Dems try populism
It worked in 2006, and it can work in 2008.
On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.
Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”
Populism is hardly new in the Democratic Party. Al Gore vowed to fight for “the people versus the powerful” in his presidential campaign seven years ago, and Republicans have long accused the Democrats of practicing “class warfare.”
But the latest populist resurgence is deeply rooted in a view that current economic conditions are difficult and deteriorating for many people, analysts say, and it is now framing debates over tax policy, education, trade, energy and health care.
Given that we're in the midst of a modern-day "Gilded Age," in which the United States has the most dramatic concentration of wealth at the top since the 1920s, it's probably a good time for a populist message.
FRIST BY GOD
Will guys like Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer go along? Democrats used to stick up for the little guy. Will they do it again? If they did, they could sink the Republicans for good.
This morning C-SPAN framed Democratic populism as "Are Democrats engaging in class warfare?" 45 mins of that bullshit.
With all the talk of ending the Iraq occupation, not much is heard about rescuing working Americans from the ravages of the free market economy. Many of us are suffering. I want to hear more on this from our candidates. Republicans accuse Democrats of practicing "class warfare" while they conduct a systematic destruction of the middle class. Where are our voices?
Well, that's because "trickle-down economics" is the same thing as Communism... the only difference is you're giving money to a different group of motherfuckers, and expecting them to redistribute it fairly.
"Trickle-down economics" was advocated by Reagan and is not the same thing as communism. It was supposed to give breaks to the rich, who would then spend more, injecting more money into the economy, with the resulting dollars "trickling down' to the less fortunate. It didn't work.
Republicans have been practicing class warfare for nearly seven years, a war on the middle class, which is going to foot future bills for the Iraq War. Why are store clerks paying 30 percent in taxes and millionaires like Warren Buffett less than 20 percent? It's got to stop.
Class Warfare is not the discussion for bring the middle and lower class people of the country up to a more livable level, Class Warfare is systematically dismantling the economy to a point where the middle and lower classes can no longer achieve a livable level of income. So your question is very valid Proud American Liberal, where are our voices indeed.
Sure. Would that they'd mean a word of it.
Repubs have long accused the Dems of class warfare because they realize this issue -- above all others -- is what shows the Republican party for what it really is... a party that benefits the extremely wealthy only.
They shudder in their shoes when the Dems play this card because they know they can't win. So, they fight dirty and play the wedge issues: abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. They are utterly predictable. Yet, they gained a lot of political ground after 9/11 because the American public was basically scared shitless.
History will judge this adminstration as one of the worse... and one of the most corrupt.
About time....
I was wondering when the DLC consultants would figure out the gains in the West (Rockies region specifically)...
It is isn't 'hating the rich' as moronic right wingnuts & con-servatives bander on & on about...its about not letting the republicans subsidize the top 1%ers tax contributions on the backs of the middle class...
Trickle down economics was also called "voodoo economics" by george 1, that is, until ronnie raygun offered him the vp job, then it was, that ol trickle down thing might not so bad after all.
I credit John Edwards with forcing the rest of the Democratic candidates to push populist ideals, and a good thing, I say.
Yup. they make periodic appeals to populism which are then followed by business as usual.
Ain't buying it.
How about allowing people over the age of 50 to have a job?
Everyone I know over 50 is being forced out of the job market.
We've _always_ had class warfare. We always will. That is the human condition. I think some societies, like France, understand that. That's why the people are out in the streets en masse striking over this and that every year.
For the last 30 years in particular the rich have been winning. So let's get back some balance. Let's shamelessly eat the rich to get _back_ a middle class that will promote democracy. When did it become a "universal human right" that a sane society should allow a few people to have everything and the vast majority of the people should have nothing? If we don't do it sooner and peacefully, the wisdom of history just shows the misery of the masses will create a messy revolution eventually. After an indeterminate number of years of social instability: industrial and terror bombings, kidnappings and other third world BS.
It's really just a question of whether the U.S. has the wisdom to restore balance rationally or whether we cluelessly want the cycle of history to do it for us in a whirlwind of craziness.
[Deleted. Banned poster]
"Republicans have long accused the Democrats of practicing “class warfare.”
Well, now we can see the reasons for that "class warfare". Because the United States has the most dramatic concentration of wealth at the top since the 1920s, and the power wielded by those at the top of the Elite class are the same one's who "Buy" and bully our government.
