives the bus here is the law. We need to get the freaking obscene piles of lovely green money out of public policy making.
It’s not that complicated.
“You know the way to stop me / but you don’t have the discipline”.
The process of making public policy in this country is profoundly, profoundly, profoundly corrupt. And the machinery that is so profoundly corrupt is the only mechanism we have to root out the corruption.
It’s pretty much FUBAR at this point, IMO, but we have turned around crap situations before. I’m hoping we can do so again.
But at a minimum it requires folks to at least respect facts. Or at least the idea of facts, even if they have a hard time getting their heads around specific examples.
This is promising.
russell: ‘What drives the bus here is the law. We need to get the freaking obscene piles of lovely green money out of public policy making.”
Certainly campaign financing is a big part of the problem, but until we change the composition of the Supreme Court by way of keeping a Democratic president in office until either Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Kennedy resigns or dies, it’s unlikely that election reform will happen. Citizens United, and then Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, make it clear that the Supreme Court is unwilling to put up with the wealthy relinquishing undue influence on the election process.
We do need to fight back, as Barry says. Not by “hating on wealthy people”, but by electing Democrats. Boring, imperfect Democrats. And we’re not going to do it by holding our nose, only by working hard and enthusiastically for Democrats, and spreading that enthusiasm so that people who usually don’t vote will go to the polls with us.
This is promising.
russell: ‘What drives the bus here is the law. We need to get the freaking obscene piles of lovely green money out of public policy making.”
Certainly campaign financing is a big part of the problem, but until we change the composition of the Supreme Court by way of keeping a Democratic president in office until either Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Kennedy resigns or dies, it’s unlikely that election reform will happen. Citizens United, and then Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, make it clear that the Supreme Court is unwilling to put up with the wealthy relinquishing undue influence on the election process.
We do need to fight back, as Barry says. Not by “hating on wealthy people”, but by electing Democrats. Boring, imperfect Democrats. And we’re not going to do it by holding our nose, only by working hard and enthusiastically for Democrats, and spreading that enthusiasm so that people who usually don’t vote will go to the polls with us.
Whatever our differences, this is the kind of thing that has me nodding along with russell’s commentary more than not. In a debate largely constructed of crazy talk, russell, you are a beacon of sanity.
Whatever our differences, this is the kind of thing that has me nodding along with russell’s commentary more than not. In a debate largely constructed of crazy talk, russell, you are a beacon of sanity.
Thanks slarti.
Thanks slarti.
I like these links to clearly biased blogs that don’t attempt to tease out the meaning of whatever silly, purposely chosen but otherwise arbitrary data point they present. I mean, is there something so special about $1M in a single year that it should be the measuring stick for how rich rich people are?
Not that many people make $1M per year to begin with, so it’s a lot easier for the percentage of them to change significantly without boat loads of people seeing less in income over the course of couple of years, particularly if you choose those couple of years to span the height of an economic bubble and the depth of a global financial crisis. I wonder how many people saw their incomes drop over those years, and what percentage of them earned $1M in 2007.
How many people *LOST THEIR FNCKING JOBS* between 2007 and 2009?!
Here’s the thing about this meme that liberals (or whoever) hate millionaires – I’d probably be cast as one of those people because I think we should have a more progressive tax regime and that both income and wealth are too poorly distributed in this country, but I’d like to see more people earning $1M per year – lots more. (Though it would probably be more urgent that way, way, way more people earn at least $50k/year.) In fact, I’d like to be one of the $1M/year earners. I just don’t want them to make it at the expense of the well being and quality of life of everyone else. I don’t want them to have inordinate political power. And I think that if we didn’t have the level of short-sighted greed that we do in this country, there actually would be more $1M/year earners. Maybe there would be fewer $50M/year. I can’t really say, but that doesn’t really concern me either way.
I like these links to clearly biased blogs that don’t attempt to tease out the meaning of whatever silly, purposely chosen but otherwise arbitrary data point they present. I mean, is there something so special about $1M in a single year that it should be the measuring stick for how rich rich people are?
Not that many people make $1M per year to begin with, so it’s a lot easier for the percentage of them to change significantly without boat loads of people seeing less in income over the course of couple of years, particularly if you choose those couple of years to span the height of an economic bubble and the depth of a global financial crisis. I wonder how many people saw their incomes drop over those years, and what percentage of them earned $1M in 2007.
How many people *LOST THEIR FNCKING JOBS* between 2007 and 2009?!
Here’s the thing about this meme that liberals (or whoever) hate millionaires – I’d probably be cast as one of those people because I think we should have a more progressive tax regime and that both income and wealth are too poorly distributed in this country, but I’d like to see more people earning $1M per year – lots more. (Though it would probably be more urgent that way, way, way more people earn at least $50k/year.) In fact, I’d like to be one of the $1M/year earners. I just don’t want them to make it at the expense of the well being and quality of life of everyone else. I don’t want them to have inordinate political power. And I think that if we didn’t have the level of short-sighted greed that we do in this country, there actually would be more $1M/year earners. Maybe there would be fewer $50M/year. I can’t really say, but that doesn’t really concern me either way.
Okay, then, russell and Slartibartfast, as for getting money out of politics, what’s the plan?
Okay, then, russell and Slartibartfast, as for getting money out of politics, what’s the plan?
“In a debate largely constructed of crazy talk, russell, you are a beacon of sanity.”
This is correct, Slarti, especially if you mean the holocaust of crazy talk going on in the world, not just the debate at OBWI.
If you are referring only to OBWI, it is indeed a lonely and maybe pointless beacon, one that will do no good against the noxious, killing particles in the poisoned atmosphere above ground, much like the signal picked up in the movie “On The Beach”, repeated regularly and with a consistent pattern, but when finally reached there leans an empty Coke bottle against a keying device, tapping out a rhythmic message as the breeze through a window wafts a portion of curtain against the bottle.
The original messenger long gone.
Or something.
Now, if you want a message that resonates in the world at large, get a load of the crazy talk above from DaveC. (no offense, Dave, you are one of my favorite crazy people 😉 ) The notion that we are living in an Obama-led era of high taxes at the Federal level is believed by crazy people, stupid people, very small children, circus clowns, incontinent, demented house pets, and now, through the poisoning of repetition, by otherwise sane, smart people.
Further, the notion that wealth has been destroyed solely because of the swarthy one’s ascension to the Presidency, ignores several oft-repeated, but totally ignored (by the crazy talkers who have brought us the holocaust above ground) elephants sitting and sh*tting on the living room couch, namely, the mortgage debacle and ensuing housing crash, a stock market crash, the loss of jobs as result etc, a collpase in tax receipts at all levels of government, but you know what, never mind, just f*ck it!
Taxes are at their highest level in the history of taxation. That’s all we need to know!
In the world out there of constructed crazy talk, by comparison Russell’s Coke bottle taps out a tiny noise falling on deaf, dead ears.
“In a debate largely constructed of crazy talk, russell, you are a beacon of sanity.”
This is correct, Slarti, especially if you mean the holocaust of crazy talk going on in the world, not just the debate at OBWI.
If you are referring only to OBWI, it is indeed a lonely and maybe pointless beacon, one that will do no good against the noxious, killing particles in the poisoned atmosphere above ground, much like the signal picked up in the movie “On The Beach”, repeated regularly and with a consistent pattern, but when finally reached there leans an empty Coke bottle against a keying device, tapping out a rhythmic message as the breeze through a window wafts a portion of curtain against the bottle.
The original messenger long gone.
Or something.
Now, if you want a message that resonates in the world at large, get a load of the crazy talk above from DaveC. (no offense, Dave, you are one of my favorite crazy people 😉 ) The notion that we are living in an Obama-led era of high taxes at the Federal level is believed by crazy people, stupid people, very small children, circus clowns, incontinent, demented house pets, and now, through the poisoning of repetition, by otherwise sane, smart people.
Further, the notion that wealth has been destroyed solely because of the swarthy one’s ascension to the Presidency, ignores several oft-repeated, but totally ignored (by the crazy talkers who have brought us the holocaust above ground) elephants sitting and sh*tting on the living room couch, namely, the mortgage debacle and ensuing housing crash, a stock market crash, the loss of jobs as result etc, a collpase in tax receipts at all levels of government, but you know what, never mind, just f*ck it!
Taxes are at their highest level in the history of taxation. That’s all we need to know!
In the world out there of constructed crazy talk, by comparison Russell’s Coke bottle taps out a tiny noise falling on deaf, dead ears.
We already have class warfare. In the wrong direction.
And if we don’t, wait until the accusations that we want class warfare because we want the money out of politics.
Not gonna happen. Money is speech, speech is free, especially for those people-like constructs who are the luckiest people in the world, compared to actual people.
Don’t get me wrong. I like millionaires. I wish I had worked hard enough or been lucky enough, or innovative enough to be one …. or two. If I was, I’d lay low, tip high, thank my lucky stars, and I wouldn’t, like Donald Trump, after permitting federal bankruptcy law to bail me out 12 times, plaster photographs of the king-size bed on my private jetliner mansion in the sky all over the place while simultaneously whining about non-existent tax increases imposed by the Kenyan in the White House.
Here’s what really steams him and the rest of the big swinging Kochs. Their income has been reduced because their Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, the place where they keep their money because it is safe, yield next to nothing.
If they force a downgrading of the debt and even default, their income will increase because interest paid to them will soar.
The big grift.
Here’s how actual people, you know, you and me, otherwise known as soylent green, will know when the chickens of class warfare have come home to roost.
You’ll know because you will have a live chicken, all your own, which you may then use to barter for healthcare.
Don’t eat that chicken. Do not make a chicken sandwich for you and the kids.
Why not? Because you were given a CRAP sandwich to eat in the Ayn Rand survival kit for those who didn’t get invited to wash the sh*t stains out of John Galt’s underwear up there in the Gulch.
What, are you telling me you’ve finished it already?
You get one chicken and one crap sandwich.
Keep them in separate safe deposit boxes.
We already have class warfare. In the wrong direction.
And if we don’t, wait until the accusations that we want class warfare because we want the money out of politics.
Not gonna happen. Money is speech, speech is free, especially for those people-like constructs who are the luckiest people in the world, compared to actual people.
Don’t get me wrong. I like millionaires. I wish I had worked hard enough or been lucky enough, or innovative enough to be one …. or two. If I was, I’d lay low, tip high, thank my lucky stars, and I wouldn’t, like Donald Trump, after permitting federal bankruptcy law to bail me out 12 times, plaster photographs of the king-size bed on my private jetliner mansion in the sky all over the place while simultaneously whining about non-existent tax increases imposed by the Kenyan in the White House.
Here’s what really steams him and the rest of the big swinging Kochs. Their income has been reduced because their Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, the place where they keep their money because it is safe, yield next to nothing.
If they force a downgrading of the debt and even default, their income will increase because interest paid to them will soar.
The big grift.
Here’s how actual people, you know, you and me, otherwise known as soylent green, will know when the chickens of class warfare have come home to roost.
You’ll know because you will have a live chicken, all your own, which you may then use to barter for healthcare.
Don’t eat that chicken. Do not make a chicken sandwich for you and the kids.
Why not? Because you were given a CRAP sandwich to eat in the Ayn Rand survival kit for those who didn’t get invited to wash the sh*t stains out of John Galt’s underwear up there in the Gulch.
What, are you telling me you’ve finished it already?
You get one chicken and one crap sandwich.
Keep them in separate safe deposit boxes.
You want crazy talk?
This punk named Conor Friedersdorfenburgermeisterfuhrer posed the question “So what exactly would be so bad about a Ron Paul Presidency?”
Pop over to his Atlantic gig, and wade into the comments section, some 650 deep last time I looked. The first three hundred or so are taken up by Paul supporters and other whackolicious douch*bags yelling at each other about the fact that under a Paul Presidency, we wouldn’t have milk pasteurization forced on us by a tyrannical Federal government.
Apparently, the word “pasteurize” is not in the Constitution. Further, our freedom to pasteurize or not, of our won choosing, as delineated in the works of Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Adam West, and Atom Ant have been brutally abridged by tyrants.
I did not know that. Much as Johnny Carson did not know that Doc was on vacation, I did not know that.
Oddly enough, there was not a mention of forced homogenization.
This is one reason, apparently, why Alexander Solzenytsen, who besides having his name misspelled, came to the U.S., took one look around, noticed the tyranny of milk pasteurization for adult and child alike in the shining city on the hill, turned around and went directly back to the Gulag and asked for his bowl of gruel back with the cockroach floating in it.
Early weekend break. Catch you later.
You want crazy talk?
This punk named Conor Friedersdorfenburgermeisterfuhrer posed the question “So what exactly would be so bad about a Ron Paul Presidency?”
Pop over to his Atlantic gig, and wade into the comments section, some 650 deep last time I looked. The first three hundred or so are taken up by Paul supporters and other whackolicious douch*bags yelling at each other about the fact that under a Paul Presidency, we wouldn’t have milk pasteurization forced on us by a tyrannical Federal government.
Apparently, the word “pasteurize” is not in the Constitution. Further, our freedom to pasteurize or not, of our won choosing, as delineated in the works of Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Adam West, and Atom Ant have been brutally abridged by tyrants.
I did not know that. Much as Johnny Carson did not know that Doc was on vacation, I did not know that.
Oddly enough, there was not a mention of forced homogenization.
This is one reason, apparently, why Alexander Solzenytsen, who besides having his name misspelled, came to the U.S., took one look around, noticed the tyranny of milk pasteurization for adult and child alike in the shining city on the hill, turned around and went directly back to the Gulag and asked for his bowl of gruel back with the cockroach floating in it.
Early weekend break. Catch you later.
Well, I’m late yet again to the par-tay – at this point, some folks are already doing the dishes in the early AM light while CountMe is noting all the puke spots on the shag carpeting, and rolling a tequila bottle here and there as a simile to Russell’s Coke bottle ching-a-ling.
What’s emerged on this whole thread is the sense – though no-one’s come out to say it – that the whole rightist backlash in the U.S. is as much cultural than anything, traceable to the Reagan Revolution, which was as much a cultural as a socio-economic revolution.
What I see, across the big Pacific pond, is that revolution gone flake. Instead of the right to perpetuate slavery, its new privileged claim is the right to perpetuate a kind of power that isn’t answerable to federal law – a sort of privatized authority that can’t be challenged by not exclusively, but primarily federal government. Whether it’s over taxation, or SCOTUS decisions it doesn’t like, or the “colored” feller in the White House, what the Reagan Revolution begat was for a renewed primacy of privilege – however dubious it is, however utterly unrealistic it reaches to be, however ludicrous the claims made in its name.
What makes it so different, and dangerous, is that privilege is held to be a form of power itself, with any challenge to it as an assault. It does not matter that so many of the Tea Partiers have fig leaves for those privileges instead – all they are doing is hitching their wagons to that star, no matter how much they will be burned by it.
What I’m afraid it will take is another cultural revolution, this time from the left, in order to turn things around. What is needed, in other words, is a figure on the presence of a Reagan, for the left. But in a display culture of whinging, blinging, manufactured resentment, and way too much cash in mostly the wrong hands, this is not going to happen anytime soon.
I truly am sorry to say that as utterly imperfect and as, in some respects, equally as dysfunctional as Japan is, I cannot be unhappy that I am not living in the U.S., as I see no place for my kind there. At least, not now.
Well, I’m late yet again to the par-tay – at this point, some folks are already doing the dishes in the early AM light while CountMe is noting all the puke spots on the shag carpeting, and rolling a tequila bottle here and there as a simile to Russell’s Coke bottle ching-a-ling.
What’s emerged on this whole thread is the sense – though no-one’s come out to say it – that the whole rightist backlash in the U.S. is as much cultural than anything, traceable to the Reagan Revolution, which was as much a cultural as a socio-economic revolution.
What I see, across the big Pacific pond, is that revolution gone flake. Instead of the right to perpetuate slavery, its new privileged claim is the right to perpetuate a kind of power that isn’t answerable to federal law – a sort of privatized authority that can’t be challenged by not exclusively, but primarily federal government. Whether it’s over taxation, or SCOTUS decisions it doesn’t like, or the “colored” feller in the White House, what the Reagan Revolution begat was for a renewed primacy of privilege – however dubious it is, however utterly unrealistic it reaches to be, however ludicrous the claims made in its name.
What makes it so different, and dangerous, is that privilege is held to be a form of power itself, with any challenge to it as an assault. It does not matter that so many of the Tea Partiers have fig leaves for those privileges instead – all they are doing is hitching their wagons to that star, no matter how much they will be burned by it.
What I’m afraid it will take is another cultural revolution, this time from the left, in order to turn things around. What is needed, in other words, is a figure on the presence of a Reagan, for the left. But in a display culture of whinging, blinging, manufactured resentment, and way too much cash in mostly the wrong hands, this is not going to happen anytime soon.
I truly am sorry to say that as utterly imperfect and as, in some respects, equally as dysfunctional as Japan is, I cannot be unhappy that I am not living in the U.S., as I see no place for my kind there. At least, not now.
The rightwing cultural revolution began before Reagan. The blog “A Tiny Revolution” has a couple of links to a memo written by Lewis Powell in 1971 which is a blueprint for what’s been happening since–
link
If that link is hard to read, here’s another (with an explanation at the beginning) which should be easier–
link
I don’t know how much influence this memo actually had, but it does seem to describe how the American right has taken control of the debate since then.
The rightwing cultural revolution began before Reagan. The blog “A Tiny Revolution” has a couple of links to a memo written by Lewis Powell in 1971 which is a blueprint for what’s been happening since–
link
If that link is hard to read, here’s another (with an explanation at the beginning) which should be easier–
link
I don’t know how much influence this memo actually had, but it does seem to describe how the American right has taken control of the debate since then.
Here’s another one of Dave C’s unlucky duckies, down on his luck, the whining schmuck:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/southerland_struggling_to_get031800.php
Here’s another one of Dave C’s unlucky duckies, down on his luck, the whining schmuck:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/southerland_struggling_to_get031800.php
If your income was above $1M in 2007, you are almost certainly wealthy today, regardless of what your gross was in 2009.
Well, this is not necessarily correct.
In fact, I’d like to be one of the $1M/year earners. I just don’t want them to make it at the expense of the well being and quality of life of everyone else. I don’t want them to have inordinate political power.
Everyone wants to make a million a year who isn’t already doing so. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Which is why those who actually earn, through hard work, 60-70 hour weeks and oftentimes significant personal risk financially, a million a year would like to hang on to most of it.
Even those who make only half that, they still like hanging on to a good chunk of what, believe me, does not come easy.
