Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[anglolawyer]

Why would you believe in his explanation of history when his predictions for the future based on that explanation were so catastrophically wrong?

Because the explanations work best. Marxist prescriptions are a different thing altogether. He used his theories of history and economics to suggest that, under capitalism, the working class would be increasingly impoverished as the price paid for their labour fell. This would eventually lead to revolution as had occurred before when the tension (contradiction) between the means of production and social relations thereto became too great. He also predicted that communist forms of production would unleash greater productive power and there was a time in the post-war years when it began to seem as though he was right as the Soviet Union became a super power before succumbing to the flaws of which you are no doubt aware.

But, don't'the be complacent. As Trotsky said when asked whether the French Revolution had been a good thing, 'it's too early to tell'. It may turn out Marx was right all along and that globalisation will achieve the end he predicted as capital finds new sources of cheap labour.

But anyway, the thread is not about my politics but rather yours (if you are American). It is a pretty poor response to the question raised by the OP to start accusing me of being a secret socialist.

And what's your metric for that?

My own sense of fairness. IMO the figures Reich gives were more fair in the past than they are now and if the trend continues they will be less fair in the future than they are now.

 

[anglolawyer]

But we have a constitution which is supposed to protect everyone's rights against the tyranny of the majority.

A simple argument is socialism and wealth redistribution are wrong because they violate fundamental rights protected in the constitution. You can't tax wealth, you can tax realized gains on wealth or transfers of wealth but not wealth.

But the real argument against socialism is that the socialist leaders are really overpromising. They believe that with 1$ more they can deliver utopia. The reality is that they can't deliver utopia but will say anything to get their hands on all the money to redistribute.

This usually doesn't end well economically

The war on poverty was started 50 years ago and many would argue the Trillions spent have not helped shrink the persistent underclass in this country.

Obamacare, welfare government spending seem like wasteful spending sold to us by the intellectuals promising a solution to every ill.

They haven't delivered

You can amend the constitution. It only takes a majority. It's not a fixed thing handed down by God and has in fact been amended many times I believe. Are there unalterable parts of the constitution? Can you point them out?

It appears you agree with what Reich said in the passage I quoted: capitalism is a tough sport. It's the only way, cannot be bettered and if it gives rise to the trends he identified well, tough.

Now, honest answer please. Are you OK with the trend he identifies continuing for another forty years? That is, if US GDP doubles, are you OK with your own wealth increasing by only 10%, 5% or nothing? What if the rules of the game require that your standard of living should fall?

I guess the answer to the OP might be that all Americans are agreed on the rules of the game because they fear or reject socialism even more than they do the vicissitudes of free enterprise. In that case, I would suggest the money invested by the wealthy in lobbying, buying politicians and in controlling the mass media has been very well spent.

 

[SezMe]

No. He's a partisan hack.

Happily, you have addressed the issues in subsequent posts rather than engaging in just ad homs.

So the rich people have invested their money in politics and changed the game for the middle class making them poorer. OK, specifically how? What were the things the rich people lobbied for that screwed over the middle class?

That's easy. The collapse of the economy in 2008-2009 was followed by trillions invested in saving the banks but individual homeowners who got screwed by illegal funding practices got el-zippo. Investors in mortgage-backed securities lost a bundle while the banks and their high-level managers made - and kept - all the ill-gotten fees. In the Saving and Loans scandal of the 70s (80s?) scores of perps faced jail or fines. NOT ONE SINGLE perp in the Great Recession was even charged with criminal conduct.

Who do you think influenced the rules and decisions that made all this possible? Yep, the Rich.

 

[SezMe]

What's there to address? The fact that there's a big wealth disparity? Yes, there is. But we don't vote for what the wealth disparity is. It's not on the ballot. How is the existence of a wealth disparity related to whether or not we have a democracy?

You're not that naive, Zig. The massive wealth accumulated by the uber-rich allows them to "buy" elections. It IS on the ballot, you just choose not to see it.

I'll give you a specific example: Don Blankenship. That article focuses on the mine disaster but points to evidence that Blankenship merely bought off politicians. When a court justice who was not in Blankenship's back pocket, he spent ~$3M to get a different judge elected. That new judge reversed a ~$50 million judgement against Massey.

If you think such crap is democracy then you're off in la-la land.

 

[SezMe]

Standard of living is the measure which matters, not net worth

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.

And given the wider distribution of incomes in the US, the natural cycling through deciles that occurs over one's life (most people do not remain in a single decile their whole life) means that the average standard of living experienced by real people in the US (as opposed to a statistical bracket determined in any given year) is higher still.

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

I'd like a cite for that.

 

[SezMe]

Government should act roughly the way most people want, but Reich isn't talking about government, he's talking about economics. And you can't change economics merely because you want to.

Huh? In every federal campaign I've ever experienced the candidates talk about economic policy. It's got nothing to do with changing economics, it's about how economic principles are applied to the nation's problems. Trying to separate the two is a fool's errand.