I'd say it's about freaking time! By next October there will be an explosion of forclosures in the housing market, then we will see people finally screaming in the streets. Americans respond to their wallets more than anything else..
Class warfare is being fought every day in this country.
It is the rich destroying opportunity for poor people, it is giving more and more and more economic advantages to the wealthy, it is complete corporate control of the legistlative process.
The instigators of class warfare are the rich.
The middle class had better take back this country soon, or we are doomed as a democracy.
I'm with George [#12]
They're all so very 'populist'. HA!
It's always quaint when they start the "us VS them" rhetoric. Maybe I'll dig out my grandfather's "I like Ike" button.
I worked for a small company and had a variety of duties which ultimately extended to being the company contact on the web page. It was then that I started to receive resumes, and it was also at this time that I realized how bad it was. I was receiving resumes from people with more education and experience than I, seeking jobs reporting to me at a pay rate half what these people should have been earning in a decent economy. It was depressing as hell. My wife was actually in a position to hire a few people, and I think it was the most harrowing experience of her life. Smart, educated people begging (literally) for a job, sometimes reduced to tears.
Someone is prospering, that's for sure, but there's a lot of suffering to compensate.
Trickledown with no trickle, that sums it up.
If anyone has read much economic theory or just learned what you're taught in college econ courses, I highly recommend checking out the economic theories that run counter to mainstream economics. The only economics taught in most universities is neoclassical economics which has major flaws. Many aren't aware that alternate views exist. So much of what politicians say about the economy and other matters is based upon a superficial understanding of this flawed economic theory, but it is hard to argue with them when they just make strong statements about the virtues of free markets, etc. Reading this stuff has help me see through the BS and also supplies great counter-arguments.
The powerful are so entrenched with the current gilded age that it will be a hard battle for populism to take root. Wish I could remember what I was reading just the other day about the demise of certain societies. But, I do remember it saying that societies do better in the long run when there's more equality and sharing of resources. I'm not advocating communisim or socialism, but clearly we've moved too far in the other direction. I'm afraid things may have to get much worse in this country for people to truly revolt. Sadly, when people are left feeling powerless and hopeless, it's hard for them to engage. They're struggling just to survive. I think that's what the GOP has in mind. Keep the masses impoverished, uneducated, and despairing. They become putty in your hands, and then, little by little, whittle away any rights they once had. My children are teenagers, and frankly, I really worry about what kind of country we're leaving them. Somehow, we have to convince these young people who will be elligible to vote in 08 that they really need to get out and fight for this country. My son gets to vote in the next election, and believe me he won't be voting for a republican. I'm pretty sure most of his friends feel the same way. The young people really seem to like Obama.
Maybe its as simple as Americans becoming engaged and rejecting the politics of soicopathy.
Cindy Sheehan Interview
If Clinton get,s to be pres it will be just like another Bush, she is cozy with health care, if you remember she got cozy with Bush Senior and fox news owner Ruther about a year and half ago, all we need is another dictator in the white house. Remember her husband billie boy the one that started the free trade when he signed nata with mexico she will sell American jobs off to India she all but said it.t is a shame we cant get one deecent person who loves America
I am all for Dems looking out for the middle class and poor.
How about starting by restoring the rights and repealing the bad, bad bills that have torn the Constitution to bits first. Patriot Act, MCCA, Habeus Corpus trashing act, and the many other bills rammed down our throats by the Rubberstamp Republican congress over the last 6 years, while the Democrats who now control the house rolled over like submissive pups, not even supporting one fillibuster attempt.
Yeah, yeah someone always has an excuse, they didn't have the votes, so they didn't even try. Just like the Impeachment issue, they don't think they have the votes, so they don't even try. Why don't we run Democratic Candidates against them that WILL try and take back the Party for the People?
Meanwhile the Constitution is in the gutter and the people pay for the inaction of the party that was supposed to be looking out for our rights all along. What the Dems need to realize is that they didn't win in November as much as the Republicans lost, because of the glaring corruption and covering up for a pedophile who was chasing after pages. The Dems need to grow some gonads and DO SOMETHING and that something needs to be the RIGHT THING.
ok, I am done ranting..... for now ;)
sh@dow has it partly correct, and I applaud his/her knowledge of exactly how horrible Lincoln was.
I would add, however, that those to whom he refers "fascists" and "communists" are really nothing but Hegelians of the "left" and "right" nature. America has been since the 1850s a Hegelian paradise, which was exported to our fair country via the former Prussian Empire.