Further, speaking for myself and a goodly number of folks I know similarly situated, not only do we not have the ear of any politician, we do not make money at others’ expense, rather, we provide jobs and decent opportunity to people who need work.
That said, once congress manages the structural changes necessary–and they will be painful–to bring revenues in line with expenses, then and only then, should taxes go up on the well off and wealthy, because the debt needs to be substantially reduced.
If your income was above $1M in 2007, you are almost certainly wealthy today, regardless of what your gross was in 2009.
Well, this is not necessarily correct.
In fact, I’d like to be one of the $1M/year earners. I just don’t want them to make it at the expense of the well being and quality of life of everyone else. I don’t want them to have inordinate political power.
Everyone wants to make a million a year who isn’t already doing so. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Which is why those who actually earn, through hard work, 60-70 hour weeks and oftentimes significant personal risk financially, a million a year would like to hang on to most of it.
Even those who make only half that, they still like hanging on to a good chunk of what, believe me, does not come easy.
Further, speaking for myself and a goodly number of folks I know similarly situated, not only do we not have the ear of any politician, we do not make money at others’ expense, rather, we provide jobs and decent opportunity to people who need work.
That said, once congress manages the structural changes necessary–and they will be painful–to bring revenues in line with expenses, then and only then, should taxes go up on the well off and wealthy, because the debt needs to be substantially reduced.
Well, this is not necessarily correct.
I think it’s fair to say that an annual income north of $1M qualifies you as wealthy.
I also think it’s fair to say that if you were making more than $1M a year four years ago, you’re probably in good shape today.
I recognize that there are exceptions, but I’m talking about the general case.
To Dave’s point, the fact that lots of folks who made $1M in ’07 made less than that in ’09 doesn’t obviate the fact that the disparity between the wealthy and the non-wealthy in this country is large and growing.
The experience of folks making multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year, during the last few years is really not comparable to that of folks who have lost livelihoods, homes, life savings, health insurance, access to credit, etc.
It is, IMO, indecent to compare them.
This is not a comment about folks who do well financially, it’s a comment about the whining tax attorney Dave chose to cite. And all of his ilk.
Quite a number of folks who have a lot of money worked very hard for it. And, want to hold on to it.
Quite a number of folks who have very modest resources worked very hard for those. Even 60-70 hours a week, and even while incurring personal financial risk, and even while creating jobs for other people. They’d like to hold on to their stuff, too. It’s just harder for them to do so than for the double-comma crowd.
I doubt you’ll disagree with any of this.
Well, this is not necessarily correct.
I think it’s fair to say that an annual income north of $1M qualifies you as wealthy.
I also think it’s fair to say that if you were making more than $1M a year four years ago, you’re probably in good shape today.
I recognize that there are exceptions, but I’m talking about the general case.
To Dave’s point, the fact that lots of folks who made $1M in ’07 made less than that in ’09 doesn’t obviate the fact that the disparity between the wealthy and the non-wealthy in this country is large and growing.
The experience of folks making multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year, during the last few years is really not comparable to that of folks who have lost livelihoods, homes, life savings, health insurance, access to credit, etc.
It is, IMO, indecent to compare them.
This is not a comment about folks who do well financially, it’s a comment about the whining tax attorney Dave chose to cite. And all of his ilk.
Quite a number of folks who have a lot of money worked very hard for it. And, want to hold on to it.
Quite a number of folks who have very modest resources worked very hard for those. Even 60-70 hours a week, and even while incurring personal financial risk, and even while creating jobs for other people. They’d like to hold on to their stuff, too. It’s just harder for them to do so than for the double-comma crowd.
I doubt you’ll disagree with any of this.
McKinneyTexas:
‘once congress manages the structural changes necessary–and they will be painful–to bring revenues in line with expenses, then and only then, should taxes go up on the well off and wealthy, because the debt needs to be substantially reduced.’
You got this correct. Anybody know why any mention of tax reform is often so low key? I know it’s frequently raised but it’s rarely a hot topic like ‘raising tax rates on the rich’ or cleaning up the mess in entitlement programs. And it was an essential component of Bowles-Simpson that gave Obama a chance to lead. It’s as if he doesn’t even remember there was a commission appointed by him, with great fanfare, and he has chosen to ignore the results. Anyone?
McKinneyTexas:
‘once congress manages the structural changes necessary–and they will be painful–to bring revenues in line with expenses, then and only then, should taxes go up on the well off and wealthy, because the debt needs to be substantially reduced.’
You got this correct. Anybody know why any mention of tax reform is often so low key? I know it’s frequently raised but it’s rarely a hot topic like ‘raising tax rates on the rich’ or cleaning up the mess in entitlement programs. And it was an essential component of Bowles-Simpson that gave Obama a chance to lead. It’s as if he doesn’t even remember there was a commission appointed by him, with great fanfare, and he has chosen to ignore the results. Anyone?
I think it’s fair to say that an annual income north of $1M qualifies you as wealthy.
I also think it’s fair to say that if you were making more than $1M a year four years ago, you’re probably in good shape today.
Well, I think the problem is that people assume that one’s earnings either remain fairly constant or go up, or trend up. I am quite sure that is not the case for many who, on average, do well. A case in point–me. My income ranges, up or down, between 15 and 60%, the 60% being last year’s decrease. 2010 was not a good year for us. Not awful, but the worst in 8 years. In the small business arena, income ebbs and flows.
I think it’s fair to say that an annual income north of $1M qualifies you as wealthy.
I also think it’s fair to say that if you were making more than $1M a year four years ago, you’re probably in good shape today.
Well, I think the problem is that people assume that one’s earnings either remain fairly constant or go up, or trend up. I am quite sure that is not the case for many who, on average, do well. A case in point–me. My income ranges, up or down, between 15 and 60%, the 60% being last year’s decrease. 2010 was not a good year for us. Not awful, but the worst in 8 years. In the small business arena, income ebbs and flows.
And it was an essential component of Bowles-Simpson that gave Obama a chance to lead.
Maybe it was because the co-chairman issued a proposal of their own before the committee had finished any kind of consensus report, because the main plank took on Social Security reform, but most significantly, because Alan Simpson decided to demand that he play Grandpa Simpson
And it was an essential component of Bowles-Simpson that gave Obama a chance to lead.
Maybe it was because the co-chairman issued a proposal of their own before the committee had finished any kind of consensus report, because the main plank took on Social Security reform, but most significantly, because Alan Simpson decided to demand that he play Grandpa Simpson
I wonder how many of the people who reported adjusted gross incomes of at least $1M in 2007 were self-employed or small business owners, as opposed to high-level executives or people living off inherited wealth, or, conversely, how many self-employed small business owners reported at least $1M of AGI. I’d guess not many, either way you look at it. I’ll try to find out.
I wonder how many of the people who reported adjusted gross incomes of at least $1M in 2007 were self-employed or small business owners, as opposed to high-level executives or people living off inherited wealth, or, conversely, how many self-employed small business owners reported at least $1M of AGI. I’d guess not many, either way you look at it. I’ll try to find out.
GOB, the Bowles-Simpson commission didn’t come up with a proposal. The two chairmen came up with a draft proposal that wasn’t endorsed by the committee. And Obama has repeatedly discussed tax reform. Do you honestly think that the Republican House of Representatives is going to pass anything that Obama recommends?
GOB, the Bowles-Simpson commission didn’t come up with a proposal. The two chairmen came up with a draft proposal that wasn’t endorsed by the committee. And Obama has repeatedly discussed tax reform. Do you honestly think that the Republican House of Representatives is going to pass anything that Obama recommends?
“The experience of folks making multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year, during the last few years is really not comparable to that of folks who have lost livelihoods, homes, life savings, health insurance, access to credit, etc.
It is, IMO, indecent to compare them.”
This is the problem. Some of those people are both. People who made “multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars” have also lost everything.
Which is to say they weren’t rich. If you have a million dollars you might be able to live off the income from that, 50k max, unless the markets are down 20%. Then there is no income and 200k less in principal.
I think it is indecent to continue to perpetuate the myth that having a million dollars or a 250k a year current income means you can’t lose everything. So you shouldn’t want more, or at least want to protect what you have.
It’s easy to lose your job at 55, go through that savings and lose everything.
“The experience of folks making multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, every year, during the last few years is really not comparable to that of folks who have lost livelihoods, homes, life savings, health insurance, access to credit, etc.
It is, IMO, indecent to compare them.”
This is the problem. Some of those people are both. People who made “multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars” have also lost everything.
Which is to say they weren’t rich. If you have a million dollars you might be able to live off the income from that, 50k max, unless the markets are down 20%. Then there is no income and 200k less in principal.
I think it is indecent to continue to perpetuate the myth that having a million dollars or a 250k a year current income means you can’t lose everything. So you shouldn’t want more, or at least want to protect what you have.
It’s easy to lose your job at 55, go through that savings and lose everything.
lj beat me to it.
McKinney, what russell said when he said this: “Quite a number of folks who have very modest resources worked very hard for those. Even 60-70 hours a week, and even while incurring personal financial risk, and even while creating jobs for other people.” And some of those folks are lawyers who do very good work.
lj beat me to it.
McKinney, what russell said when he said this: “Quite a number of folks who have very modest resources worked very hard for those. Even 60-70 hours a week, and even while incurring personal financial risk, and even while creating jobs for other people.” And some of those folks are lawyers who do very good work.
“It’s easy to lose your job at 55, go through that savings and lose everything.”
That’s true too. Some people didn’t expect what was coming, were living within their means, but then suddenly didn’t have any means. But I don’t know what that has to do with the tax schedule. People who are making a lot of money need to contribute based on their income. Then, if they suddenly find themselves down and out, they can take advantage of the safety net.
“It’s easy to lose your job at 55, go through that savings and lose everything.”
That’s true too. Some people didn’t expect what was coming, were living within their means, but then suddenly didn’t have any means. But I don’t know what that has to do with the tax schedule. People who are making a lot of money need to contribute based on their income. Then, if they suddenly find themselves down and out, they can take advantage of the safety net.
“People who are making a lot of money need to contribute based on their income.”
No, they should contribute MORE, diminishing the chance that perhaps they would never need the safety net.
There are two ways to rebuild the middle class, I prefer bringing people up into it rather than pushing people down into it.
russell prefers the other way, or both. Equal income for equal work, no matter the job. So I want him to switch incomes with the grocery checker who works 50 hours a week. Or shut up.
“People who are making a lot of money need to contribute based on their income.”
No, they should contribute MORE, diminishing the chance that perhaps they would never need the safety net.
There are two ways to rebuild the middle class, I prefer bringing people up into it rather than pushing people down into it.
russell prefers the other way, or both. Equal income for equal work, no matter the job. So I want him to switch incomes with the grocery checker who works 50 hours a week. Or shut up.
I suppose another question to ask is, of those who report AGI of at least $1M in 2007 but not in 2009, what was their AGI in 2009? Taking McKinney’s numbers, are we talking about someone whose income dropped 60% two years over, leaving them with a 2009 income of at least $160k? I wonder how they did in 2010 and will do in 2011, now that the stock market has largely rebounded.
Feh. Why am I even thinking about this?
I suppose another question to ask is, of those who report AGI of at least $1M in 2007 but not in 2009, what was their AGI in 2009? Taking McKinney’s numbers, are we talking about someone whose income dropped 60% two years over, leaving them with a 2009 income of at least $160k? I wonder how they did in 2010 and will do in 2011, now that the stock market has largely rebounded.
Feh. Why am I even thinking about this?
“There are two ways to rebuild the middle class, I prefer bringing people up into it rather than pushing people down into it.”
Well, I hope, that you aren’t supporting a Republican candidate for President, who will attack the right of the working poor to sustain themselves.
“There are two ways to rebuild the middle class, I prefer bringing people up into it rather than pushing people down into it.”
Well, I hope, that you aren’t supporting a Republican candidate for President, who will attack the right of the working poor to sustain themselves.
To Donald’s 12:39 comment:
Thanks for the Powell links. What’s truly remarkable is how much of the assertions of a broad, conspiratorial assault on capitalism, which is taken to be indistinguishable from the “American way of life”, has rhetorically made its way wholesale into both the assault the right has made on the left, and into the ontological vision the right has of itself – in other words, that the right has become what it accused the left of doing, and that the harder its accusation, the more it reinforces its own worst instincts by realizing what it set out to combat.
The histrionic jaw-jawing it cites of Ralph Nader could just as soon be copied word-for-word, with Nader’s name dropped for Perry-Bachmann-Palin-Cain-et al (just insert the demagogue of your choice there) without a jot of dissonance or difference in summing up the assault on the average American today.
But the footnote at the end about wage freezes was a real boner. Here, the right has actualized what it feared the left would do – the wholesale wage stagnation of the last couple of decades has amounted to a mass freeze. And this is just one example. The right has now outdone what it accused/feared/thought the left was after by actualizing that scepter.
To Donald’s 12:39 comment:
Thanks for the Powell links. What’s truly remarkable is how much of the assertions of a broad, conspiratorial assault on capitalism, which is taken to be indistinguishable from the “American way of life”, has rhetorically made its way wholesale into both the assault the right has made on the left, and into the ontological vision the right has of itself – in other words, that the right has become what it accused the left of doing, and that the harder its accusation, the more it reinforces its own worst instincts by realizing what it set out to combat.
The histrionic jaw-jawing it cites of Ralph Nader could just as soon be copied word-for-word, with Nader’s name dropped for Perry-Bachmann-Palin-Cain-et al (just insert the demagogue of your choice there) without a jot of dissonance or difference in summing up the assault on the average American today.
But the footnote at the end about wage freezes was a real boner. Here, the right has actualized what it feared the left would do – the wholesale wage stagnation of the last couple of decades has amounted to a mass freeze. And this is just one example. The right has now outdone what it accused/feared/thought the left was after by actualizing that scepter.
In the small business arena, income ebbs and flows.
Yeah, I get that. My wife is self-employed, and I work a second job as a freelance musician. The variability of small business / self-employed income is a reality chez russell.
But check this out.
A million bucks is twenty years of median income. Twenty years.
It’s ten years of $100K gross, which is well within the top quintile of income in this country. Ten years worth, in one year.
If you make a million one year, and merely $200K for the next couple of years, you are doing very well.
Maybe not as well as you would like, but very very well.
What I’m looking for here is one single tiny speck of perspective.
russell prefers the other way, or both. Equal income for equal work, no matter the job.
If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.
The floor is yours, I look forward to seeing what you can come up with.
In the small business arena, income ebbs and flows.
Yeah, I get that. My wife is self-employed, and I work a second job as a freelance musician. The variability of small business / self-employed income is a reality chez russell.
But check this out.
A million bucks is twenty years of median income. Twenty years.
It’s ten years of $100K gross, which is well within the top quintile of income in this country. Ten years worth, in one year.
If you make a million one year, and merely $200K for the next couple of years, you are doing very well.
Maybe not as well as you would like, but very very well.
What I’m looking for here is one single tiny speck of perspective.
russell prefers the other way, or both. Equal income for equal work, no matter the job.
If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.
The floor is yours, I look forward to seeing what you can come up with.
I have to agree with russell, here. Although russell is a frequent voice for more equity in compensation, he hasn’t ever, as far as I have noticed, demanded equality. There’s a difference there worth considering. I also haven’t noticed that russell has suggested anything in the way of enforcing said equity through legal means. Just that there should be a better balance in the incomes of those who are the big bosses, and those who do the work that enable the big bosses to get the big rewards.
Hopefully I haven’t embellished or flat made up any point of view and assigned it to russell; that’s just the general flavor I get. russell will undoubtedly set me straight where I have misrepresented him.
From my point of view, there does seem to be some odd disconnect between the notion that corporate officers are indispensible and snowflakey, but that everyone who works for them are interchangeable. I’d guess that a better result would be obtained if everyone were considered key contributors to the product. My company in particular isn’t at that point; they’ve only fairly recently emerged from the culture that says don’t talk about what you make with your co-workers. But they’ve taken some great strides in the direction of employee respect at least on the microscopic level.
At some level of compensation, though, upper management sort of loses touch with the common laborers and engineers. It’s difficult to even have a conversation with people who don’t, for instance, own multiple homes, automobiles and boats. You tend to forget that your thresholds of acceptance in places to eat and conveyances just looks unnecessarily extravagant to the working stiff. I’ve seen that happen both in small corporations and large. The daughter of the guy who owned the small company I worked for also worked as an engineer there, and my wife overheard her telling the payroll people, who at the time made maybe $25k a year, that she just couldn’t imagine how anyone could make do with a house that had less than five bedrooms. People who, in all likelihood, were still trying to assemble the means to own maybe a tiny two-bedroom home.
Anyway, much of the above are concerns that I hear coming from russell. Again, though, I don’t hear him demanding any kind of enforced parity in compensation.
I have to agree with russell, here. Although russell is a frequent voice for more equity in compensation, he hasn’t ever, as far as I have noticed, demanded equality. There’s a difference there worth considering. I also haven’t noticed that russell has suggested anything in the way of enforcing said equity through legal means. Just that there should be a better balance in the incomes of those who are the big bosses, and those who do the work that enable the big bosses to get the big rewards.
Hopefully I haven’t embellished or flat made up any point of view and assigned it to russell; that’s just the general flavor I get. russell will undoubtedly set me straight where I have misrepresented him.
From my point of view, there does seem to be some odd disconnect between the notion that corporate officers are indispensible and snowflakey, but that everyone who works for them are interchangeable. I’d guess that a better result would be obtained if everyone were considered key contributors to the product. My company in particular isn’t at that point; they’ve only fairly recently emerged from the culture that says don’t talk about what you make with your co-workers. But they’ve taken some great strides in the direction of employee respect at least on the microscopic level.
At some level of compensation, though, upper management sort of loses touch with the common laborers and engineers. It’s difficult to even have a conversation with people who don’t, for instance, own multiple homes, automobiles and boats. You tend to forget that your thresholds of acceptance in places to eat and conveyances just looks unnecessarily extravagant to the working stiff. I’ve seen that happen both in small corporations and large. The daughter of the guy who owned the small company I worked for also worked as an engineer there, and my wife overheard her telling the payroll people, who at the time made maybe $25k a year, that she just couldn’t imagine how anyone could make do with a house that had less than five bedrooms. People who, in all likelihood, were still trying to assemble the means to own maybe a tiny two-bedroom home.
Anyway, much of the above are concerns that I hear coming from russell. Again, though, I don’t hear him demanding any kind of enforced parity in compensation.
A million bucks is twenty years of median income. Twenty years.
If someone is making a steady mil a year, sure, that’s a great living. So how much is fair to take from that person, annually, before it becomes unfair?