Most people are massively better off than they were in 1970.

[Citation Needed]

 

[SezMe]

Elections are about government. Government has limited control over the economy, unless you go commie.

Taxation. Regulation. Tariffs. International trade agreements and Most Favored Nation status. Government R&D and government funded R&D. Net neutrality. Export/Import Bank. Banking regulations (domestic and international). Carbon tax/global warming.

I could go on. If these things imply "limited control over the economy" why are there knock-down, drag out fights in congress about them? Why does the national Chamber of Commerce spend tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts to affect such issues?

You're not naive, Zig, but you sure are presenting yourself as such with posts like this.

 

[SezMe]

Most people are massively better off than they were in 1970.

The war on poverty was started 50 years ago and many would argue the Trillions spent have not helped shrink the persistent underclass in this country.

You cons might want to coordinate your positions. Statements like these make your assertions risible.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the explanations work best.

Clearly not, if the predictions keep failing.

Marxist prescriptions are a different thing altogether. He used his theories of history and economics to suggest that, under capitalism, the working class would be increasingly impoverished as the price paid for their labour fell.

And... it didn't.

This would eventually lead to revolution as had occurred before when the tension (contradiction) between the means of production and social relations thereto became too great.

And... it doesn't. Communist revolutions have never happened under capitalist systems.

He also predicted that communist forms of production would unleash greater productive power

Also not true.

and there was a time in the post-war years when it began to seem as though he was right

It's called propaganda. Sometimes it works.

as the Soviet Union became a super power before succumbing to the flaws of which you are no doubt aware.

Russia was a superpower before it became communist. Go read Alexis de Tocqueville. He predicted (correctly) that the US and the Russians would be dominant powers with conflicting interests.

But, don't'the be complacent. As Trotsky said when asked whether the French Revolution had been a good thing, 'it's too early to tell'. It may turn out Marx was right all along and that globalisation will achieve the end he predicted as capital finds new sources of cheap labour.

Yeah, no. It's late enough to tell.

But anyway, the thread is not about my politics but rather yours (if you are American). It is a pretty poor response to the question raised by the OP to start accusing me of being a secret socialist.

Clearly there's nothing secret about it.

My own sense of fairness.

In other words, it's purely a subjective and arbitrary metric. Yeah, not terribly useful as a guide to policy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Taxation. Regulation. Tariffs. International trade agreements and Most Favored Nation status. Government R&D and government funded R&D. Net neutrality. Export/Import Bank. Banking regulations (domestic and international). Carbon tax/global warming.

Oh, government can have plenty of effect on the economy, particularly of the negative kind. What it doesn't have is much control over the economy, and that really isn't the same thing. When politicians decide "we want the economy to do x, y, and z", are they really able to accomplish it? Generally not. Unforeseen effects are the norm, not the exception. Unless you believe Obama intended to increase economic inequality on his watch, I think his presidency is a perfect example of how little control the government actually has.

I could go on. If these things imply "limited control over the economy" why are there knock-down, drag out fights in congress about them?

Look at my signature.

 

[Ziggurat]

[Citation Needed]

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

You cons might want to coordinate your positions. Statements like these make your assertions risible.

There is no conflict between our statements except in your imagination. It's not the failed war on poverty which has improved the lives of the poor, it's general economic and technological advances. The war on poverty is as monumental a failure as the war on drugs.

 

[Francesca R]

My own sense of fairness.

People's sense of fairness (impartiality) do influence their well being. And to the extent that a lot of people think relative disadvantage is unfair, then they have an incentive to vote for increased compulsory redistribution of income. I think it is hardly a secret that this is the Democratic platform and not the Republican one in the US. So apparently there is a choice available to the public and it is hard to make a case that the public has been duped.

But of course fairness does not exclusively point to income/wealth egalitarianism. One person's fairness is another's ethical injustice.

It should be apparent that the OP article goes for maximum appeal to the sympathies of income/wealth egalitarians by comparisons of 0.1% versus 90% etc. The more relevant Gini index for the US is not so stark (although this measure has also increased).

 

[GlennB]

I would not say "laughable", but I definitely would like to know the details of how that chart got generated. Because I find it very difficult to believe that bottom 10% in US live better than top 10% in Israel.

It's only described in very vague terms: " It tracks around 24 indicators in 11 categories. Some are easily quantifiable, like jobs (which includes unemployment and income), while others are more woolly, like civic engagement and community .... The Economist has crunched the numbers for 10 indicators for which the OECD provide data to place countries in a range of how the best off and least well-off in society fare ..."

And I agree with you. We'd have to assume that the top 10% in Portugal or Israel has a very thin layer of cream plus a lot of sufferers to make much sense of the figures. Or perhaps Israelis and Portguese bellyache a lot when surveyed?

