Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[Francesca R]

HAve not the democrats been in office for the last 6 years?

In the White House yes. Not in the House of Representatives since 2011, and no longer in the Senate from 2015. See checks and balances.

Do you believe that the present (Obama) administration does not really want to raise tax?

Wasn't Clinton a democrat

Yes and I recall he raised various taxes.

 

[Ziggurat]

And there's the other half of the sophist ploy at work. Because he is careful to couch his concept in a seemingly innocuous way that does not (on the surface) seem to do so, then he is able to argue from literalism that "I didn't say that..."

No, but you certainly implied it. The concept is inherent in the argument made, if left unspoken.

Your confusion continues apace.

You seem to have some model in your head about what certain people are like, what they think like. We all do, that's OK. But for some reason, you have decided that I must fit this model. If I say one thing that fits your conceptual model, then you believe I must fit it in all respects. And so you infer these positions for me which I have never expressed, and in point of fact don't actually believe.

What we are seeing here is really just rank prejudice on your part. You have stereotyped me, and accuse me on the basis of your stereotype. "We all know what his kind are like". But since this isn't one of the categories of popularly denounced stereotyping, it probably never occurred to you that it might be a problem. In this case, the problem isn't really for me, though: you have no power over me, I'm immune to any negative effects from your prejudice. The real problem is for you, because it is leading you into repeated failures of understanding.

 

[anglolawyer]

In the White House yes. Not in the House of Representatives since 2011, and no longer in the Senate from 2015. See checks and balances.

Do you believe that the present (Obama) administration does not really want to raise tax?

Yes and I recall he raised various taxes.

But the trend we are talking about stretches across decades, regardless of the colour of the administration. I have no clue about what Obama or his administration want. Unless you accept as a premise that the federal state is a powerless entity, helpless in a world of capital flows it can never hope to control or influence, the present state of affairs must result from policy. What I want to know is: which ticket ran on this policy?

 

[Ziggurat]

I get that, Ziggurat, and I think it a reasonable argument, but we are talking about a very long term trend of increasingly glaring inequality

So? First, why should people care about inequality in and of itself? Reich peddles the line that it allows elections to be bought, but the evidence doesn't actually support that. If your own lot in life is improving, why should you resent that someone else's lot is improving faster? Should voters really favor reducing inequality if the price is also a universal lowering of standards? You haven't convinced me that inequality is really what voters care about most.

Second, most people have terrible intuition about economics. So you can't really discount the possibility of repeated long-term failures.

Who wants to be poorer. Who wants to be relatively poorer? Nobody. That's who.

And what happens if those two goals are mutually exclusive?

 

[sunmaster14]

Not when we're talking about elections, which is the topic of this thread. In that context, net worth is pretty much all that matters when it comes to the ability of any one individual to affect elections.

In order to affect elections, one needs to spend, i.e. consume. Wealth, by itself doesn't do anything. And consumption inequality is far, far smaller than wealth inequality.

That being said, I have no doubt that Americans live in a quasi-oligarchy (as do most Europeans), albeit a relatively benign one. Academic, cultural, and business elites control policy-making through their outsized influence on politicians and government officials. This will always be the case, and no political system can prevent it from happening.

Again, we're not talking about living standards in this thread, we're talking about the interplay between elections and wealth.

No, anglolawyer claimed that a majority of the US population would not have voted to transform US society to what it is today because wealth inequality is intolerably high today. From that premise, he argued that the electoral process must be unfairly skewed in favor of the rich because the majority obviously did not get what they wanted from the electoral process. There are two things wrong with that argument. One, which I have addressed, is that the majority of the US population is probably satisfied with today's society. The negative of extreme wealth inequality is more than compensated for by the positive of high absolute living standards. The other flaw in anglolawyer's argument has been addressed by Ziggurat, viz. people can vote for policies, but they can't really vote for outcomes. Policies aren't always effective, and when they aim to do difficult things like reduce wealth inequality or stop the sea level from rising, they're very likely to be complete failures.