Now, most small businesses don’t operate in that fashion. Income is variable, expenses are not. Payroll comes around on the 1st and 15th, the rent on the first and bills within 25 days of receipt. In the lean years, the work isn’t any easier, in fact it’s harder. So when a good year comes around, or two or three, folks get testy when they find out how rich they are and that others think they aren’t paying enough in taxes. Lot’s of people think 35% plus 11% of the first 106K plus 2.9% of the total is a lot of money.
To address HSD’s point: yes, 200K a year is a lot of money, in the abstract. When it comes in in dribs and drabs over the first 6 or 8 months of the year, you are living off of savings and doing without and watching who you can pay and who you can’t. A nice slug comes in and the first thing you do is catch up on your taxes and replace the spent savings. And, all the while, you’re burning up stomach lining by the mile.
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made. The don’t have it made, they made it happen. And if they don’t stay focused, get in early and stay late, that great income can vanish overnight.
A million bucks is twenty years of median income. Twenty years.
If someone is making a steady mil a year, sure, that’s a great living. So how much is fair to take from that person, annually, before it becomes unfair?
Now, most small businesses don’t operate in that fashion. Income is variable, expenses are not. Payroll comes around on the 1st and 15th, the rent on the first and bills within 25 days of receipt. In the lean years, the work isn’t any easier, in fact it’s harder. So when a good year comes around, or two or three, folks get testy when they find out how rich they are and that others think they aren’t paying enough in taxes. Lot’s of people think 35% plus 11% of the first 106K plus 2.9% of the total is a lot of money.
To address HSD’s point: yes, 200K a year is a lot of money, in the abstract. When it comes in in dribs and drabs over the first 6 or 8 months of the year, you are living off of savings and doing without and watching who you can pay and who you can’t. A nice slug comes in and the first thing you do is catch up on your taxes and replace the spent savings. And, all the while, you’re burning up stomach lining by the mile.
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made. The don’t have it made, they made it happen. And if they don’t stay focused, get in early and stay late, that great income can vanish overnight.
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made.
McKinney, my personal view is that for people whose income varies quite a bit over the course of the year or across years, there should be rather, um, liberal allowances made for such in terms of taxation. I know there are such adjustments, though I don’t know the details of them, but I have no problem with some form of multi-year averaging for business owners or anyone whose income fluxuates significantly. I’m not looking to screw anyone for working hard and taking chances.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that what at least I’m reacting to is the dumb-ass blog post Dave C linked to with a ridiculous stat about how many filers reported an AGI of $1M or more in 2007 versus 2009, a time frame spanning the height of an historic bubble and the worst economic downturn since the last depression, with the accusation that it should make us libruls all jump for joy. All that in the face of a whole lot more people losing their jobs, homes, health coverage and likely a good bit of dignity.
That sh1t pisses me off.
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made.
McKinney, my personal view is that for people whose income varies quite a bit over the course of the year or across years, there should be rather, um, liberal allowances made for such in terms of taxation. I know there are such adjustments, though I don’t know the details of them, but I have no problem with some form of multi-year averaging for business owners or anyone whose income fluxuates significantly. I’m not looking to screw anyone for working hard and taking chances.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that what at least I’m reacting to is the dumb-ass blog post Dave C linked to with a ridiculous stat about how many filers reported an AGI of $1M or more in 2007 versus 2009, a time frame spanning the height of an historic bubble and the worst economic downturn since the last depression, with the accusation that it should make us libruls all jump for joy. All that in the face of a whole lot more people losing their jobs, homes, health coverage and likely a good bit of dignity.
That sh1t pisses me off.
Once upon a time there was income averaging in the tax code for personal income; that fell out of glamor a while back. I’m thinking mid- to late- 1980s.
Once upon a time there was income averaging in the tax code for personal income; that fell out of glamor a while back. I’m thinking mid- to late- 1980s.
If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.
The floor is yours, I look forward to seeing what you can come up with.
In Marty’s world, Marty doesn’t have to support anything he says about/to the rest of us with actual facts about what we’ve written. The voices in his head are sufficient evidence as far as he’s concerned.
If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.
The floor is yours, I look forward to seeing what you can come up with.
In Marty’s world, Marty doesn’t have to support anything he says about/to the rest of us with actual facts about what we’ve written. The voices in his head are sufficient evidence as far as he’s concerned.
“If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.”
It is the logical conclusion of everything you write. I am sure you don’t quite get there in your own mind. But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses. it is a conclusion that is a matter of degree not kind.
If your time should be as valuable as management then anyone making less than you can make the same argument. The clean floors are just as important to the company as the code you write, I work 50 hours a week making sure they are clean and you don’t slip and hurt yourself, blau blah.
In the end the argument in degree that Slart makes in your defense is true, but not valid. Some people have earned the privilege of making more than others, or they haven’t.
“If you would like to demonstrate, from anything I’ve ever written here or anywhere, that this is my point of view, have at it.
If you can’t do that, than perhaps I’m not the one who should be shutting up.”
It is the logical conclusion of everything you write. I am sure you don’t quite get there in your own mind. But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses. it is a conclusion that is a matter of degree not kind.
If your time should be as valuable as management then anyone making less than you can make the same argument. The clean floors are just as important to the company as the code you write, I work 50 hours a week making sure they are clean and you don’t slip and hurt yourself, blau blah.
In the end the argument in degree that Slart makes in your defense is true, but not valid. Some people have earned the privilege of making more than others, or they haven’t.
Slarti’s correct, the only income averaging that’s left is for farmers, IIRC.
Slarti’s correct, the only income averaging that’s left is for farmers, IIRC.
At some level of compensation, though, upper management sort of loses touch with the common laborers and engineers. It’s difficult to even have a conversation with people who don’t, for instance, own multiple homes, automobiles and boats. You tend to forget that your thresholds of acceptance in places to eat and conveyances just looks unnecessarily extravagant to the working stiff.
Actual conversation between my wife (a manager-level person) and her boss (a director-level person) last week:
Boss: What are your plans for the weekend?
Wife: We’re going to be helping my mom and her husband move.
Boss: Oh! The fun of discovering a new house and setting it up!
Wife: Actually, they got foreclosed on because he’s been out of work for two years and she’s retired and disabled, and they lost the house at sheriff’s auction.
Boss: . . . Oh.
There are people alive who literally have no conception of what it’s like to be poor. And consider it purely a moral failing.
To address HSD’s point: yes, 200K a year is a lot of money, in the abstract. When it comes in in dribs and drabs over the first 6 or 8 months of the year, you are living off of savings and doing without and watching who you can pay and who you can’t.
If you don’t mind my asking, and I ask in all seriousness, what does “doing without” mean in this context? Does it mean having your phone turned off for six months so you can afford to grocery shop, for example?
At some level of compensation, though, upper management sort of loses touch with the common laborers and engineers. It’s difficult to even have a conversation with people who don’t, for instance, own multiple homes, automobiles and boats. You tend to forget that your thresholds of acceptance in places to eat and conveyances just looks unnecessarily extravagant to the working stiff.
Actual conversation between my wife (a manager-level person) and her boss (a director-level person) last week:
Boss: What are your plans for the weekend?
Wife: We’re going to be helping my mom and her husband move.
Boss: Oh! The fun of discovering a new house and setting it up!
Wife: Actually, they got foreclosed on because he’s been out of work for two years and she’s retired and disabled, and they lost the house at sheriff’s auction.
Boss: . . . Oh.
There are people alive who literally have no conception of what it’s like to be poor. And consider it purely a moral failing.
To address HSD’s point: yes, 200K a year is a lot of money, in the abstract. When it comes in in dribs and drabs over the first 6 or 8 months of the year, you are living off of savings and doing without and watching who you can pay and who you can’t.
If you don’t mind my asking, and I ask in all seriousness, what does “doing without” mean in this context? Does it mean having your phone turned off for six months so you can afford to grocery shop, for example?
Janiem(who purportedly won’t read this having excluded me from her comments),
Unnecessary bringing up of something that happened a long time ago that I dropped, maybe you should too.
Or maybe it is just too much for someone to not say “what russell said”.
As for rooting through years of comments to prove something that is obvious, to me, in each of his longer rants, yes I feel it is unnecassary. Just as I didn’t feel it necssary to challenge Slart’s interpretation of that same body of work.
And I’m sick to death of the “in Martys world” comments. It seems that any non “what russell said” opinion has devolved to getting that.
No one understanda the differences in the view of the rich and the poor better than me. I could probably find the comment I made that pointed it out from my experience. I would suggest many people making 90k and up would have a hard time thinking about life the same as a person who has been homeless for 5 years, for the same reasons.
Janiem(who purportedly won’t read this having excluded me from her comments),
Unnecessary bringing up of something that happened a long time ago that I dropped, maybe you should too.
Or maybe it is just too much for someone to not say “what russell said”.
As for rooting through years of comments to prove something that is obvious, to me, in each of his longer rants, yes I feel it is unnecassary. Just as I didn’t feel it necssary to challenge Slart’s interpretation of that same body of work.
And I’m sick to death of the “in Martys world” comments. It seems that any non “what russell said” opinion has devolved to getting that.
No one understanda the differences in the view of the rich and the poor better than me. I could probably find the comment I made that pointed it out from my experience. I would suggest many people making 90k and up would have a hard time thinking about life the same as a person who has been homeless for 5 years, for the same reasons.
Errr…what? What the hell does true-but-not-valid mean?
Not to be mean, Marty, but you seem to be claiming Ultimate Authority here.
As a side note, I think it’s fair to say that people from widely disparate cultural or income brackets don’t really understand each other’s problems and concerns all that well. But I think that that in general the wealthier you get, the blurrier the distinction between want and need becomes.
Errr…what? What the hell does true-but-not-valid mean?
Not to be mean, Marty, but you seem to be claiming Ultimate Authority here.
As a side note, I think it’s fair to say that people from widely disparate cultural or income brackets don’t really understand each other’s problems and concerns all that well. But I think that that in general the wealthier you get, the blurrier the distinction between want and need becomes.
“Not to be mean, Marty, but you seem to be claiming Ultimate Authority here.”
Yes, and no. I have had the “privilege” over the last ten years of working on a day to day basis with people who were worth north of a half a billion dollars, and people who made 35k a year. I know, on a first name basis, most of the homeless people in the west end of Boston. I have spent many evenings in the last year standing around in doorways and on street corners with people my age, younger and older sharing smokes and food while learning their life stories. I know the Pine Street Inn people and who they worry about on cold nights, and have helped find some of those people on occasion.
My sisters are working poor families who live tenuous existences every day. And over the last forty years I have been in all of those situations.
Maybe I am not the authority that is acceptable to this audience, but I comfortable that my opinions are well informed.
“Not to be mean, Marty, but you seem to be claiming Ultimate Authority here.”
Yes, and no. I have had the “privilege” over the last ten years of working on a day to day basis with people who were worth north of a half a billion dollars, and people who made 35k a year. I know, on a first name basis, most of the homeless people in the west end of Boston. I have spent many evenings in the last year standing around in doorways and on street corners with people my age, younger and older sharing smokes and food while learning their life stories. I know the Pine Street Inn people and who they worry about on cold nights, and have helped find some of those people on occasion.
My sisters are working poor families who live tenuous existences every day. And over the last forty years I have been in all of those situations.
Maybe I am not the authority that is acceptable to this audience, but I comfortable that my opinions are well informed.
Who buffs the effing linoleum in Galt’s Gulch? he’s always wondered.
It seems to me that the usual hierarchy CCDG defends here of manager’s more valuable time recompensed more than programmer’s valuable time which is in turn recompensed more than the floor buffer’s valuable time worked more or less for a while because there used to be, during a certain now-destroyed era, a certain amount of good will lubricating the entire transaction, with the good will flowing both up and down the chain.
Then everyone’s good nature got presumed upon.
The floor buffer lost his health benefits because his hours were cut back below the 40-hour work week. Pretty soon, his job was contracted out to folks making half of his hourly rate.
Then he noticed a guy in line at the grocery store, probably a member of the managerial class, staring disapprovingly at him because he was purchasing the medium-cut pork chops with his food stamps.
When he reached home, there was a foreclosure notice in the mail and on CNBC was an arrogant c*cksucker with his initials threaded into his shirt cuff calling the former floor buffer a “lucky ducky”, so he switches over to FOX to find out that he’s not only lucky, but morally depraved, lazy, and a parasite.
Now, the programmer, who’s been watching this drama out of the corner of his eye, whistling past the graveyard so to speak, gets called into a meeting with all of the other programmers and learns his and their jobs are being outsourced to Bangalore, with stentorian explanations of comparative advantage, etc, and next thing you know the programmer has a security guard ($9.50 an hour, no benefits, but he’s carrying heat) overseeing his gathering of the kid’s pictures and other personal effects for his trip to the sidewalk.
He joins the former floor buffer in the litany of unfortunate circumstances cited above.
In the next comment, I’ll get to the manager, who somehow in all of this seemingly rational cost-cutting forgot that his a*s was overhead, too.
Who buffs the effing linoleum in Galt’s Gulch? he’s always wondered.
It seems to me that the usual hierarchy CCDG defends here of manager’s more valuable time recompensed more than programmer’s valuable time which is in turn recompensed more than the floor buffer’s valuable time worked more or less for a while because there used to be, during a certain now-destroyed era, a certain amount of good will lubricating the entire transaction, with the good will flowing both up and down the chain.
Then everyone’s good nature got presumed upon.
The floor buffer lost his health benefits because his hours were cut back below the 40-hour work week. Pretty soon, his job was contracted out to folks making half of his hourly rate.
Then he noticed a guy in line at the grocery store, probably a member of the managerial class, staring disapprovingly at him because he was purchasing the medium-cut pork chops with his food stamps.
When he reached home, there was a foreclosure notice in the mail and on CNBC was an arrogant c*cksucker with his initials threaded into his shirt cuff calling the former floor buffer a “lucky ducky”, so he switches over to FOX to find out that he’s not only lucky, but morally depraved, lazy, and a parasite.
Now, the programmer, who’s been watching this drama out of the corner of his eye, whistling past the graveyard so to speak, gets called into a meeting with all of the other programmers and learns his and their jobs are being outsourced to Bangalore, with stentorian explanations of comparative advantage, etc, and next thing you know the programmer has a security guard ($9.50 an hour, no benefits, but he’s carrying heat) overseeing his gathering of the kid’s pictures and other personal effects for his trip to the sidewalk.
He joins the former floor buffer in the litany of unfortunate circumstances cited above.
In the next comment, I’ll get to the manager, who somehow in all of this seemingly rational cost-cutting forgot that his a*s was overhead, too.
“In the next comment, I’ll get to the manager, who somehow in all of this seemingly rational cost-cutting forgot that his a*s was overhead, too.”
Nope, he lost his job too. All the employees left were consolidated under one manager who now works 80 hours a week because he manages people and sysstems that are three times what he had in the halcyon days.
“In the next comment, I’ll get to the manager, who somehow in all of this seemingly rational cost-cutting forgot that his a*s was overhead, too.”
Nope, he lost his job too. All the employees left were consolidated under one manager who now works 80 hours a week because he manages people and sysstems that are three times what he had in the halcyon days.
Marty, if what you say is correct, you just might have a claim to some high level of authority.
Thanks for answering.
Marty, if what you say is correct, you just might have a claim to some high level of authority.
Thanks for answering.
But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses. it is a conclusion that is a matter of degree not kind.
If your time should be as valuable as management then anyone making less than you can make the same argument. The clean floors are just as important to the company as the code you write, I work 50 hours a week making sure they are clean and you don’t slip and hurt yourself, blau blah.
I personally have never read anything from russell suggesting the above. Maybe in some abstract sense, what russell says only differs as a matter of degree rather than kind, but even if that’s so, the matter of degree is what matters. That’s because there’s a difference between saying that people at lower levels on the corporate (or whatever) ladder should be more valued than they now are and saying that everyone should be the same. Think otherwise all you like, but it won’t make you look wise, smart or thoughtful, any more than does putting words into other people’s mouths.
But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses. it is a conclusion that is a matter of degree not kind.
If your time should be as valuable as management then anyone making less than you can make the same argument. The clean floors are just as important to the company as the code you write, I work 50 hours a week making sure they are clean and you don’t slip and hurt yourself, blau blah.
I personally have never read anything from russell suggesting the above. Maybe in some abstract sense, what russell says only differs as a matter of degree rather than kind, but even if that’s so, the matter of degree is what matters. That’s because there’s a difference between saying that people at lower levels on the corporate (or whatever) ladder should be more valued than they now are and saying that everyone should be the same. Think otherwise all you like, but it won’t make you look wise, smart or thoughtful, any more than does putting words into other people’s mouths.
Now the manager, say 61 years old and with a little, but possibly expensive, hitch in his getalong, finds out that all of these costs he’s been gutting from the company were just a prelude to selling the entire joint to, I don’t know, Bain Capital, who now announces that the manager, who has carried this damaging heavy water for the former owners thinking maybe the good will he stopped extending to the programmer and the floor buffer was still operative for HIM, is, well, you get the point, two years later, still years away from Medicare, at his age, maybe he’s still a manager because it says so on the Arby’s name-pin he’s wearing as he adjusts the funny paper hat he also has to wear because this is America we look down on putting folks in the Gulag because we’re exceptional.
No, we opt for subtle shaming and ridicule via dumb-looking fast food uniforms. It’s either that or dress up like a crap sandwich and do the Watusi on a street corner to lure the other fat Tea Party losers in who might, against their own interests, believe a crap sandwich is the new meals-on-wheels.
Cut to Social Security and Medicare being characterized on the TV as a weakening influence on the country by a good-looking but glib Cuban Republican politician from Florida, with a laughtrack laugh like Desi Arnaz and the manager, the programmer, and the floor buffer, sit separately, each in his own sprung Barcalounger, musing to themselves, how is it that Fidel Castro, with all of his lethal power for all of those years, allowed this f8*ck out of Cuba alive.
They then find out Rick Perry has purchased a life insurance policy on each of them, with the State of Texas and various offshore Trusts as beneficiaries and well…
… the old culture of good will, such as it was, gives way to the new culture of “F*ck you” and not even a laser-sighted pistol can protect the God-bothering, reptilian, grifters like Perry et al and the Democrats who let them have their way, for the coming unleashed, savage, lethal anger that is right around the corner.
So, yeah, maybe the manager, the programmer, and the floor buffer should all be paid the same, because they has their chance to be nice, within the context of fairly flexible good business practices, and they f*cking blew it.