More info at http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

 

[anglolawyer]

Clearly not, if the predictions keep failing.



And... it didn't.



And... it doesn't. Communist revolutions have never happened under capitalist systems.



Also not true.



It's called propaganda. Sometimes it works.



Russia was a superpower before it became communist. Go read Alexis de Tocqueville. He predicted (correctly) that the US and the Russians would be dominant powers with conflicting interests.



Yeah, no. It's late enough to tell.



Clearly there's nothing secret about it.



In other words, it's purely a subjective and arbitrary metric. Yeah, not terribly useful as a guide to policy.

That Marx's prescriptions may not (yet) have been fulfilled is no disproof of his historical interpretations, obviously. China may be set to be the next economic power house. Last time I looked, it was communist. Toqueville's prediction was based on Russia's sheer size. Russia was not a super power until after 1945 when it had been decidedly communist for a generation. Before that, for hundreds of years, it had not been a super power despite still being big.

All of which is in passing. What metric should I use? Have you an objective one we can all agree upon? Are you suggesting that nothing can ever be characterised as unfair unless what would be fair can be defined with precision? This would apply to almost any comparative adjective. Nothing can be bad unless we have defined good, nothing big unless small has been defined and so on. It is a puerile argument for the junior common room.

I put the same question to you - are you OK with the current trend continuing ad infinitum until one person owns the whole planet? If the rules resulted in that would you be OK with it because nobody had yet defined what 'fair' meant? Is this what you expect to be taken seriously as an argument, so much so that you actually wrote it down ?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You are free to pay as much to the federal government as you would like.

That's not how it works, Zig, and I suspect you quite well know it.

Taxes are apportioned by law, not by individual preference. You don't get to determine how much you pay, you pay what the government says you will pay.

You agreed to that when you took advantage of all of the benefits of our society (clean air, water, safe foods, infrastructure, etc). If you no longer wish to hold to the social contract, then leave society and go live in the jungle in skins eating bugs.

Somehow I expect you won't do that though...it would require philosophical and moral integrity, which the modern school of Conservatism/Libertarianism lacks utterly.

*ETA: On the subject of Reich...he's an excellent diagnostician as to the reasons for our socio-economic woes, but his prescriptions are pure "Third Way"/Corporatist Democrat...in other words, Republithug Lite.

 

[anglolawyer]

People's sense of fairness (impartiality) do influence their well being. And to the extent that a lot of people think relative disadvantage is unfair, then they have an incentive to vote for increased compulsory redistribution of income. I think it is hardly a secret that this is the Democratic platform and not the Republican one in the US. So apparently there is a choice available to the public and it is hard to make a case that the public has been duped.

But of course fairness does not exclusively point to income/wealth egalitarianism. One person's fairness is another's ethical injustice.

It should be apparent that the OP article goes for maximum appeal to the sympathies of income/wealth egalitarians by comparisons of 0.1% versus 90% etc. The more relevant Gini index for the US is not so stark (although this measure has also increased).

The public has voted the democrats in and out of office several times over the course of the period we are discussing. It hasn't made any difference. I deny that the choice you refer to exists. The public is presented with a pleasing distraction, which it buys hook line and sinker every time and once the votes are cast the merry show goes on.

I could also ask in which election it was decided to massively increase the prison population and the one in which defence spending was massively increased, apparently for the purpose of catching and killing one guy. All the big things are not on the table at US elections. That's because it's not a real democracy but a plutocracy which is morphing into kleptocracy.

 

[Francesca R]

I deny that the choice you refer to exists.

Choice denier.

Aside from the checks and balances in the system which can stymie legislation quite handily--checks and balances which, by the way, Americans typically are highly in favour or--what other basis have you for "denying a choice exists"?

 

[anglolawyer]

Choice denier.

Aside from the checks and balances in the system which can stymie legislation quite handily--checks and balances which, by the way, Americans typically are highly in favour or--what other basis have you for "denying a choice exists"?

The outcome. That's the point of the OP. The American populace cannot reasonably be believed to have been voting all along for the trend we are seeing. It's like purchasing power parity (between currencies) - over time, exchange rates should get dragged back to it. Likewise, in a genuine democracy, things should wind up approximately in accordance with what people reasonably want. I obviously mean those things the people have control over, like the distribution of resources among themselves.

 

[Francesca R]

You agreed to that when you took advantage of all of the benefits of our society (clean air, water, safe foods, infrastructure, etc). If you no longer wish to hold to the social contract, then leave society and go live in the jungle in skins eating bugs.

Somehow I expect you won't do that though...

This is a bizarre post. As though you think that Ziggurat has expressed an intent not to pay legally required tax. I can see no such statement. So your reply does not, actually, apply.

Taxes are apportioned by law, not by individual preference. You don't get to determine how much you pay, you pay what the government says you will pay.

And of course one can send additional money to the US Treasury if one wishes. Barack Obama did exactly that last year.