I'd like a cite for that.

Take a look at Table 2 in this Fed paper. Over 75% of families change deciles over a 10 year period. Almost 42% of the poorest families move up a quintile, and 45% of the richest families move down a quintile. Roughly 15% of the poorest families move up two or more quintiles, and 20% of the richest families move down two or more quintiles. Mobility has diminished by a small amount over the last 25 years, but it's really not all that much.

 

[Francesca R]

But the trend we are talking about stretches across decades, regardless of the colour of the administration.

Well across decades the size of the general government (federal, state, local) has cumulatively grown. And income inequality has grown in tandem with this.

So to some extent, yes, government is "powerless" (more like ineffective) at changing the outcome.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well across decades the size of the general government (federal, state, local) has cumulatively grown. And income inequality has grown in tandem with this.

So to some extent, yes, government is "powerless" (more like ineffective) at changing the outcome.

OK, good. Progress. You have reached the point of admitting that your democracy is not in control of one of the most fundamental things it exists to regulate: the benefits people derive from citizenship. I would encourage reflection on what that implies.

 

[Francesca R]

It isn't my democracy. I lived in the States for a year a decade ago but they didn't let me vote for Kerry or Bush (or anybody else).

I don't think it has been disputed that one can't vote for outcomes directly. In fact I think everyone has agreed that one can't

 

[anglolawyer]

So? First, why should people care about inequality in and of itself? Reich peddles the line that it allows elections to be bought, but the evidence doesn't actually support that. If your own lot in life is improving, why should you resent that someone else's lot is improving faster? Should voters really favor reducing inequality if the price is also a universal lowering of standards? You haven't convinced me that inequality is really what voters care about most.

Let's take two scenarios:

Case A
Total wealth = 100
1% own 99% of the wealth

Case B
Total wealth = 90
1% own 10%
99% own 90%

You are part of the 99%. Cast your vote … now!

Second, most people have terrible intuition about economics. So you can't really discount the possibility of repeated long-term failures.

Meaning what?

And what happens if those two goals are mutually exclusive?

Huh? I said:

Who wants to be poorer? Who wants to be relatively poorer? Nobody. That's who.

What are you trying to say?

 

[anglolawyer]

It isn't my democracy. I lived in the States for a year a decade ago but they didn't let me vote for Kerry or Bush (or anybody else).

I don't think it has been disputed that one can't vote for outcomes directly. In fact I think everyone has agreed that one can't

Sure, I understand. But we aren't morons and the world is not a casino full of totally unpredictable outcomes. If we want to pursue this policy or that policy what's to stop us? Especially in a democracy. Nothing, right?

 

[Francesca R]

Mostly, it's others not agreeing and that not having a plurality thing.

 

[Francesca R]

What are you trying to say?

I think it is: What if becoming relatively richer necessarily means becoming absolutely poorer? (Which one should prevail?)

And I believe that the normative answer is that it depends, and in some situations and to some extent people would rather be absolutely poorer provided they were relatively richer. But that would probably be the minority of cases.

Not that these are always mutually exclusive of course.

 

[3point14]

It has been pointed out already that one does not and can not vote for outcomes. Only policies. And the electorate does appear to have (had) the choice to vote for policies that increase income and wealth re-distribution.

Yes--see above.

Appear...

I give you Mr Wililam Melvin Hicks, who may have had some odd ideas, but I think he's bang on with this one:

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

 

[anglolawyer]

I think it is: What if becoming relatively richer necessarily means becoming absolutely poorer? (Which one should prevail?)

And I believe that the normative answer is that it depends, and in some situations and to some extent people would rather be absolutely poorer provided they were relatively richer. But that would probably be the minority of cases.

Not that these are always mutually exclusive of course.