Now the manager, say 61 years old and with a little, but possibly expensive, hitch in his getalong, finds out that all of these costs he’s been gutting from the company were just a prelude to selling the entire joint to, I don’t know, Bain Capital, who now announces that the manager, who has carried this damaging heavy water for the former owners thinking maybe the good will he stopped extending to the programmer and the floor buffer was still operative for HIM, is, well, you get the point, two years later, still years away from Medicare, at his age, maybe he’s still a manager because it says so on the Arby’s name-pin he’s wearing as he adjusts the funny paper hat he also has to wear because this is America we look down on putting folks in the Gulag because we’re exceptional.
No, we opt for subtle shaming and ridicule via dumb-looking fast food uniforms. It’s either that or dress up like a crap sandwich and do the Watusi on a street corner to lure the other fat Tea Party losers in who might, against their own interests, believe a crap sandwich is the new meals-on-wheels.
Cut to Social Security and Medicare being characterized on the TV as a weakening influence on the country by a good-looking but glib Cuban Republican politician from Florida, with a laughtrack laugh like Desi Arnaz and the manager, the programmer, and the floor buffer, sit separately, each in his own sprung Barcalounger, musing to themselves, how is it that Fidel Castro, with all of his lethal power for all of those years, allowed this f8*ck out of Cuba alive.
They then find out Rick Perry has purchased a life insurance policy on each of them, with the State of Texas and various offshore Trusts as beneficiaries and well…
… the old culture of good will, such as it was, gives way to the new culture of “F*ck you” and not even a laser-sighted pistol can protect the God-bothering, reptilian, grifters like Perry et al and the Democrats who let them have their way, for the coming unleashed, savage, lethal anger that is right around the corner.
So, yeah, maybe the manager, the programmer, and the floor buffer should all be paid the same, because they has their chance to be nice, within the context of fairly flexible good business practices, and they f*cking blew it.
I think Marty might be misunderstanding something, here. What I interpret russell to be saying is that lower-level employees’ time is worth as much to them as is the time of upper management to upper management.
It’s subjective. Also, what’s your unpaid time worth? When I can get paid for overtime and have overtime work that needs doing, my hours past 40 are worth my hourly rate to me. So, when deciding whether to do something or to hire someone to do it, I have that to consider. But if I’m not being paid? I tend to do home projects myself, when possible. It’s when people treat you as if your 41st hour is worthless that problems creep in. My spare time is worth ever so much more than your spare time; don’t bitch to me about having to work on Saturday. Not to interpret russell overly, but that’s the general flavor I get.
Also, that their dignity is worth as much.
I think Marty might be misunderstanding something, here. What I interpret russell to be saying is that lower-level employees’ time is worth as much to them as is the time of upper management to upper management.
It’s subjective. Also, what’s your unpaid time worth? When I can get paid for overtime and have overtime work that needs doing, my hours past 40 are worth my hourly rate to me. So, when deciding whether to do something or to hire someone to do it, I have that to consider. But if I’m not being paid? I tend to do home projects myself, when possible. It’s when people treat you as if your 41st hour is worthless that problems creep in. My spare time is worth ever so much more than your spare time; don’t bitch to me about having to work on Saturday. Not to interpret russell overly, but that’s the general flavor I get.
Also, that their dignity is worth as much.
“Also, that their dignity is worth as much.”
This I agree with and have supported strongly in a variety of ways in the companies I have worked at over the years.
It is amazing to me how many people, (programmers, managers, etc.) can demand respect and give none to the office manager, AP clerk, junior designer. And how many managers can treat all of those people like numbers in a spreadsheet.
In those situations where the company has had to fire someone or lay them off, I have always insisted that the manager meet individually with the person as a way to make them understand the human cost of those decisions.
For any emotionally functioning human being it is the best way to make sure they never want to have to make that decision again.
“Also, that their dignity is worth as much.”
This I agree with and have supported strongly in a variety of ways in the companies I have worked at over the years.
It is amazing to me how many people, (programmers, managers, etc.) can demand respect and give none to the office manager, AP clerk, junior designer. And how many managers can treat all of those people like numbers in a spreadsheet.
In those situations where the company has had to fire someone or lay them off, I have always insisted that the manager meet individually with the person as a way to make them understand the human cost of those decisions.
For any emotionally functioning human being it is the best way to make sure they never want to have to make that decision again.
It is the logical conclusion of everything you write.
Well no, it’s not.
I am sure you don’t quite get there in your own mind.
No need, because you are clearly here to get me there in yours.
But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses.
If you can find where I said that, I’d love to see it.
Perhaps the problem here is that you’re deriving logical conclusions from writings that don’t exist.
Some people have earned the privilege of making more than others, or they haven’t.
There are lots of reasons why some people earn more than other people. “Earning the privilege” is one, but not the only one.
The correspondence between the differences in what people have “earned” and what they actually receive also varies quite widely.
And, you know, all of this is kind of an aside.
I took exception to DaveC’s cite. I did so for two reasons.
One is that it elides the distinction between “millionaire” and “someone who makes a million dollars a year”. That’s a fairly important distinction, because those two groups of people are by no means one and the same.
The other is that at a time when *millions* of people are completely out of work, complaining that nobody is shedding a tear for the folks who used to earn a million a year and now no longer do is, at best, evidence of a tin ear.
Perhaps we need to have a discussion about what “wealthy” means.
In My Very Humble Opinion, if you make more in one year than half of the population makes in twenty, it’s highly likely that you’re wealthy. Even if you only make that for one year.
If you have enough liquid assets that you can close the office, go home, never work another day, and pull a $50K/year income for life without touching the principal, I would say you’re wealthy.
Perhaps the definition of wealth has changed to mean being able to never work again with no impact on your lifestyle, and having enough resources that you will basically be untouched by any fluctuations in the economy or the markets.
If so, that’s a pretty freaking high bar. But if that’s the definition you want to use, yes, I suppose you could make a million in a year and still not quite be wealthy.
But you’d still be head and shoulders better off than millions and millions of your neighbors.
So if that’s you (the rhetorical you, not you personally) you will do well to STFU and enjoy your immense good fortune, and stop whining because other folks aren’t feeling your pain.
That’s my point. I’m looking for one tiny freaking ounce of perspective. One freaking ounce.
It didn’t seem like a lot to ask for at the time. Shows you how wrong a guy can be.
Anyway, hope that clears it up for you.
It is the logical conclusion of everything you write.
Well no, it’s not.
I am sure you don’t quite get there in your own mind.
No need, because you are clearly here to get me there in yours.
But every time you talk about how everyone works 50 hours a week an their contribution is just as valuable as anyone elses.
If you can find where I said that, I’d love to see it.
Perhaps the problem here is that you’re deriving logical conclusions from writings that don’t exist.
Some people have earned the privilege of making more than others, or they haven’t.
There are lots of reasons why some people earn more than other people. “Earning the privilege” is one, but not the only one.
The correspondence between the differences in what people have “earned” and what they actually receive also varies quite widely.
And, you know, all of this is kind of an aside.
I took exception to DaveC’s cite. I did so for two reasons.
One is that it elides the distinction between “millionaire” and “someone who makes a million dollars a year”. That’s a fairly important distinction, because those two groups of people are by no means one and the same.
The other is that at a time when *millions* of people are completely out of work, complaining that nobody is shedding a tear for the folks who used to earn a million a year and now no longer do is, at best, evidence of a tin ear.
Perhaps we need to have a discussion about what “wealthy” means.
In My Very Humble Opinion, if you make more in one year than half of the population makes in twenty, it’s highly likely that you’re wealthy. Even if you only make that for one year.
If you have enough liquid assets that you can close the office, go home, never work another day, and pull a $50K/year income for life without touching the principal, I would say you’re wealthy.
Perhaps the definition of wealth has changed to mean being able to never work again with no impact on your lifestyle, and having enough resources that you will basically be untouched by any fluctuations in the economy or the markets.
If so, that’s a pretty freaking high bar. But if that’s the definition you want to use, yes, I suppose you could make a million in a year and still not quite be wealthy.
But you’d still be head and shoulders better off than millions and millions of your neighbors.
So if that’s you (the rhetorical you, not you personally) you will do well to STFU and enjoy your immense good fortune, and stop whining because other folks aren’t feeling your pain.
That’s my point. I’m looking for one tiny freaking ounce of perspective. One freaking ounce.
It didn’t seem like a lot to ask for at the time. Shows you how wrong a guy can be.
Anyway, hope that clears it up for you.
Dignity is priceless.
Even the market’s price discovery process can’t figure out it’s value.
If it could, it would dictate to the Pavlovian market worshipers that the dignified are just too expensive to keep on the payroll.
They would claim this in an indignant manner.
Hey, Bob, why were Steve and Mary laid off?
They were just too dignified so we hadda let em go. We couldn’t afford that much dignity. The shareholders wouldn’t stand for it.
Will they be replaced?
Yes, with part-time contractors who place a lower price (lower than priceless) on their dignity.
They do MORE with the same dignity. Or rather, they accept LESS with the same dignity.
You can’t take a man’s dignity away from him.
No, but you can buy it from him. And if you find a way to make him compete with his dignity against everyone else’s dignity, you can scoop up dignity at bargain prices.
But, you said it was priceless.
Did I? I meant to say that you should buy dignity when it’s worthless.
Dignity is priceless.
Even the market’s price discovery process can’t figure out it’s value.
If it could, it would dictate to the Pavlovian market worshipers that the dignified are just too expensive to keep on the payroll.
They would claim this in an indignant manner.
Hey, Bob, why were Steve and Mary laid off?
They were just too dignified so we hadda let em go. We couldn’t afford that much dignity. The shareholders wouldn’t stand for it.
Will they be replaced?
Yes, with part-time contractors who place a lower price (lower than priceless) on their dignity.
They do MORE with the same dignity. Or rather, they accept LESS with the same dignity.
You can’t take a man’s dignity away from him.
No, but you can buy it from him. And if you find a way to make him compete with his dignity against everyone else’s dignity, you can scoop up dignity at bargain prices.
But, you said it was priceless.
Did I? I meant to say that you should buy dignity when it’s worthless.
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric. Do you characterize yourself as having earned what you get paid? Would everyone else?
And if you earn 90k a year and live within your means you are better off than millions and millions of your neighbors. And if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Because he runs out of money, probably in less than twenty years, and you can still add to what you have.
Perspective is what we all want to create, it just seems that for you anyone who has accumulated any “wealth” isn’t worth considering.
No, their immediate problem isn’t nearly as bad as the unemployed person without a million dollars, but their fear of the future can be real, and worth considering.
Watching a lifetime of savings go away while being treated like you are someone who should be grateful for your circumstance is just as frightening as not being able to get ahead.
And, to be clear, I don’t have a million dollars or a full time job, but I can understand the fear of the present and future for all of those people, all the more reason why I believe this:
At least we should let people who have speent their lives trying and succeeding or failing live out their lives with dignity.
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric. Do you characterize yourself as having earned what you get paid? Would everyone else?
And if you earn 90k a year and live within your means you are better off than millions and millions of your neighbors. And if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Because he runs out of money, probably in less than twenty years, and you can still add to what you have.
Perspective is what we all want to create, it just seems that for you anyone who has accumulated any “wealth” isn’t worth considering.
No, their immediate problem isn’t nearly as bad as the unemployed person without a million dollars, but their fear of the future can be real, and worth considering.
Watching a lifetime of savings go away while being treated like you are someone who should be grateful for your circumstance is just as frightening as not being able to get ahead.
And, to be clear, I don’t have a million dollars or a full time job, but I can understand the fear of the present and future for all of those people, all the more reason why I believe this:
At least we should let people who have speent their lives trying and succeeding or failing live out their lives with dignity.
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric
Now that, my friends, is a substantive reply!
Do you characterize yourself as having earned what you get paid?
Since you ask:
The average salary of someone who does what I do, with my level of experience, in my market, is not quite equal to the average salary of the governor of a US state.
To me, that seems totally out of wack. By which I mean, it seems to me that folks like me are paid more than I would expect.
If, on the other hand, I compare it to salaries in the banking and financial sector, it seems out of wack in the other direction.
It depends on what you compare it to.
And if you earn 90k a year and live within your means you are better off than millions and millions of your neighbors.
Clearly so. 90k is good money.
And if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Maybe, maybe not.
How old is the guy making 50K?
Is either guy’s house paid off?
Where do they live?
Kids? College tuition? Medical expenses?
And, the guy with a million is going to run out of money in *twenty years*…? You’re 50, you’ve got a million in the bank, and neither you nor your money are going to earn another dime as long as you live?
It’s really not clear whether our guy making $50K is ahead of our millionaire or not.
it just seems that for you anyone who has accumulated any “wealth” isn’t worth considering.
Seriously, this is crap. Nothing personal, and I’m not trying to pick a fight, but it’s just crap.
What I’m saying is precisely this:
Folks who have made ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN A YEAR would do well to get some perspective and not be thinking they’re living the same hard times as folks who in their best year have, perhaps, made one-twentieth of that sum.
Even if the last time they made that lovely million was ’07.
In other words:
No, their immediate problem isn’t nearly as bad as the unemployed person without a million dollars
Thank you. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric
Now that, my friends, is a substantive reply!
Do you characterize yourself as having earned what you get paid?
Since you ask:
The average salary of someone who does what I do, with my level of experience, in my market, is not quite equal to the average salary of the governor of a US state.
To me, that seems totally out of wack. By which I mean, it seems to me that folks like me are paid more than I would expect.
If, on the other hand, I compare it to salaries in the banking and financial sector, it seems out of wack in the other direction.
It depends on what you compare it to.
And if you earn 90k a year and live within your means you are better off than millions and millions of your neighbors.
Clearly so. 90k is good money.
And if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Maybe, maybe not.
How old is the guy making 50K?
Is either guy’s house paid off?
Where do they live?
Kids? College tuition? Medical expenses?
And, the guy with a million is going to run out of money in *twenty years*…? You’re 50, you’ve got a million in the bank, and neither you nor your money are going to earn another dime as long as you live?
It’s really not clear whether our guy making $50K is ahead of our millionaire or not.
it just seems that for you anyone who has accumulated any “wealth” isn’t worth considering.
Seriously, this is crap. Nothing personal, and I’m not trying to pick a fight, but it’s just crap.
What I’m saying is precisely this:
Folks who have made ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN A YEAR would do well to get some perspective and not be thinking they’re living the same hard times as folks who in their best year have, perhaps, made one-twentieth of that sum.
Even if the last time they made that lovely million was ’07.
In other words:
No, their immediate problem isn’t nearly as bad as the unemployed person without a million dollars
Thank you. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Also:
all the more reason why I believe this:
We are of one mind on this.
Seriously, DG, please read what I actually write. Chances are you will be less bugged.
Also:
all the more reason why I believe this:
We are of one mind on this.
Seriously, DG, please read what I actually write. Chances are you will be less bugged.
Heh, if I don’t say so myself.
http://nowadifferentview.com/2011/02/25/ccdg-party-candidate-for-2012/
Heh, if I don’t say so myself.
http://nowadifferentview.com/2011/02/25/ccdg-party-candidate-for-2012/
if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Speak for yourself dude!
“The correspondence between the differences in what people have “earned” and what they actually receive also varies quite widely.”
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric.
‘Class rhetoric’?
Insisting that all positive human value must be calculated to an actual dollar amount is simply weird. It doesn’t make any sense in real life and never has. It’s one of those Protestant innovations that the rest of the world has had to grudgingly try to get used to, but that doesn’t make it any less weird. It doesn’t make sense on the low end of the economic scale (people who have nothing are neither intrinsically worthless nor useless) nor does it make sense on the high end (no one is really worth a billion or ten dollars no matter what they’ve done). This isn’t an argument against capitalism as a means to an end, but it is one against the *idolatry* of capital and capitalism, which you’d think would be seen as a seriously blasphemous thing among Christians. But yet it’s an essential feature of the Protestant ethos (religious or not). The hand of God is the Invisible Hand! My, my. How frickin neurotic (and profane) is THAT?
I believe in hard work, saving/delayed gratification, reinvesting, etc. as much as the next ethnic Protestant/American, but I don’t believe in it as either an end in itself or as proof of my spiritual worthiness; nor am I under the Ghadaffi-like delusion that the capital thus amassed is a precise measurement of the value I have given the world.
Let’s be honest here. What we’re talking about is much simpler: it’s resentment and fear. Not only did I work hard and save, but I also subordinated just about everything else in my life to my acquiring, including my own spiritual health. So now when you tell me that I am rich and I need to pay more in taxes, not only do I not feel rich, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accede to paying money which might be used to help people who didn’t choose the (fairly wretched) life I chose! The issue is not really whether I have ‘enough’ money – when you idolize money, money is, naturally, sacred, and how much is ‘enough’ is a deeply private, deeply spiritual question! It’s not about how much is enough; it’s about hatred and envy and resentment, aka ‘Principle’.
Furthermore, this discussion really is about class warfare. Now that what used to be called the ‘working class’ has been mostly dealt with and dispatched (the 50% who own 2.5%), the people who really own this country can turn their attention to the other ‘little people’ – you folks on this thread who make six figures and might have a total worth of a million or so. You are the new ‘middle class’ (nothing to do with median income of course), and after the safety net, pathetic as it is, has been shredded, it will be your turn to get squeezed. As your complaints about taxation and the people below you become less and less politically useful to the real rich, watch: the AMT patch magically not happen one year; see your home mortgage deduction go away (and not be balanced with anything else in the tax code); watch the gov stop subsidizing employer based healthcare; etc. Many people in your/our class have already been hit, but many more of us are next. You think the current ethical system is and will always be fair and rational for people like you? Hard work and education will always pay off for you and your heirs? Think it’s ‘conservative’ to allow your government to be completely bribed by those with the greatest wealth? Keep whistling…
if you earn 50k and have a job you are better off than someone 50 years old who has a million dollars and can’t find a job.
Speak for yourself dude!
“The correspondence between the differences in what people have “earned” and what they actually receive also varies quite widely.”
Bah, that’s just class rhetoric.
‘Class rhetoric’?
Insisting that all positive human value must be calculated to an actual dollar amount is simply weird. It doesn’t make any sense in real life and never has. It’s one of those Protestant innovations that the rest of the world has had to grudgingly try to get used to, but that doesn’t make it any less weird. It doesn’t make sense on the low end of the economic scale (people who have nothing are neither intrinsically worthless nor useless) nor does it make sense on the high end (no one is really worth a billion or ten dollars no matter what they’ve done). This isn’t an argument against capitalism as a means to an end, but it is one against the *idolatry* of capital and capitalism, which you’d think would be seen as a seriously blasphemous thing among Christians. But yet it’s an essential feature of the Protestant ethos (religious or not). The hand of God is the Invisible Hand! My, my. How frickin neurotic (and profane) is THAT?