Do some reading into how our educational, psychological, medical, etc., communities were impacted and changed forever during the mid-to-late 1800s by this ideology, and I think you'll be sufficiently stunned and enlightened at once.
The republicans have been racticing class warfare for decades - on the middle class and the poor.
Now, what the hell is wrong with class warfare? the rich and business owners conduct class warfare on workers everyday. It's stupid not to fight back.
I have a theory that there is a perpetual-motion middle-class-fueled economic model still unrecognized by economists, that depends on diversification of investors, as much on diversification of investments. Greendpan eluded to it with his "irrational exubgerance" nannyisms.
If the rich folks ever figure out that their future wealth will be magnified by giving the economy over to the middle class, they will join right in, But the thought that they really do not control ANYTHING, and just ride the same wave as the rest of us must be hard for them to swallow.
As long as they can muddy the process by buying-off legislators and lawmakers, they will never reap the benefits of a perpetually healthy ecomomy, because they are so desperate to control it.
The rich are keepiing themselves from more wealth than they ever imagined, because they want to game a system that should flow out from the source in the economic center of our ecomomy, not trickle down from the greedy top.
Just food for thought.
George @ 12:
No kidding.
Can anyone point to even one Democratic candidate for president that supported even one filibuster attempt in the last 6 years?
Obama? nope
Clinton? nope
No one else either.
Every one of them when it mattered rolled over like submissive lapdogs.
I dearly wish to the gods we had someone running that has some real principles.
Republican. . . "I sit on a man's back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back."
Democrat . . ."We shall continue to speak for the poor and disadvantaged, and talk to them about all the marvelous things they could do if they were already rich."
laxintl@earthlink.net
Senator Hillary Clinton , Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”
This is rich coming from Hillary or any other candidate whose economic team consists of Rubin acolytes. Just who does she think is responsible for passage of all those corporate-written trade agreements that are destroying the economic foundations of this country?
Harper's has two excellent articles in this month's issue. The first is It's a Round World After All which briefly discusses the 20th century history of the free trade movement.
In this neo-liberal vision, which was imposed initially by the World Bank and the IMF and later propagated more widely by the World Trade Organization, platitudes replaced reality: wealth, though concentrated in fewer hands than before, was always likely to "trickle down", presumably creating "the tide that would lift all boats" - at least "in the long run" (when, as Lord Keynes pointed out, we are all dead).
The second article is about Rudy Giuliani (A Fate Worse Than Bush,/i>). While its basic thrust is to dismantle Rudy's mythic heroism, it also examines the post-ideological "politics of personality" that afllicts both parties. Some excerpts:
At the same time, the Bronx is the poorest urban county in America, and one quarter of all New York City families with children - some 1.5 million people - live below the poverty line.
Hillary Clinton may have been a New York outsider when she ran for the Senate in 2000, but she nonetheless fit perfectly into the city's political landscape, in large part because she was instrumental in creating it.
This article states that the neoliberals' have largely ceded economic primacy to their national banks, or the European Union, or the global markets. Moreover - much like New York City - they have accepted the slow but inexorable submergence of all public space into the private sector and the widening gap between those citizens who are equipped to thrive in the global economy and those who are not.
David Sirota has some great writing on populism and trade. Democrats should follow his lead for a permanent majority
yeah right! this just deflects from the Iraq issue.
jr @ 38:
what's great with Sirota's critique is the distinction he emphasizes between 'Fair Trade' and 'Free Trade'. DLC, DSCC, DCCC all seem to promote 'Free Trade' to the detriment of America and its citizens.
Blue Buddha @ 5:
All of that is true except for the part about "expecting them to redistribute it fairly". THAT was never intended. It was a republican proposal, which pretty much makes it as much a lie as anything ever said by a republican to the common folk.
End hunger in America - Eat the Rich!!!!
suckersssssss
"Good time for a populist message"--hell! It's 20 years past time for a populist message!!
How about a populist AGENDA (even in odd numbered years) maybe that would win them some votes, so that they would have a clear majority every election, and be at least 1% MORE popular than the least popular president of all time.
[...] Clark Link to Article al gore Dems try populism » Posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, July 16, [...]
Finally!!! Does someone need a good Populist??? Fight the Plutocrats!!!