But then it's a false choice because over the period we are discussing US GDP has massively increased, doubtless due in part to the labours of the people. Sure they maybe didn't invent the iPhones and better cars and such but they did create much wealth. Have they got their share? If I have 220 times as much as you (the former ratio) what's wrong with the economy doubling and I still have 220 times more than you? But both double. What we have now is I get 1200 times as much as you, I have outpaced the economy while your (middle class American) wealth has stagnated and your debts have piled up. Amid plenty. And it will continue on this same trend too.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes I am aware of the dynamic.

But that was the question I believe was posed. Up to you if you don't want to answer it, it wasn't even my question.

 

[fishbob]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

1970: 36% of all households had air conditioning.
Today: 83.95% of all households and 78.3% of poor households have air conditioning.

1990: 15.7% of all households and 4.9% of poor households had a computer (and I'm sure close to 0% had one in 1970).
Today: 68% of all households and 38.5% of poor households have a computer.

Similar massive improvements can be found in all sorts of things which affect quality of life. Almost all poor people have refrigerators now, while in 1970 lots of people didn't. Lots of poor people have cell phones now, only the uber-rich had them in 1970 (and those weren't near as good as the virtually disposable phones you can get now). Medical treatment available even to those on Medicaid often didn't even exist in 1970, no matter how rich you are. And on and on and on.

You are crediting your version of living standards with the time needed for new technology to filter into society. Unfair and invalid.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes I am aware of the dynamic.

But that was the question I believe was posed. Up to you if you don't want to answer it, it wasn't even my question.

I have decided not to answer it. Thank you for explaining what the question was.

 

[Francesca R]

Case A
Total wealth = 100
1% own 99% of the wealth

Case B
Total wealth = 90
1% own 10%
99% own 90%

In case B, 99% of folks are absolutely and relatively richer. So for them it clearly dominates case A. 1% are absolutely and relatively poorer. Society is absolutely poorer. On that dimension (all else set aside) the common good was better served with case A. (It is not the only dimension, just saying)

It seems implicit in your hypothetical that it is the government that has implemented policies (that have redistributed) to get from case A to get case B. So it becomes about "Would you vote for policies that bring about case B?".

Rawls argues that even if people did not know if they would reside in 99% or 1% they would vote for the government that did this.

However, pure libertarians would not, since they would think it was unfair.

Pure utilitarians might not either depending on which case delivered greater total utility (they would think the utility-inferior case was unfair)

 

[theprestige]

LOL , that's the second time in about a week somebody linked that. I am not a Marxist but I do believe in Marx's explanation of history.

Fair enough. That thread doesn't really help us understand what your idea of equitable distribution would be.

But it does offer some insight into how you see the question: As a zero-sum conflict between distinct and opposed classes, where if one appears to be winning it necessarily follows that the other must be losing.

Taking both that thread and this one into consideration, one might conclude that for you it's not so much a matter of finding an equitable distribution, as it is a matter of ensuring the right class wins (and the other class therefore loses, of course).

 

[anglolawyer]

In case B, 99% of folks are absolutely and relatively richer. So for them it clearly dominates case A. 1% are absolutely and relatively poorer.

It seems implicit in your hypothetical that it is the government that has implemented policies (that have redistributed) to get from case A to get case B. So it becomes about "Would you vote for policies that bring about case B?".

No, we could start out with a society of 100 people each owning 1% of the total wealth and present them with alternatives A and B and ask which they would prefer. The smart ones, who fancied their chances of getting ahead would go for A while the majority (presumably) would go for B. As the US is a democracy (supposedly) ruled by the majority, things ought to pan out more like case B than case A assuming there is any connection between democratic choices and outcomes (and if there isn't then WTF are we all doing?)

Rawls argues that even if people did not know if they would reside in 99% or 1% they would vote for the government that did this.

However, pure libertarians would not, since they would think it was unfair.

Pure utilitarians might not either depending on which case delivered greater total utility (they would think the utility-inferior case was unfair)

I think most people want to be better off.