I believe in hard work, saving/delayed gratification, reinvesting, etc. as much as the next ethnic Protestant/American, but I don’t believe in it as either an end in itself or as proof of my spiritual worthiness; nor am I under the Ghadaffi-like delusion that the capital thus amassed is a precise measurement of the value I have given the world.
Let’s be honest here. What we’re talking about is much simpler: it’s resentment and fear. Not only did I work hard and save, but I also subordinated just about everything else in my life to my acquiring, including my own spiritual health. So now when you tell me that I am rich and I need to pay more in taxes, not only do I not feel rich, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accede to paying money which might be used to help people who didn’t choose the (fairly wretched) life I chose! The issue is not really whether I have ‘enough’ money – when you idolize money, money is, naturally, sacred, and how much is ‘enough’ is a deeply private, deeply spiritual question! It’s not about how much is enough; it’s about hatred and envy and resentment, aka ‘Principle’.
Furthermore, this discussion really is about class warfare. Now that what used to be called the ‘working class’ has been mostly dealt with and dispatched (the 50% who own 2.5%), the people who really own this country can turn their attention to the other ‘little people’ – you folks on this thread who make six figures and might have a total worth of a million or so. You are the new ‘middle class’ (nothing to do with median income of course), and after the safety net, pathetic as it is, has been shredded, it will be your turn to get squeezed. As your complaints about taxation and the people below you become less and less politically useful to the real rich, watch: the AMT patch magically not happen one year; see your home mortgage deduction go away (and not be balanced with anything else in the tax code); watch the gov stop subsidizing employer based healthcare; etc. Many people in your/our class have already been hit, but many more of us are next. You think the current ethical system is and will always be fair and rational for people like you? Hard work and education will always pay off for you and your heirs? Think it’s ‘conservative’ to allow your government to be completely bribed by those with the greatest wealth? Keep whistling…
You are the new ‘middle class’ (nothing to do with median income of course), and after the safety net, pathetic as it is, has been shredded, it will be your turn to get squeezed.
Yeah, they think they’re one of them, but they’re really one of us and just don’t know it (yet). (I’m going all “other” here.)
I see that a lot when discussing taxes and regulations and such with people who think of themselves a being among the ones who I would argue need to contribute a bit more to the general welfare or who need to be reigned in when it comes to certain financial maneuvers or other business practices. But they’re not. They have far more in common with the people who live in trailer parks or run-down apartment complexes, or even on the streets, than they think. I think there’s a lack of appreciation among some people I know of how wide the economic/influence/power spectrum really is and where they are on it. Whistling, indeed.
You are the new ‘middle class’ (nothing to do with median income of course), and after the safety net, pathetic as it is, has been shredded, it will be your turn to get squeezed.
Yeah, they think they’re one of them, but they’re really one of us and just don’t know it (yet). (I’m going all “other” here.)
I see that a lot when discussing taxes and regulations and such with people who think of themselves a being among the ones who I would argue need to contribute a bit more to the general welfare or who need to be reigned in when it comes to certain financial maneuvers or other business practices. But they’re not. They have far more in common with the people who live in trailer parks or run-down apartment complexes, or even on the streets, than they think. I think there’s a lack of appreciation among some people I know of how wide the economic/influence/power spectrum really is and where they are on it. Whistling, indeed.
Yeah hsh, it is such a blatant divide and conquer strategy that it’s hard to see, particularly in a country this large and complex. It’s always easy to screw over the poor, since they don’t vote and are so alienated from the rest of the culture. And as we’ve seen, it’s not so hard to eviscerate the middle class if you do it slowly enough and play people off of one another. But then you get into the level of people making, say, between 100k-200k, and you have to build up the resentment; $150k per year really *isn’t* that much money if you’re raising and educating a family – it’s hardly poverty, but it’s not serious wealth, either. The modern GOP has done a very good job at pawning people like that. Unfortunately, their fear is misplaced. Rather than being scared of taxation, these people ought to be wondering why what ought to be a comfortable income doesn’t feel so comfortable; they ought to wonder what it is they’re getting for the taxes they do pay; they ought to be suspicious of why the ground seems to be receding under them as they scramble forward. Feeling a little solidarity with people down the economic ladder isn’t just ‘nice’ – it’s the *sane* thing.
Now we have the nauseating absurdity of a John Boehner feeling nostalgic for the ‘country he grew up in’ in the 50s and 60s. Gee, what is it you miss, John? The steeply progressive income tax rates? The cheap tuition at state universities? The relatively tight regulation of financial institutions? The Savings and Loans actually designed and charged to help people buy houses? It’s either those things or it’s that Negros and Females and Homosexuals ‘knew their place’…nah, couldn’t be any of that. I think he misses a country where a weepy, good-natured con man could blue-eyes his way to success despite coming from modest means.
Yeah hsh, it is such a blatant divide and conquer strategy that it’s hard to see, particularly in a country this large and complex. It’s always easy to screw over the poor, since they don’t vote and are so alienated from the rest of the culture. And as we’ve seen, it’s not so hard to eviscerate the middle class if you do it slowly enough and play people off of one another. But then you get into the level of people making, say, between 100k-200k, and you have to build up the resentment; $150k per year really *isn’t* that much money if you’re raising and educating a family – it’s hardly poverty, but it’s not serious wealth, either. The modern GOP has done a very good job at pawning people like that. Unfortunately, their fear is misplaced. Rather than being scared of taxation, these people ought to be wondering why what ought to be a comfortable income doesn’t feel so comfortable; they ought to wonder what it is they’re getting for the taxes they do pay; they ought to be suspicious of why the ground seems to be receding under them as they scramble forward. Feeling a little solidarity with people down the economic ladder isn’t just ‘nice’ – it’s the *sane* thing.
Now we have the nauseating absurdity of a John Boehner feeling nostalgic for the ‘country he grew up in’ in the 50s and 60s. Gee, what is it you miss, John? The steeply progressive income tax rates? The cheap tuition at state universities? The relatively tight regulation of financial institutions? The Savings and Loans actually designed and charged to help people buy houses? It’s either those things or it’s that Negros and Females and Homosexuals ‘knew their place’…nah, couldn’t be any of that. I think he misses a country where a weepy, good-natured con man could blue-eyes his way to success despite coming from modest means.
‘ And Obama has repeatedly discussed tax reform. Do you honestly think that the Republican House of Representatives is going to pass anything that Obama recommends?’
Yes, Obama discusses many things but rarely acts and the things that do happen have little relationship to the things he discusses. What does the last statement mean? Does he just give up? Why would he run for re-election if the House remains Republican and maybe the Senate as well? I suppose he could serve Progressive interests by using the presidential veto power and continuing to extend the actions of executive agencies beyond all legislative intent. Is that it?.
‘ And Obama has repeatedly discussed tax reform. Do you honestly think that the Republican House of Representatives is going to pass anything that Obama recommends?’
Yes, Obama discusses many things but rarely acts and the things that do happen have little relationship to the things he discusses. What does the last statement mean? Does he just give up? Why would he run for re-election if the House remains Republican and maybe the Senate as well? I suppose he could serve Progressive interests by using the presidential veto power and continuing to extend the actions of executive agencies beyond all legislative intent. Is that it?.
“Yes, Obama discusses many things but rarely acts”
But, GOB, the Congress has power to do tax reform. Obama merely has the constitutional power to suggest. The 16th amendment:
” The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
What’s your plan, Gob?
“Yes, Obama discusses many things but rarely acts”
But, GOB, the Congress has power to do tax reform. Obama merely has the constitutional power to suggest. The 16th amendment:
” The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
What’s your plan, Gob?
‘What’s your plan, Gob?
Cut spending across all programs,and no changes in income tax without major tax reform.
‘What’s your plan, Gob?
Cut spending across all programs,and no changes in income tax without major tax reform.
You’ve already got the first part over the next ten years. And what you will get vis a vis the second part from the jokes elected last November will look pretty much like jonnybutter envisions above.
Other plans are afoot.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2011/08/at-town-hall.html
Presented at town hall meetings by so far polite, civil, citizen constituents, even some small businessmen (bout 4′ 6″, 92 pounds on average) to their “representatives”, unlike the rude, armed, threatening, anti-American Tea Party ignorant vermin filth who showed up the last two Augusts at the behest of hedge fund f*cks, Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, and the rest of the usual miserable, corrupt, sadistic suspects.
“So far” is the operative phrase in that paragraph.
So far won’t be far enough.
So far will have to advance to “too far” against sadists like Rick Perry, Eric Cantor, et al.
You’ve already got the first part over the next ten years. And what you will get vis a vis the second part from the jokes elected last November will look pretty much like jonnybutter envisions above.
Other plans are afoot.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2011/08/at-town-hall.html
Presented at town hall meetings by so far polite, civil, citizen constituents, even some small businessmen (bout 4′ 6″, 92 pounds on average) to their “representatives”, unlike the rude, armed, threatening, anti-American Tea Party ignorant vermin filth who showed up the last two Augusts at the behest of hedge fund f*cks, Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, and the rest of the usual miserable, corrupt, sadistic suspects.
“So far” is the operative phrase in that paragraph.
So far won’t be far enough.
So far will have to advance to “too far” against sadists like Rick Perry, Eric Cantor, et al.
GOB: Cut spending across all programs,and no changes in income tax without major tax reform.
Great plan. Simple enough for stupid people to understand it. Not its consequences, just the plan itself. But what do consequences matter to “principled” people, eh?
–TP
GOB: Cut spending across all programs,and no changes in income tax without major tax reform.
Great plan. Simple enough for stupid people to understand it. Not its consequences, just the plan itself. But what do consequences matter to “principled” people, eh?
–TP
–TP
The ‘principled’ difference between you and me is…?
–TP
The ‘principled’ difference between you and me is…?
GOB,
I don’t understand your question as it stands. So this may be an answer to a different question than you’re asking:
My “principle” is that unemployment, poverty, and destitution are bad things. I believe, based on historical evidence and not “principle”, that your simple-minded “plan” would bring about more of these undesirable consequences.
What’s YOUR “principle”?
–TP
GOB,
I don’t understand your question as it stands. So this may be an answer to a different question than you’re asking:
My “principle” is that unemployment, poverty, and destitution are bad things. I believe, based on historical evidence and not “principle”, that your simple-minded “plan” would bring about more of these undesirable consequences.
What’s YOUR “principle”?
–TP
Not to pile on for the sake of it, but I have to say I’ve never understood even the superficial the logic of ‘across the board’ spending cuts (and their ilk). Since it is obvious that not all spending is equally important or useful, the calls for across the board cuts must be a response to the political difficulty of deciding what to cut and what not to. But if we are politically incapable of deciding now, a.) why will it be easier in the future?, and b.) what is democratic politics for if not to make those judgements?
Not to pile on for the sake of it, but I have to say I’ve never understood even the superficial the logic of ‘across the board’ spending cuts (and their ilk). Since it is obvious that not all spending is equally important or useful, the calls for across the board cuts must be a response to the political difficulty of deciding what to cut and what not to. But if we are politically incapable of deciding now, a.) why will it be easier in the future?, and b.) what is democratic politics for if not to make those judgements?
‘What’s YOUR “principle”?’
First, as I said many times, ‘big’ is what I think is ‘bad’, and the U.S. government is way too big. And I believe a limited government is necessary but after a few fundamentals can go very bad. Our federal government is inconsistent in policy and action in all areas and much can be attributed to its being an unwieldy leviathan. As an organization, a government has no self-interest to make it efficient as long as the taxpayers allow continuous increases in taxing and spending authority.
I’ll ask a different question. What ‘principle’ do you use to determine what the limits of your government should be?
‘Not to pile on for the sake of it, but I have to say I’ve never understood even the superficial the logic of ‘across the board’ spending cuts (and their ilk).’
Not superficial at all. We have legislative and executive branches chosen to figure out how to allocate the spending. If they are dissatisfied with the result of across the board reductions, they should do that. I agree that not all spending is equally important or useful, in fact, some won’t qualify in either category.
‘What’s YOUR “principle”?’
First, as I said many times, ‘big’ is what I think is ‘bad’, and the U.S. government is way too big. And I believe a limited government is necessary but after a few fundamentals can go very bad. Our federal government is inconsistent in policy and action in all areas and much can be attributed to its being an unwieldy leviathan. As an organization, a government has no self-interest to make it efficient as long as the taxpayers allow continuous increases in taxing and spending authority.
I’ll ask a different question. What ‘principle’ do you use to determine what the limits of your government should be?
‘Not to pile on for the sake of it, but I have to say I’ve never understood even the superficial the logic of ‘across the board’ spending cuts (and their ilk).’
Not superficial at all. We have legislative and executive branches chosen to figure out how to allocate the spending. If they are dissatisfied with the result of across the board reductions, they should do that. I agree that not all spending is equally important or useful, in fact, some won’t qualify in either category.
“as long as the taxpayers allow continuous increases in taxing and spending authority”
You mean voters, don’t you, gob, rather than taxpayers?
These continuous increases you speak of at the Federal level?
What? Where?
91% high marginal tax rate, with plenty of additional progressive rates down the line from before World War II through to the Kennedy Administration — a time of steadily spectacular growth for the economy.
70% high marginal tax rate from 1962 or thereabouts until 1980.
28% high marginal tax rate commencing under Reagan in 1981, raised some later in his Administration.
Raised to @ 39.5% under Clinton
Now 35% high marginal rate.
Where’s the “continuously increasing” in this, and by the way, where are the continuously increasing growth rates we are supposed to see from continuously decreasing marginal income tax rates.
Yes, many other factors play into growth rates, but I’m not the one who has made marginal tax rates the end-all of the be-all.
Yes, Medicare taxes introduced in the 1960s. Raise them.
As to efficiency, is Medicare more or less efficient than any number of private, non-subsidized health plans?
And, why is Medicare less efficient than some of the other efficient government-run universal health plans offered in other countries, as far as spending per % of GDP, etc?
“as long as the taxpayers allow continuous increases in taxing and spending authority”
You mean voters, don’t you, gob, rather than taxpayers?
These continuous increases you speak of at the Federal level?
What? Where?
91% high marginal tax rate, with plenty of additional progressive rates down the line from before World War II through to the Kennedy Administration — a time of steadily spectacular growth for the economy.
70% high marginal tax rate from 1962 or thereabouts until 1980.
28% high marginal tax rate commencing under Reagan in 1981, raised some later in his Administration.
Raised to @ 39.5% under Clinton
Now 35% high marginal rate.
Where’s the “continuously increasing” in this, and by the way, where are the continuously increasing growth rates we are supposed to see from continuously decreasing marginal income tax rates.
Yes, many other factors play into growth rates, but I’m not the one who has made marginal tax rates the end-all of the be-all.
Yes, Medicare taxes introduced in the 1960s. Raise them.
As to efficiency, is Medicare more or less efficient than any number of private, non-subsidized health plans?
And, why is Medicare less efficient than some of the other efficient government-run universal health plans offered in other countries, as far as spending per % of GDP, etc?
You haven’t, GOB, told me what the logic (superficial or otherwise) of across the board spending cuts – or spending increases – is. You have just assumed them.
You haven’t, GOB, told me what the logic (superficial or otherwise) of across the board spending cuts – or spending increases – is. You have just assumed them.
‘the calls for across the board cuts must be a response to the political difficulty of deciding what to cut and what not to. But if we are politically incapable of deciding now, a.) why will it be easier in the future?, and b.) what is democratic politics for if not to make those judgements?’
Across the board cuts are arbitrary with no particular reliance on logic except for the total cut. No reason to think we are politically incapable of deciding now (just recalcitrance) and no reason to think it will be easier in the future. And I thought I just agreed in my earlier comment that legislators should decide the allocation of spending (that’s why we elect them) but they are obviously not very adept at deciding how much to spend (at the moment, the movement against raising taxes is doing a pretty good job of holding that in check). Next election will shed additional light on that.
‘the calls for across the board cuts must be a response to the political difficulty of deciding what to cut and what not to. But if we are politically incapable of deciding now, a.) why will it be easier in the future?, and b.) what is democratic politics for if not to make those judgements?’
Across the board cuts are arbitrary with no particular reliance on logic except for the total cut. No reason to think we are politically incapable of deciding now (just recalcitrance) and no reason to think it will be easier in the future. And I thought I just agreed in my earlier comment that legislators should decide the allocation of spending (that’s why we elect them) but they are obviously not very adept at deciding how much to spend (at the moment, the movement against raising taxes is doing a pretty good job of holding that in check). Next election will shed additional light on that.
Across the board cuts are arbitrary with no particular reliance on logic except for the total cut….legislators should decide the allocation of spending (that’s why we elect them) but they are obviously not very adept at deciding how much to spend (at the moment, the movement against raising taxes is doing a pretty good job of holding that in check).
An across the board spending cut *is* an arbitrary decision about allocation of funds. It means ‘cut everything x per cent’. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s what it is.
It’s a separate issue, but I think an arbitrary total budget figure is also not very smart, especially in a severe recession or depression. A balanced budget amendment is likewise a very bad idea, both in terms of immediate budget consequences, and as a matter of political theory; it’s more of the same: vote for us because we don’t trust ourselves to devise a sensible budget and we don’t trust anyone else to do so either, so you should trust us to push for an automatic trigger because we don’t trust ourselves’. Or something. If that is a coherent approach to politics, why not just have an algorithm (or king) make our decisions for us? Unfortunately for the NRO crowd, Franco is unavailable, but we could find someone else.
I half agree with the diagnosis of the problem, however: I don’t trust the current version of the Republican party to devise a rational budget either – GHWB excepted, they haven’t done so in 30 years. But the solution is not some imaginary shotgun; it’s getting these people out of office and far away from power.
Across the board cuts are arbitrary with no particular reliance on logic except for the total cut….legislators should decide the allocation of spending (that’s why we elect them) but they are obviously not very adept at deciding how much to spend (at the moment, the movement against raising taxes is doing a pretty good job of holding that in check).
An across the board spending cut *is* an arbitrary decision about allocation of funds. It means ‘cut everything x per cent’. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s what it is.
It’s a separate issue, but I think an arbitrary total budget figure is also not very smart, especially in a severe recession or depression. A balanced budget amendment is likewise a very bad idea, both in terms of immediate budget consequences, and as a matter of political theory; it’s more of the same: vote for us because we don’t trust ourselves to devise a sensible budget and we don’t trust anyone else to do so either, so you should trust us to push for an automatic trigger because we don’t trust ourselves’. Or something. If that is a coherent approach to politics, why not just have an algorithm (or king) make our decisions for us? Unfortunately for the NRO crowd, Franco is unavailable, but we could find someone else.
I half agree with the diagnosis of the problem, however: I don’t trust the current version of the Republican party to devise a rational budget either – GHWB excepted, they haven’t done so in 30 years. But the solution is not some imaginary shotgun; it’s getting these people out of office and far away from power.
McKinney
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made.
your logical conclusion that stems from typical republican view that distinguishes that there are people who deserve and people who do not deserve government help. You are asking that government should help incidental high income by not taxing it properly. But you are asking that government should not help people that contributed to it, ea. rest of the employees, share into that higher incidental income. Owners should have total control of their company resources, no matter final outcome. And they do and will always have it. The history shows that minding the contribution of the rest employees is important to overall prosperity. That FDR mentality is going away and is crushing the prosperity of all. Try reading Supercapitalism by Robert Reich.
Knowing tax code, there is a mean for averaging the fluctuating income: AMT credit from previous years. But since you, McKinney, believe in government as unjust and no amount of proof can dissuade you from such belief, can stop reading how government (IRS) helps averaging.
AMT applies to high income that have high tax deductibles. Lets say $1 M income with $500,000 deductible in mortgage interest, charities and medical expenses. Without AMT your taxable income would be $500,000. With AMT it is still $900,000. If the next year you make only $50,000, you will get the AMT credit back.
AMT credit helps only those who used to have a high income and did adjust spending to it. It helps them in not to go bankrupt for outlier years of low income. It doesn’t help those who who have a single year income of a million since without higher spending of that income AMT will not kick in.
McKinney
I am not saying that life is awful for people who run small businesses, but there is a valid rejoinder to those who assume, rather casually in my view, that people making 500K plus or minus in a small business have it made.
your logical conclusion that stems from typical republican view that distinguishes that there are people who deserve and people who do not deserve government help. You are asking that government should help incidental high income by not taxing it properly. But you are asking that government should not help people that contributed to it, ea. rest of the employees, share into that higher incidental income. Owners should have total control of their company resources, no matter final outcome. And they do and will always have it. The history shows that minding the contribution of the rest employees is important to overall prosperity. That FDR mentality is going away and is crushing the prosperity of all. Try reading Supercapitalism by Robert Reich.
Knowing tax code, there is a mean for averaging the fluctuating income: AMT credit from previous years. But since you, McKinney, believe in government as unjust and no amount of proof can dissuade you from such belief, can stop reading how government (IRS) helps averaging.
AMT applies to high income that have high tax deductibles. Lets say $1 M income with $500,000 deductible in mortgage interest, charities and medical expenses. Without AMT your taxable income would be $500,000. With AMT it is still $900,000. If the next year you make only $50,000, you will get the AMT credit back.
AMT credit helps only those who used to have a high income and did adjust spending to it. It helps them in not to go bankrupt for outlier years of low income. It doesn’t help those who who have a single year income of a million since without higher spending of that income AMT will not kick in.
Countme-in
It looks as if Obama was a CCDG party member before it was founded
Countme-in
It looks as if Obama was a CCDG party member before it was founded
Which is why those who actually earn, through hard work, 60-70 hour weeks and oftentimes significant personal risk financially, a million a year would like to hang on to most of it.
There are lots of people who work 60-70 hour weeks at great PHYSICAL risk — I.e., they are going to have to work until they are at least 67 and probably beyond at jobs that are going to leave their bodies broken and in constant pain for their few remaining years. And they’re not going to make a million dollars IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. I’m sure they’d like to hang on to what they make, too, but unfortunately they have to do things like eat and not die of exposure.
Which is why those who actually earn, through hard work, 60-70 hour weeks and oftentimes significant personal risk financially, a million a year would like to hang on to most of it.
There are lots of people who work 60-70 hour weeks at great PHYSICAL risk — I.e., they are going to have to work until they are at least 67 and probably beyond at jobs that are going to leave their bodies broken and in constant pain for their few remaining years. And they’re not going to make a million dollars IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. I’m sure they’d like to hang on to what they make, too, but unfortunately they have to do things like eat and not die of exposure.
In reality ‘across the board’ cuts are anything but. Some parts are in essence untouchable. In the make-belief that counts for reality in Washington a decrease in the second derivative of e.g. ‘defense’ spending is equal to total one-sided disarmement. Lowering taxes temporarily is actually a tax hike (even before the sunset has arrived etc.).
I’d say No Penny for the Pentagon until they submit to a total and in-depth audit with every dollar not accounted for being stricken from the budget without further discussion and every dollar accounted for (kept) only after thorough discussion. If it kills the contractors, the money saved or taken back should easily suffice to take care of the resulting unemployed (the number cooks excepted; those should be put at the receiving end of the unnecessary hardware).
In reality ‘across the board’ cuts are anything but. Some parts are in essence untouchable. In the make-belief that counts for reality in Washington a decrease in the second derivative of e.g. ‘defense’ spending is equal to total one-sided disarmement. Lowering taxes temporarily is actually a tax hike (even before the sunset has arrived etc.).
I’d say No Penny for the Pentagon until they submit to a total and in-depth audit with every dollar not accounted for being stricken from the budget without further discussion and every dollar accounted for (kept) only after thorough discussion. If it kills the contractors, the money saved or taken back should easily suffice to take care of the resulting unemployed (the number cooks excepted; those should be put at the receiving end of the unnecessary hardware).
f you don’t mind my asking, and I ask in all seriousness, what does “doing without” mean in this context? Does it mean having your phone turned off for six months so you can afford to grocery shop, for example?
Of course not. We aren’t destitute when income falls off, we revert to savings on the personal side and take nothing out of the business so that we can meet payroll, rent etc so that our employees don’t get their phones turned off.
There are lots of people who work 60-70 hour weeks at great PHYSICAL risk — I.e., they are going to have to work until they are at least 67 and probably beyond at jobs that are going to leave their bodies broken and in constant pain for their few remaining years. And they’re not going to make a million dollars IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. I’m sure they’d like to hang on to what they make, too, but unfortunately they have to do things like eat and not die of exposure.
I don’t know what “lots of people” means. I see quite a few folks from Mexico and other points south who do onerous physical labor. Would I want that for myself for a lifetime’s work? Of course not. Even less, would I want to eke out a living in Mexico. As crappy as manual labor is here, it is tons better than there.
That said, you are missing or avoiding the point. Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes. Etc, etc, etc.
Absent being a trust fund baby, there isn’t a lottery for folks where the lucky winners get great jobs while everyone else drinks from the sewer. For people who had access to schooling and stayed in school and took advantage of a free education and then made the effort to go to college and perhaps grad school, for those people, which is the vast majority of Americans, the opportunity was there to do well. Yes, there are many reasons why some can’t take advantage of that opportunity, but many do, and many more don’t. Among those who do, there is still the need to work harder, flex the brain more and, at the upper end, take risks and, if success results, to have a much better life than those who either wouldn’t or couldn’t perform at the level, or were unwilling to take risks, needed to maximize their earnings.
Finally, I am not particularly moved by the plight of the manual laborer having done more than enough of that from age 12 through age 23: lawn mowing, newspaper routes, babysitting, fast food cook, farm hand, ranch hand, carpenter’s helper, form carpenter, factory worker, mason’s helper. I’ve done residential and commercial construction, hauled hay until 4 in the morning to beat an incoming rain storm and plenty of other stuff. I tried a lawsuit a week before last and worked 130 hours in 9 straight days.
I don’t like rolling out my life’s history particularly, but all of this us vs. them stuff gets tiresome after a while. I did that physical stuff and I’ve worked for other people and had them decide what I made and how far I went. I didn’t like it so I did something else. For the most part, it’s worked out. But it is no cakewalk. Anyone who believes otherwise is a damn fool.
f you don’t mind my asking, and I ask in all seriousness, what does “doing without” mean in this context? Does it mean having your phone turned off for six months so you can afford to grocery shop, for example?
Of course not. We aren’t destitute when income falls off, we revert to savings on the personal side and take nothing out of the business so that we can meet payroll, rent etc so that our employees don’t get their phones turned off.
There are lots of people who work 60-70 hour weeks at great PHYSICAL risk — I.e., they are going to have to work until they are at least 67 and probably beyond at jobs that are going to leave their bodies broken and in constant pain for their few remaining years. And they’re not going to make a million dollars IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. I’m sure they’d like to hang on to what they make, too, but unfortunately they have to do things like eat and not die of exposure.
I don’t know what “lots of people” means. I see quite a few folks from Mexico and other points south who do onerous physical labor. Would I want that for myself for a lifetime’s work? Of course not. Even less, would I want to eke out a living in Mexico. As crappy as manual labor is here, it is tons better than there.
That said, you are missing or avoiding the point. Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes. Etc, etc, etc.
Absent being a trust fund baby, there isn’t a lottery for folks where the lucky winners get great jobs while everyone else drinks from the sewer. For people who had access to schooling and stayed in school and took advantage of a free education and then made the effort to go to college and perhaps grad school, for those people, which is the vast majority of Americans, the opportunity was there to do well. Yes, there are many reasons why some can’t take advantage of that opportunity, but many do, and many more don’t. Among those who do, there is still the need to work harder, flex the brain more and, at the upper end, take risks and, if success results, to have a much better life than those who either wouldn’t or couldn’t perform at the level, or were unwilling to take risks, needed to maximize their earnings.
Finally, I am not particularly moved by the plight of the manual laborer having done more than enough of that from age 12 through age 23: lawn mowing, newspaper routes, babysitting, fast food cook, farm hand, ranch hand, carpenter’s helper, form carpenter, factory worker, mason’s helper. I’ve done residential and commercial construction, hauled hay until 4 in the morning to beat an incoming rain storm and plenty of other stuff. I tried a lawsuit a week before last and worked 130 hours in 9 straight days.
I don’t like rolling out my life’s history particularly, but all of this us vs. them stuff gets tiresome after a while. I did that physical stuff and I’ve worked for other people and had them decide what I made and how far I went. I didn’t like it so I did something else. For the most part, it’s worked out. But it is no cakewalk. Anyone who believes otherwise is a damn fool.
I did that physical stuff and I’ve worked for other people and had them decide what I made and how far I went. I didn’t like it so I did something else.
…and your circumstances gave you that option. Many people don’t get it, and it’s not, as you imply, because they’re shiftless and lazy, or lacking the indomitable will to succeed. Pretending that it’s all spunk and strength of will neatly elides the bare-bones fact that you obviously had options about whether to do X, Y, or Z that, despite your blithe insistence to the contrary, not everyone does. I did. You did. Not everyone does.
I did that physical stuff and I’ve worked for other people and had them decide what I made and how far I went. I didn’t like it so I did something else.
…and your circumstances gave you that option. Many people don’t get it, and it’s not, as you imply, because they’re shiftless and lazy, or lacking the indomitable will to succeed. Pretending that it’s all spunk and strength of will neatly elides the bare-bones fact that you obviously had options about whether to do X, Y, or Z that, despite your blithe insistence to the contrary, not everyone does. I did. You did. Not everyone does.
So, McK, you do not in any significant way “go without.” Noted and moving on.
Finally, I am not particularly moved by the plight of the manual laborer having done more than enough of that from age 12 through age 23:
I would ask you to imagine doing it for an additional 50 years because it’s actually your source of income, but I don’t think your imagination works that way.
That said, you are missing or avoiding the point. Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes.
If you genuinely don’t believe that, not millionaires but, say, the top two brackets have disproportionate political power, I’m speechless.
So, McK, you do not in any significant way “go without.” Noted and moving on.
Finally, I am not particularly moved by the plight of the manual laborer having done more than enough of that from age 12 through age 23:
I would ask you to imagine doing it for an additional 50 years because it’s actually your source of income, but I don’t think your imagination works that way.
That said, you are missing or avoiding the point. Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes.
If you genuinely don’t believe that, not millionaires but, say, the top two brackets have disproportionate political power, I’m speechless.
Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes. Etc, etc, etc.
Actually, Dave C. and the blogger he linked to are hung up on millionaires, or they think they are, not knowing or pretending not to know the difference between wealth and income, that is, stock and flow. And there’s a difference between wanting to raise taxes on people at the upper end of the scale and expecting them to pay a lot more.
I don’t know what you make McKinney, but I’d guess that most of us aren’t concerned about your level of political influence or would expect you to pay all that much more in taxes.
In terms of political influence, people who make millions or tens of millions or more year over year are the ones with the influence, usually via the corporate wealth they can direct, if not their own. In terms of taxes, going back to Clinton rates and adding brackets at a million dollars, maybe five million dollars, probably ten million, maybe fifty million and doing something with investment income – if not treating it exactly like wage income, perhaps more so with greater progressivity at higher incomes – is what I’d suggest.
I don’t know how much any of those proposals would cramp your style, McKinney – or anyone’s, really, in any meaningful way in terms of quality of life, but that’s the kind of thing I think most of us “progressives” are talking about, in very general terms.
Progressives are hung up on millionaires. “They” take money they didn’t really earn from those who really earned it. They have too much political power. They don’t pay enough in taxes. They need to pay a lot more in taxes. Etc, etc, etc.
Actually, Dave C. and the blogger he linked to are hung up on millionaires, or they think they are, not knowing or pretending not to know the difference between wealth and income, that is, stock and flow. And there’s a difference between wanting to raise taxes on people at the upper end of the scale and expecting them to pay a lot more.
I don’t know what you make McKinney, but I’d guess that most of us aren’t concerned about your level of political influence or would expect you to pay all that much more in taxes.
In terms of political influence, people who make millions or tens of millions or more year over year are the ones with the influence, usually via the corporate wealth they can direct, if not their own. In terms of taxes, going back to Clinton rates and adding brackets at a million dollars, maybe five million dollars, probably ten million, maybe fifty million and doing something with investment income – if not treating it exactly like wage income, perhaps more so with greater progressivity at higher incomes – is what I’d suggest.
I don’t know how much any of those proposals would cramp your style, McKinney – or anyone’s, really, in any meaningful way in terms of quality of life, but that’s the kind of thing I think most of us “progressives” are talking about, in very general terms.
Not everyone does.
Most do. I acknowledged that not everyone does.
I don’t think your imagination works that way.
It absolutely does. I dropped out of college at the end of my first year with a flashy 2.0 gpa. I was very, very smart and knew I could make it in construction. Turns out it’s hard work and dangerous, particularly back then when OSHA was in its infancy. So, a year and half later, inspired by my time in the hot sun, I was back in school, on my nickel, and finished both college and law school with one six week break. To round out the picture, I got married as an undergrad and we had our first child. We still managed to put ourselves through school. So, it can be done. It’s called deferred gratification. Some do it, others don’t.
Not everyone does.
Most do. I acknowledged that not everyone does.
I don’t think your imagination works that way.
It absolutely does. I dropped out of college at the end of my first year with a flashy 2.0 gpa. I was very, very smart and knew I could make it in construction. Turns out it’s hard work and dangerous, particularly back then when OSHA was in its infancy. So, a year and half later, inspired by my time in the hot sun, I was back in school, on my nickel, and finished both college and law school with one six week break. To round out the picture, I got married as an undergrad and we had our first child. We still managed to put ourselves through school. So, it can be done. It’s called deferred gratification. Some do it, others don’t.
I mean, the idea of comparing “I did physical labor as a teenager and college student for spending money” to “I did physical labor for 40+ years because it was my job, and as a reward *certain people* want to make me work longer before collecting my meager Social Security, if they don’t take that away from me too” literally makes me physically ill.
I mean, the idea of comparing “I did physical labor as a teenager and college student for spending money” to “I did physical labor for 40+ years because it was my job, and as a reward *certain people* want to make me work longer before collecting my meager Social Security, if they don’t take that away from me too” literally makes me physically ill.
So, it can be done. It’s called deferred gratification. Some do it, others don’t.
How was your primary and secondary education? Good? Awful? Or is this another thing where you’ll argue circumstances don’t matter, ’cause, ya know, it’s all equal for, like, almost everyone, and it’s just that not everyone has the power of will to make it work?
So, it can be done. It’s called deferred gratification. Some do it, others don’t.
How was your primary and secondary education? Good? Awful? Or is this another thing where you’ll argue circumstances don’t matter, ’cause, ya know, it’s all equal for, like, almost everyone, and it’s just that not everyone has the power of will to make it work?
How was your primary and secondary education? Good? Awful?
I would say average to slightly below average. Public schools in Kingsville TX, Houston TX, Junior High in Houston TX, High School in Millington TN (2 yrs) and Carl Junction MO (2 yrs.). Some good teachers, some not so good. Went one year to Mizzou and finished at North Texas State. U of H for law school. Nothing fancy, pretty pedestrian, in fact.
But, if your complaint is that some schools are better than others, I agree. Seems to have gotten worse over time.
But, the counter is, plenty of my class mates goofed off. Plain and simple. Took easy courses, barely passed. So, now they operate back hoes, drive trucks, drive nails, or do whatever. It wasn’t a freaking secret, back then, that staying in school made a difference. I doubt it’s a secret today either.
Phil, it’s Monday and I am going to pass on trying to address your last silliness.
How was your primary and secondary education? Good? Awful?
I would say average to slightly below average. Public schools in Kingsville TX, Houston TX, Junior High in Houston TX, High School in Millington TN (2 yrs) and Carl Junction MO (2 yrs.). Some good teachers, some not so good. Went one year to Mizzou and finished at North Texas State. U of H for law school. Nothing fancy, pretty pedestrian, in fact.
But, if your complaint is that some schools are better than others, I agree. Seems to have gotten worse over time.
But, the counter is, plenty of my class mates goofed off. Plain and simple. Took easy courses, barely passed. So, now they operate back hoes, drive trucks, drive nails, or do whatever. It wasn’t a freaking secret, back then, that staying in school made a difference. I doubt it’s a secret today either.
Phil, it’s Monday and I am going to pass on trying to address your last silliness.
It sounds to me that McKinney has worked admirably hard to get where he is, regardless of whatever advantages he may have had. I wouldn’t advocate policies that I thought would cause him real hardship simply because I believed he didn’t deserve what he’s made because he’s managed to earn a high income.
This whole discussion about whether McKinney deserves what he’s made or what advantages he may have had is a distraction.
We’re talking about progressive taxation with greater progressivity at very high levels of income relative to what one needs to earn to live a very comfortable life. I don’t think we’re talking about rates approaching 100% even at the highest incomes. Get as rich as you like. You can always earn more by earning more.
If the rate on, say, your five-millionth dollar seems to high to bother (let’s assume at a 50% marginal rate), don’t bother. I don’t see why I should care about that.
It sounds to me that McKinney has worked admirably hard to get where he is, regardless of whatever advantages he may have had. I wouldn’t advocate policies that I thought would cause him real hardship simply because I believed he didn’t deserve what he’s made because he’s managed to earn a high income.
This whole discussion about whether McKinney deserves what he’s made or what advantages he may have had is a distraction.
We’re talking about progressive taxation with greater progressivity at very high levels of income relative to what one needs to earn to live a very comfortable life. I don’t think we’re talking about rates approaching 100% even at the highest incomes. Get as rich as you like. You can always earn more by earning more.
If the rate on, say, your five-millionth dollar seems to high to bother (let’s assume at a 50% marginal rate), don’t bother. I don’t see why I should care about that.
I’d guess that most of us aren’t concerned about your level of political influence or would expect you to pay all that much more in taxes.
What I would like is for the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire, as they were intended to.
I like that for the very reason that they were passed with a time limit, which is that they reduce federal revenues enough that the nation as a whole goes further into debt each and every year that they are in place.
They were stupid, irresponsible policy then, and they are stupid, irresponsible policy now.
The impact of letting the Bush cuts expire will be something less than a nickel on the dollar for high earners.
I’m sure it won’t be welcome, but it will not drive anyone into poverty, and will not make any sane person refuse to invest in their own or anyone else’s business.
If the tax regime fairy really did appear on my doorstep, I might also ask for something like a 50% rate on personal earned income above, say, $5M.
Crazy Marxist moonman talk, I know, but right now the tax code is basically flat above around $400K. There aren’t many folks who earn at those nosebleed levels, but their earnings represent an *extremely* disproportionate amount of total US earned income, so as a practical matter that is real revenue that we are forgoing.
If I was going to really, really, really go long, I’d suggest introducing a wealth tax, possibly as a total or partial replacement for the income tax. Nothing crazy, a point or two.
But that would, clearly, make people lose their freaking minds. So let’s not even go there. Forget I even brought it up.
Let the Bush cuts expire, like they were supposed to, for the reason they were supposed to, and I’m a happy guy.
It really is not asking a lot.
I’d guess that most of us aren’t concerned about your level of political influence or would expect you to pay all that much more in taxes.
What I would like is for the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire, as they were intended to.
I like that for the very reason that they were passed with a time limit, which is that they reduce federal revenues enough that the nation as a whole goes further into debt each and every year that they are in place.
They were stupid, irresponsible policy then, and they are stupid, irresponsible policy now.
The impact of letting the Bush cuts expire will be something less than a nickel on the dollar for high earners.
I’m sure it won’t be welcome, but it will not drive anyone into poverty, and will not make any sane person refuse to invest in their own or anyone else’s business.
If the tax regime fairy really did appear on my doorstep, I might also ask for something like a 50% rate on personal earned income above, say, $5M.
Crazy Marxist moonman talk, I know, but right now the tax code is basically flat above around $400K. There aren’t many folks who earn at those nosebleed levels, but their earnings represent an *extremely* disproportionate amount of total US earned income, so as a practical matter that is real revenue that we are forgoing.
If I was going to really, really, really go long, I’d suggest introducing a wealth tax, possibly as a total or partial replacement for the income tax. Nothing crazy, a point or two.
But that would, clearly, make people lose their freaking minds. So let’s not even go there. Forget I even brought it up.
Let the Bush cuts expire, like they were supposed to, for the reason they were supposed to, and I’m a happy guy.
It really is not asking a lot.
HSH and Russell: I’ve said I’m ok with a tax increase once structural deficits are fully and appropriately addressed. But, the tax hike would apply to debt reduction only.
HSH and Russell: I’ve said I’m ok with a tax increase once structural deficits are fully and appropriately addressed. But, the tax hike would apply to debt reduction only.
McK, how do you think we got this far in debt?
Are you thinking cuts and nothing but cuts are going to get us out?
McK, how do you think we got this far in debt?
Are you thinking cuts and nothing but cuts are going to get us out?
The structural deficit is at least partly because of the Bush tax cuts. Remember the surpluses? (Not that I’d advocate surpluses. I’d rather the economy outpace deficits, but that would require a good economy, which, under current conditions, would require more deficit spending until demand and confidence return. Did you know that there are 1.7 trillion dollars in excess reserves being held right now? There were virtually no excess reserves held in 2007, and for most of the history of our modern banking system. What does that tell you?)
The structural deficit is at least partly because of the Bush tax cuts. Remember the surpluses? (Not that I’d advocate surpluses. I’d rather the economy outpace deficits, but that would require a good economy, which, under current conditions, would require more deficit spending until demand and confidence return. Did you know that there are 1.7 trillion dollars in excess reserves being held right now? There were virtually no excess reserves held in 2007, and for most of the history of our modern banking system. What does that tell you?)
McK, how do you think we got this far in debt?
Spending too much, more than we take in. If we give congress more money, they will spend it.
McK, how do you think we got this far in debt?
Spending too much, more than we take in. If we give congress more money, they will spend it.
If we give them less, they’ll spend it anyway, meaning even bigger deficits. That may or may not be appropriate and it may depend on how they spend it. In any case, what’s so magical about the Bush rates that makes them untoucable until after structural deficits are addressed, if that’s at all possible?
If we give them less, they’ll spend it anyway, meaning even bigger deficits. That may or may not be appropriate and it may depend on how they spend it. In any case, what’s so magical about the Bush rates that makes them untoucable until after structural deficits are addressed, if that’s at all possible?
“In any case, what’s so magical about the Bush rates that makes them untoucable until after structural deficits are addressed, if that’s at all possible?”
Nothing, and really they shouldn’t be called the Bush tax cuts anymore since we are into an extension signed by Obama. It is just the current tax rates.
The problem is that some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on. My stance on what that should be is clear.
On an earlier topic, as far as across the board cuts, it is the most effective way to get the right people to get out the scalpel on their budgets. “Across the board” is a high level dictate that causes people to then look inside their budgets to actually prioritize. If “the board” is at the level of say the defense department, education department, etc. then the right people will be reviewing the underlying programs to find 10% in aggregate in their budgets.
It is the best way to make the most knowledgeable people pick how the money is best spent.
“In any case, what’s so magical about the Bush rates that makes them untoucable until after structural deficits are addressed, if that’s at all possible?”
Nothing, and really they shouldn’t be called the Bush tax cuts anymore since we are into an extension signed by Obama. It is just the current tax rates.
The problem is that some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on. My stance on what that should be is clear.
On an earlier topic, as far as across the board cuts, it is the most effective way to get the right people to get out the scalpel on their budgets. “Across the board” is a high level dictate that causes people to then look inside their budgets to actually prioritize. If “the board” is at the level of say the defense department, education department, etc. then the right people will be reviewing the underlying programs to find 10% in aggregate in their budgets.
It is the best way to make the most knowledgeable people pick how the money is best spent.
some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on.
I’d say that spending it on the stuff we’re currently borrowing money to fund would be a good thing to do.
I’d say that if we were going to extend any tax cuts, it would make more sense to extend the 2% social security holiday than to extend lower marginal rates on folks earning higher salaries.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to deal with is that it’s not that easy to cut the budget in a way that doesn’t end up shooting you in the foot.
“Just make cuts!” It sounds simple, but the money actually goes somewhere, and does something, and I don’t see anybody spending any time figuring out what the back end is going to look like.
some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on.
I’d say that spending it on the stuff we’re currently borrowing money to fund would be a good thing to do.
I’d say that if we were going to extend any tax cuts, it would make more sense to extend the 2% social security holiday than to extend lower marginal rates on folks earning higher salaries.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to deal with is that it’s not that easy to cut the budget in a way that doesn’t end up shooting you in the foot.
“Just make cuts!” It sounds simple, but the money actually goes somewhere, and does something, and I don’t see anybody spending any time figuring out what the back end is going to look like.
As I said, ‘across the board’ NEVER MEANS ACTUAL ‘ACROSS THE BOARD’. It ALWAYS includes an unspoken ‘except X,Y,Z’, which usually happens to be the really big fish. Just look at the current dicussions about ‘cuts’ in defense spending. It has been made abundantly clear that the first target will be veterans and that any other cut will be to the expected RISE in budget, i.e the budget will not grow by 10 gazillions above the previous year but only 9.5 gazillions, which will be touted as a cut of 0.9 gazillions (no typo there, just Washington/Pentagon math) by one side and condemned as an irresponsible act against national security by the other.
As I said, ‘across the board’ NEVER MEANS ACTUAL ‘ACROSS THE BOARD’. It ALWAYS includes an unspoken ‘except X,Y,Z’, which usually happens to be the really big fish. Just look at the current dicussions about ‘cuts’ in defense spending. It has been made abundantly clear that the first target will be veterans and that any other cut will be to the expected RISE in budget, i.e the budget will not grow by 10 gazillions above the previous year but only 9.5 gazillions, which will be touted as a cut of 0.9 gazillions (no typo there, just Washington/Pentagon math) by one side and condemned as an irresponsible act against national security by the other.
Welp, I can’t help it.
MckT:
“I’ve said I’m ok with a tax increase once structural deficits are fully and appropriately addressed. But, the tax hike would apply to debt reduction only.”
So, instead of the government borrowing so that your taxes could be cut for the past 10 years, you are willing to raise your marginal tax rate so that the government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
CCDG: you need to consult your campaign strategist before issuing these policy statements willy-nilly:
“The problem is that some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on. My stance on what that should be is clear.”
Yeah, the “WHAT” of the next ten years should be easy to foretell: war (how much will it cost to fight the 1.3 billion Chinese), invasion, disease, pestilence, drought, flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, recession, depression, compression, an aging population of tens of millions beset with long-term dementia but still attending Tea Party rallies (Where did all the money go again? We can’t remember.), food shortages, water shortages right next door to flooding, air shortages, a good-sized asteroid headed straight for the center of Texas for which I believe its neighboring states will look askance at “sharing” the resulting burden, ie. refugees, crater-maintenance, civil disorder, etc. etc.
I’d like to see a full detailed, penny for penny, accounting of what Microsoft, over the next ten years, is going to do with the money they borrowed recently at low interest rates despite having $45 billion of cash in the coffers.
I wish the Founders could have predicted the Civil War and its full costs so they could budgeted for it in the Constition.
Here’s what I’d really like to see. I’d like to see a guy, today, right now, predict to the time of the day and in what city over the next ten years he’s going to absentmindedly fall down an open manhole, catching his chin right on the edge of the hole as he goes, and need to be fished out by minimum wage, non-unionized city workers.
Maybe we could let the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-discounting stock market tell us “WHAT” we need to spend over the next six months. Why, two weeks ago, it dropped a good 1300 points and was predicting, exactly six months from two weeks ago the litany of complaints listed above, especially the end of the world, which can get expensive for those who have a a lot to lose.
Last week and today so far, the stock market’s crystal Kudlow ball is predicting, exactly six months from now, the restoration of civilization and lakes of lemonade and mountains of jelly donuts on Earth following the end of the world not two weeks earlier.
Based on all available data.
Welp, I can’t help it.
MckT:
“I’ve said I’m ok with a tax increase once structural deficits are fully and appropriately addressed. But, the tax hike would apply to debt reduction only.”
So, instead of the government borrowing so that your taxes could be cut for the past 10 years, you are willing to raise your marginal tax rate so that the government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
CCDG: you need to consult your campaign strategist before issuing these policy statements willy-nilly:
“The problem is that some of us, say me, don’t want another 3.7 trillion dollars added to the amount that they can spend over the next ten years unless someone says WHAT they are going to spend it on. My stance on what that should be is clear.”
Yeah, the “WHAT” of the next ten years should be easy to foretell: war (how much will it cost to fight the 1.3 billion Chinese), invasion, disease, pestilence, drought, flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, recession, depression, compression, an aging population of tens of millions beset with long-term dementia but still attending Tea Party rallies (Where did all the money go again? We can’t remember.), food shortages, water shortages right next door to flooding, air shortages, a good-sized asteroid headed straight for the center of Texas for which I believe its neighboring states will look askance at “sharing” the resulting burden, ie. refugees, crater-maintenance, civil disorder, etc. etc.
I’d like to see a full detailed, penny for penny, accounting of what Microsoft, over the next ten years, is going to do with the money they borrowed recently at low interest rates despite having $45 billion of cash in the coffers.
I wish the Founders could have predicted the Civil War and its full costs so they could budgeted for it in the Constition.
Here’s what I’d really like to see. I’d like to see a guy, today, right now, predict to the time of the day and in what city over the next ten years he’s going to absentmindedly fall down an open manhole, catching his chin right on the edge of the hole as he goes, and need to be fished out by minimum wage, non-unionized city workers.
Maybe we could let the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-discounting stock market tell us “WHAT” we need to spend over the next six months. Why, two weeks ago, it dropped a good 1300 points and was predicting, exactly six months from two weeks ago the litany of complaints listed above, especially the end of the world, which can get expensive for those who have a a lot to lose.
Last week and today so far, the stock market’s crystal Kudlow ball is predicting, exactly six months from now, the restoration of civilization and lakes of lemonade and mountains of jelly donuts on Earth following the end of the world not two weeks earlier.
Based on all available data.
We hadda cut the “tu” out of “Consti(tu)tion
in the above comment, because my family forgot to budget for it while sitting around the kitchen table in 1956.
We hadda cut the “tu” out of “Consti(tu)tion
in the above comment, because my family forgot to budget for it while sitting around the kitchen table in 1956.
Wonder what that looks like? Would Scrooge McDuck find it swimmable?
Wonder what that looks like? Would Scrooge McDuck find it swimmable?
In gold coins that would fill a not too large pool. Certainly not the 3 cubic ha* Scrooge had in the times of old.
*I know that this unit makes no sense but that’s what the old comic books said (I guess the original was not hectar but acre but I only have the translated editions at hand)
In gold coins that would fill a not too large pool. Certainly not the 3 cubic ha* Scrooge had in the times of old.
*I know that this unit makes no sense but that’s what the old comic books said (I guess the original was not hectar but acre but I only have the translated editions at hand)
government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
This piece always gets overlooked. Most debt is held by the public (even at this stage of the Hegemony’s Fade) — the US public. A whole host of important financial institutions (banks, insurers, pensions) and individuals depend on fresh US debt to keep their operations (and their incomes) predictable and stable. Would they be hosed if they couldn’t buy more US debt? Do they have alternatives?
Maybe somebody with some knowledge can spell out the consequences of an aggressive Treasury buyback policy.
Peter Orsag, writing for the CBPP way back when, doesn’t answer those questions, but he was in favor of steering the Clinton Surplus to debt reduction (and eventual debt retirement) in contrast with Alan Greenspan, among others, who were concerned that surpluses “saved” by the government would harm the capital markets into which they were invested.
(http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1589)
Shrug. It’s just an academic exercise, at this point.
government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
This piece always gets overlooked. Most debt is held by the public (even at this stage of the Hegemony’s Fade) — the US public. A whole host of important financial institutions (banks, insurers, pensions) and individuals depend on fresh US debt to keep their operations (and their incomes) predictable and stable. Would they be hosed if they couldn’t buy more US debt? Do they have alternatives?
Maybe somebody with some knowledge can spell out the consequences of an aggressive Treasury buyback policy.
Peter Orsag, writing for the CBPP way back when, doesn’t answer those questions, but he was in favor of steering the Clinton Surplus to debt reduction (and eventual debt retirement) in contrast with Alan Greenspan, among others, who were concerned that surpluses “saved” by the government would harm the capital markets into which they were invested.
(http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1589)
Shrug. It’s just an academic exercise, at this point.
So, instead of the government borrowing so that your taxes could be cut for the past 10 years, you are willing to raise your marginal tax rate so that the government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
Well, that is the effect of it; but your premise seems to be that I was ok with the borrowing. I wasn’t. My complaint, then and now, is that we don’t live within our means. Entitlement and defense spending, particularly with two way-too-long wars and one way-too-illegal-but-short-and-successful-(so far) war, are too damn much and need to be addressed before I am on board with giving congress a larger take than it already has.
So, instead of the government borrowing so that your taxes could be cut for the past 10 years, you are willing to raise your marginal tax rate so that the government can re-purchase in full the Treasury debt accumulated over the past ten years which you hold somewhere or other, whether you know it or not.
Well, that is the effect of it; but your premise seems to be that I was ok with the borrowing. I wasn’t. My complaint, then and now, is that we don’t live within our means. Entitlement and defense spending, particularly with two way-too-long wars and one way-too-illegal-but-short-and-successful-(so far) war, are too damn much and need to be addressed before I am on board with giving congress a larger take than it already has.
Here’s some budget cuts I’d like to see over the next ten years:
NOAA and the National Weather Service should predict only EVERY OTHER hurricane and tornado event in the country, OR only the ones that affect me, whichever method is cheaper.
We de-fund Medicare and Medicaid and we let the private sector replace it with combination hospitals/chicken lending outlets. If you don’t have a live chicken to use for barter to have that catheter installed, the memorial Rick Scott chicken-lending facility, conveniently located in the lobby of all hospital emergency rooms, will lend you a live chicken to present to your doctor of choice, who in turn, will have a partial interest in the aforesaid chicken-lending facility. Compounded interest on the borrowed chicken will be paid in cash only, of course. No fair paying with used catheters. Do the math.
Edible food stamps made of rendered pork products. Cuts out the middleman grocer and saves on the waves of outrage from the libertarian bulletheads in the check-out line.
No more space exploration. We simply ask Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann what’s out there, they will consult God, who will tell them, and they will let us know for a small fee.
No more of this FEMA boondoggle of some guy in a rowboat paddling to EVERY house in the city to check on the well-being and the needs of the residents. Instead, the guy will be paid in piece work for every liberal he saves and brings to dry land. On his own time and his dollar, the guy in the rowboat may tell conservatives and libertarians to go f*ck themselves. If he wants to charge them for the latter service, under the table, hey, knock yourselves out.
No more pilotless drones, paid for with my hard-earned tax dollars, shooting expensive missiles at terrorists. Instead, we take those Tea Party old guy patriots and we outfit each of their scooters with a big propeller on top and we send them off to Pakistan. When they spot a terrorist suspect below, they drop the contents of their colostomy bags all over his head from a high altitude, embarrassing them to death. But here’s the real money-saving feature of this idea: we don’t outfit them enough fuel to get back to the U.S.
Passports and embassies? Who needs them? Americans should use their god-given ingenuity and exceptionalism to sneak over international borders and into other countries. Like our military does.
Replace our government prison system and death rows with a new Cooking Channel show called “Cannibal Iron Chef” sponsored by the private sector company called Confections Corp. of America. On the show, you take the criminals (today’s ingredient: serial rapists!), and in less than an hour, you slice, dice and julienne them, saute, braise, roast, sear, barbecue them, render their fat and organ meat, and collect their vital juices in a blender for the saucing. Delicious, and saves money on unionized prison guard salaries!
That’s about it for now. But it’s only Monday. I look forward to everyone elses’ suggestions
Here’s some budget cuts I’d like to see over the next ten years:
NOAA and the National Weather Service should predict only EVERY OTHER hurricane and tornado event in the country, OR only the ones that affect me, whichever method is cheaper.
We de-fund Medicare and Medicaid and we let the private sector replace it with combination hospitals/chicken lending outlets. If you don’t have a live chicken to use for barter to have that catheter installed, the memorial Rick Scott chicken-lending facility, conveniently located in the lobby of all hospital emergency rooms, will lend you a live chicken to present to your doctor of choice, who in turn, will have a partial interest in the aforesaid chicken-lending facility. Compounded interest on the borrowed chicken will be paid in cash only, of course. No fair paying with used catheters. Do the math.
Edible food stamps made of rendered pork products. Cuts out the middleman grocer and saves on the waves of outrage from the libertarian bulletheads in the check-out line.
No more space exploration. We simply ask Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann what’s out there, they will consult God, who will tell them, and they will let us know for a small fee.
No more of this FEMA boondoggle of some guy in a rowboat paddling to EVERY house in the city to check on the well-being and the needs of the residents. Instead, the guy will be paid in piece work for every liberal he saves and brings to dry land. On his own time and his dollar, the guy in the rowboat may tell conservatives and libertarians to go f*ck themselves. If he wants to charge them for the latter service, under the table, hey, knock yourselves out.
No more pilotless drones, paid for with my hard-earned tax dollars, shooting expensive missiles at terrorists. Instead, we take those Tea Party old guy patriots and we outfit each of their scooters with a big propeller on top and we send them off to Pakistan. When they spot a terrorist suspect below, they drop the contents of their colostomy bags all over his head from a high altitude, embarrassing them to death. But here’s the real money-saving feature of this idea: we don’t outfit them enough fuel to get back to the U.S.
Passports and embassies? Who needs them? Americans should use their god-given ingenuity and exceptionalism to sneak over international borders and into other countries. Like our military does.
Replace our government prison system and death rows with a new Cooking Channel show called “Cannibal Iron Chef” sponsored by the private sector company called Confections Corp. of America. On the show, you take the criminals (today’s ingredient: serial rapists!), and in less than an hour, you slice, dice and julienne them, saute, braise, roast, sear, barbecue them, render their fat and organ meat, and collect their vital juices in a blender for the saucing. Delicious, and saves money on unionized prison guard salaries!
That’s about it for now. But it’s only Monday. I look forward to everyone elses’ suggestions
I don’t know about budget savings, but if the government received a dollar for every time this happens:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/29/psssssst-hey-you-you-there-reading-slog-at-work-on-monday-morning-wanna-see-an-anti-gay-republican-senators-butthole-sure-ya-do
It could give up borrowing and taxing all together.
I don’t get this. Does anyone else?
I mean, look, I hate peas, as in I don’t think peas should have any rights whatsoever, let alone joint banking accounts and king-sized beds with canopies, to turn a phrase.
I would be willing to run for office in a very conservative, Bible-belt district on a strictly pea-hating platform.
But even if I secretly craved peas, which I don’t, by God, just to be clear, but even I secretly paid good money to eat peas, I would never have enough Michelle Bachmann chuttspa to post a picture of myself on the pea-loving page of Craigslist’s Casual Vegetable Relationships, holding a big spoonful of peas in front of my face while rubbing my stomach and saying “Whoopy!”
No, I’d eat my peas in private, lay off the Twitter, and continue to give stem-winding anti-pea speeches from the floor of the chambers and the pulpit, like the respectable, decent hypocrites of old when this country was a shining beacon of red light respectability on the Hill in a bad neighborhood.
I don’t know about budget savings, but if the government received a dollar for every time this happens:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/29/psssssst-hey-you-you-there-reading-slog-at-work-on-monday-morning-wanna-see-an-anti-gay-republican-senators-butthole-sure-ya-do
It could give up borrowing and taxing all together.
I don’t get this. Does anyone else?
I mean, look, I hate peas, as in I don’t think peas should have any rights whatsoever, let alone joint banking accounts and king-sized beds with canopies, to turn a phrase.
I would be willing to run for office in a very conservative, Bible-belt district on a strictly pea-hating platform.
But even if I secretly craved peas, which I don’t, by God, just to be clear, but even I secretly paid good money to eat peas, I would never have enough Michelle Bachmann chuttspa to post a picture of myself on the pea-loving page of Craigslist’s Casual Vegetable Relationships, holding a big spoonful of peas in front of my face while rubbing my stomach and saying “Whoopy!”
No, I’d eat my peas in private, lay off the Twitter, and continue to give stem-winding anti-pea speeches from the floor of the chambers and the pulpit, like the respectable, decent hypocrites of old when this country was a shining beacon of red light respectability on the Hill in a bad neighborhood.
Some sort of extended family folks came to visit over the weekend. One topic of conversation was how conservative rabid anti-gay folks, men specifically, are almost assumed to be closeted gays now.
Michelle Bachmann’s husband being just the latest example.
On one hand, it’s kind of just another form of prejudice.
On the other hand, they do just seem to pop up like mushrooms after the rain.
Everybody has their own row to hoe, and I’m sure there are complexities and issues galore that can make it hard for some of these guys – because it’s mostly guys who flame out this way – to come out as gay.
But it just seems like these folks’ lives must be one continual, unending argument with themselves.
It would wear me the hell out.
Some sort of extended family folks came to visit over the weekend. One topic of conversation was how conservative rabid anti-gay folks, men specifically, are almost assumed to be closeted gays now.
Michelle Bachmann’s husband being just the latest example.
On one hand, it’s kind of just another form of prejudice.
On the other hand, they do just seem to pop up like mushrooms after the rain.
Everybody has their own row to hoe, and I’m sure there are complexities and issues galore that can make it hard for some of these guys – because it’s mostly guys who flame out this way – to come out as gay.
But it just seems like these folks’ lives must be one continual, unending argument with themselves.
It would wear me the hell out.
McTx: My complaint, then and now, is that we don’t live within our means.
I’m not sure what this means in the context of the United States. Is it possible for governments to over-borrow and then default on their debt? Yes, see, e.g., Greece. The United States is not Greece, not even close. The U.S. government owns 30% of the land in the country, it has countless other assets, and, should you cross it, it has recently claimed the right to torture the sh1t out of you and/or outright just put you down. It also has the most powerful military arsenal the world has ever known.
IOW, the U.S. creates it’s own means these days, it has fnck you money. Do we need all of Saudi Arabia’s oil shipped directly to the U.S.? Done.
Less flippantly, we’re leveraged. The U.S. gov’t is spending more money than it takes in, and taking that extra cash to spend according to the received wisdom of the populace, as expressed indirectly through the legislative and executive branches. But hey, no one is forcing anyone to loan $$ to the U.S. gov’t, unlike in the case of taxes, so what’s the problem? And, really, the U.S. gov’t has direct control over the value of such loans, if borrowing is such a problem why are so many willing to lend?
McTx: My complaint, then and now, is that we don’t live within our means.
I’m not sure what this means in the context of the United States. Is it possible for governments to over-borrow and then default on their debt? Yes, see, e.g., Greece. The United States is not Greece, not even close. The U.S. government owns 30% of the land in the country, it has countless other assets, and, should you cross it, it has recently claimed the right to torture the sh1t out of you and/or outright just put you down. It also has the most powerful military arsenal the world has ever known.
IOW, the U.S. creates it’s own means these days, it has fnck you money. Do we need all of Saudi Arabia’s oil shipped directly to the U.S.? Done.
Less flippantly, we’re leveraged. The U.S. gov’t is spending more money than it takes in, and taking that extra cash to spend according to the received wisdom of the populace, as expressed indirectly through the legislative and executive branches. But hey, no one is forcing anyone to loan $$ to the U.S. gov’t, unlike in the case of taxes, so what’s the problem? And, really, the U.S. gov’t has direct control over the value of such loans, if borrowing is such a problem why are so many willing to lend?
Debt is only a problem when people stop loaning you money?
Debt is only a problem when people stop loaning you money?
if borrowing is such a problem why are so many willing to lend?
Well, define the terms and win the debate. The problem with borrowing isn’t the absence of lenders, it’s the fact that we have to pay the money back.
if borrowing is such a problem why are so many willing to lend?
Well, define the terms and win the debate. The problem with borrowing isn’t the absence of lenders, it’s the fact that we have to pay the money back.
Why does an issuer of fiat currency borrow in the first place? What is the function of borrowing? Is it to fund the government, the one that created the money it’s borrowing back (and the money that it collects in taxes)? Is it possible that the US government won’t be able to pay according to the terms of the bonds it’s issued? What would happen if the Treasury simply stopped issuing bonds to match deficit spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis?
Why does an issuer of fiat currency borrow in the first place? What is the function of borrowing? Is it to fund the government, the one that created the money it’s borrowing back (and the money that it collects in taxes)? Is it possible that the US government won’t be able to pay according to the terms of the bonds it’s issued? What would happen if the Treasury simply stopped issuing bonds to match deficit spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis?
“Why does an issuer of fiat currency borrow in the first place?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but MMT would posit that bonds satisfy the private sector’s desire to hold interest bearing instruments…or movement along their (some kind of aggregated) liquidity preference indifference curve. Also, by controlling the treasury bond market, the government acts to set interest rates in order to meet monetary policy goals.
“Why does an issuer of fiat currency borrow in the first place?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but MMT would posit that bonds satisfy the private sector’s desire to hold interest bearing instruments…or movement along their (some kind of aggregated) liquidity preference indifference curve. Also, by controlling the treasury bond market, the government acts to set interest rates in order to meet monetary policy goals.
An equally good question would be: why would anyone in their right mind lend to an issuer of fiat currency, without some ability to insist that they be repaid in like value?
An equally good question would be: why would anyone in their right mind lend to an issuer of fiat currency, without some ability to insist that they be repaid in like value?
“What is the function of borrowing? Is it to fund the government…?”
No. Under our sovereign fiat currency system the government does not need to borrow in order to spend. It spends first, and is fiscally unconstrained (since it prints the currency, it can outbid anybody in the private sector for real goods and services).
The constraint about having to issue bonds to “fund” spending is a political constraint, not a monetary one.
“What is the function of borrowing? Is it to fund the government…?”
No. Under our sovereign fiat currency system the government does not need to borrow in order to spend. It spends first, and is fiscally unconstrained (since it prints the currency, it can outbid anybody in the private sector for real goods and services).
The constraint about having to issue bonds to “fund” spending is a political constraint, not a monetary one.
Why would anyone lend to an issuer of fiat currency? Really? I guess that leaves just about every government on the face of the planet out in the cold. And those poor Japanese! Obviously, you being smarter than them, know they are simply “out of their minds” as their ability to sell “worthless” government paper continues apace.
But everybody readily concedes that it would make much more sense if the government issued bonds denominated in, say, chickens, because we all intuitively know their “like value”.
But at heart, this is self referential. If you lend DOLLARS to, say, the US Treasury, they promise to pay you back with “like value”, i.e., you will be paid back with DOLLARS and the last time I looked a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar, no more, no less.
Why would anyone lend to an issuer of fiat currency? Really? I guess that leaves just about every government on the face of the planet out in the cold. And those poor Japanese! Obviously, you being smarter than them, know they are simply “out of their minds” as their ability to sell “worthless” government paper continues apace.
But everybody readily concedes that it would make much more sense if the government issued bonds denominated in, say, chickens, because we all intuitively know their “like value”.
But at heart, this is self referential. If you lend DOLLARS to, say, the US Treasury, they promise to pay you back with “like value”, i.e., you will be paid back with DOLLARS and the last time I looked a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar, no more, no less.
Debt is only a problem when people stop loaning you money?
Essentially yes. In the sense that it’s usually not the fall that kills you but the sharp deceleration at the end.
Debt is only a problem when people stop loaning you money?
Essentially yes. In the sense that it’s usually not the fall that kills you but the sharp deceleration at the end.
Yes, really. If the person doing the borrowing showed any signs of escaping their debt obligation by simply devaluing their currency, that would be a bad thing for the lender, no?
Some might even take it as an offense.
This is the fictional part of your response, obviously. Other parts, not so obviously. It would be good for me, in the interest of clarity, for you to clearly separate those things you’re just making up in your head from serious responses.
Just like in that song, then. Well, good to know. I’m sure that it was a comfort to Germans to know that they were millionaires, circa 1923. Because a Reichsmark is worth EXACTLY a Reichsmark!
Yes, really. If the person doing the borrowing showed any signs of escaping their debt obligation by simply devaluing their currency, that would be a bad thing for the lender, no?
Some might even take it as an offense.
This is the fictional part of your response, obviously. Other parts, not so obviously. It would be good for me, in the interest of clarity, for you to clearly separate those things you’re just making up in your head from serious responses.
Just like in that song, then. Well, good to know. I’m sure that it was a comfort to Germans to know that they were millionaires, circa 1923. Because a Reichsmark is worth EXACTLY a Reichsmark!
The monetary system in the Weimar Republic was different in very crucial ways from our modern system, as was their situation. Our debt is not denominated in gold or foreign currency (which you see as a problem, Slart, but one for the lender, rather than the borrower – so why should we care if they don’t?)
The best way to devalue your currency is to allow your productive capacity to decline. If France and Belgium decide to take over our most productive region, leaving us without goods to trade, I guess we could use the Weimar Republic as an example. Most of our debt is held domestically and almost half is held intra-governmentally. Maybe we’ll take over ourselves, since we have the most powerful military in the world.
Where’s the inflation? Weimar printed money in response to inflation. Our inflation rates are below targets and deflation is a mild concern at this point. Could we cause hyperinflation and a devaluation of our currency? Sure. Is there any reason to think we’re remotely close to that? No.
At any rate, why do we borrow in the first place?
The monetary system in the Weimar Republic was different in very crucial ways from our modern system, as was their situation. Our debt is not denominated in gold or foreign currency (which you see as a problem, Slart, but one for the lender, rather than the borrower – so why should we care if they don’t?)
The best way to devalue your currency is to allow your productive capacity to decline. If France and Belgium decide to take over our most productive region, leaving us without goods to trade, I guess we could use the Weimar Republic as an example. Most of our debt is held domestically and almost half is held intra-governmentally. Maybe we’ll take over ourselves, since we have the most powerful military in the world.
Where’s the inflation? Weimar printed money in response to inflation. Our inflation rates are below targets and deflation is a mild concern at this point. Could we cause hyperinflation and a devaluation of our currency? Sure. Is there any reason to think we’re remotely close to that? No.
At any rate, why do we borrow in the first place?
I don’t think I’ve said that I have. Although I did, just today, happen upon an article written by Warren Buffett’s father in favor of a return to the gold standard. Which I thought kind of resonated between multiple threads, here.
I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of being on a gold standard vs. fiat currency to have any sort of opinion in the matter. But it does seem to me that any country that both issues fiat currency AND engages in foreign trade has a certain obligation to keep its own currency stable in terms of purchasing power, lest it be seen as waging monetary warfare. Which we’re probably actively engaged in at most times anyway.
To clarify for the sake of your other concerns, I was not comparing our situation to that of the Weimar Republic; I was simply using it as an extreme point of reference in disputing the absurd position that a dollar defines itself reflexively in terms of value, which is what “a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar” seems to be saying.
I don’t think I’ve said that I have. Although I did, just today, happen upon an article written by Warren Buffett’s father in favor of a return to the gold standard. Which I thought kind of resonated between multiple threads, here.
I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of being on a gold standard vs. fiat currency to have any sort of opinion in the matter. But it does seem to me that any country that both issues fiat currency AND engages in foreign trade has a certain obligation to keep its own currency stable in terms of purchasing power, lest it be seen as waging monetary warfare. Which we’re probably actively engaged in at most times anyway.
To clarify for the sake of your other concerns, I was not comparing our situation to that of the Weimar Republic; I was simply using it as an extreme point of reference in disputing the absurd position that a dollar defines itself reflexively in terms of value, which is what “a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar” seems to be saying.
I was simply using it as an extreme point of reference in disputing the absurd position that a dollar defines itself reflexively in terms of value, which is what “a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar” seems to be saying.
Well, okay. That’s valid. (But let the over-subscribers to our bond auctions at historically low interest rates worry about that.)
I was simply using it as an extreme point of reference in disputing the absurd position that a dollar defines itself reflexively in terms of value, which is what “a dollar is worth EXACTLY a dollar” seems to be saying.
Well, okay. That’s valid. (But let the over-subscribers to our bond auctions at historically low interest rates worry about that.)
Slarti,
You are the one who made the reference to people ‘being in their right mind’ and ‘insisting’ on ‘some ability’ to be repaid in ‘like value’. You are the one who brought up Weimar Germany. Perhaps it is you who should separate out the fictional parts of your questions before asking them.
However, if you loan some of your government issued fiat money to the federal government, or convert it to yen and loan it to the Japanese government, be sure to advise all if they pay any attention to your insistence that you be repaid in ‘like value’ or chickens, or something. Because if they don’t then presumably you are not in your right mind as are millions of other people who routinely purchase their government’s debt all over the world.
There is a reason why we no longer believe that if you sail too far out to sea, you will fall off the edge of the earth, and similarly there are very good reasons why the world got off the gold standard.
Thanks!
Slarti,
You are the one who made the reference to people ‘being in their right mind’ and ‘insisting’ on ‘some ability’ to be repaid in ‘like value’. You are the one who brought up Weimar Germany. Perhaps it is you who should separate out the fictional parts of your questions before asking them.
However, if you loan some of your government issued fiat money to the federal government, or convert it to yen and loan it to the Japanese government, be sure to advise all if they pay any attention to your insistence that you be repaid in ‘like value’ or chickens, or something. Because if they don’t then presumably you are not in your right mind as are millions of other people who routinely purchase their government’s debt all over the world.
There is a reason why we no longer believe that if you sail too far out to sea, you will fall off the edge of the earth, and similarly there are very good reasons why the world got off the gold standard.
Thanks!