An M4 Carbine is a weapon with a working class person on both ends!!
ichibon @ 11:
President Bush senior was right. Voodoo economics was supposed to increase the government's income as taxes were reduced. It failed abysmally, requiring President Bush Sr. to sign the biggest tax increase in American history.
Incidentally, Bush Sr. was also pro-choice until he was offered the VP slot. Once that happened, he suddenly became pro-life. I would have thought these positions (either one of them) was a fundamental moral decision. Apparently Bush Sr. felt free to flip from one side to the other just for political gain.
Well, at least it establishes a precedent for Romney and Giuliani...
Damned Tired of the DLC @ 37:
Absouletly. More importantly, this stems from racism as well as classism. Ghouliani often cited texts like 'Broken Windows', produced by the Rockerfeller eugenist think tank the Manhattan Institute, as source material for 'cleaning up' NYC. It boils down to eliminating the poor, the bohemians, any ethnicity, & troublemakers like writers & artists, & all you have left to rule are rich whites, who only break laws that do not make newspaper headlines.
If he gets in, its Giuliani Time for all of us.
sh@dow @ 15:
Far from borrowing from the Chinese, President Clinton actually balanced the budget and began to pay down the deficit (something the last three Republican Presidents have claimed they were going to do but found reasons to overspend on the military).
It's really beyond me why taking on the great issues of our time by presenting public policy solutions is branded as populism when the old nostrum of «cutting taxes» and excusing government of it's responsibility is not. The promise of lower taxes is perhaps one of the most distinct forms of populism, particularly when they go against the grain of the state of the economy.
Calling what the Democratic candidates are doing as populism is in my frank opinion, morally void, intellectually crass and personally insulting to millions of Americans.
sh@dow @ 20:
That's not a fatal flaw. If corporations did not have separate legal status (personhood, if you will), then shareholders would be legally responsible for the actions of the corporations. This would allow me, for example, to sue pension plans which held stock in companies which breached contracts.
pops @ 25:
Free trade and the end of protectionism is not a bad thing. Without protectionism, first world nations cannot compete for unskilled jobs with the developing world. The theory is that the US economy would continue to develop and focus upon more skilled work. At least one of the problems with the theory is that it requires investments in education, which the current administration faithfully promised to do and then turn its back on those promises.
It's people like Bob Roberts who continue to confound me, more than do those who still hold faith in Dear Leader.
Both Clintons are Globalist Elites, just as are Bush and Cheney. What they say is gospel, and it is preposterous to question either their motives or techniques.
Clinton didn't use the Chinese to help "balance" our budget, Bob Roberts? Now THAT'S disturbing. I guess you don't remember much about the 1990s, eh?
Around The Sphere July 16,2007
Our famous linkfest offering readers interesting links to websites of varying opinions so they can explore the ’sphere. Links do not not necessarily represent the viewpoints of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
STICKS AND STONES: Are bloggers ju...
I'm on a mission. Republicans are masters of propaganda. What the hell is wrong with Democrats that they do not understand that the term "Dems" is a derogatory creation by the propagandist Right to belittle the party. It may seem like a small issue. but the goons grin every time you parrot their demeaning slur. Democrats have a long proud history, don't let these scumbag neocons define you.
"On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy."
I agree that a populist approach to solving the woes of our economy is the correct approach, I just hope that the dems will for once be able to identify WHO are the corrupt and WHO are the victims. Of course, the democrats ARE very tradiationally steeped in communism, as the intellectuals and other supporters of democrats are for the most part left over social liberals who STILL think communism can work. The fact that it cannot work doesn't appear to faze many of them, and so instead of admitting the errors of their beliefs they instead turn their anti-capitalistic mentalities towards science and reason. The proof of this is just to observe who are the people trying so very hard to slow or even halt nuclear energy production.
"Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections..."
Clearly you are oblvious to the fact that the success the dems had was due to their anti-war stance, not their economic policies which always suck.
"... Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities."
See, what the dems and ALMOST all the GOP doesn't understand is that a general rise in wages cannot raise the standard of living for the average citizen. This error in logic is one of many instances of a "fallacy of composition" in economics, that is, assuming that if it is logical for one person to try to raise their wages in order to achieve a higher standard of living (this part is true), then it should follow that it should be true for everyone in an economic system (this part is untrue).
The easiest way of proving this to yourself is simply to realize that wages are a business cost. If one person were to work hard and thus make more money, it occurs in a relative sense, i.e. higher wages RELATIVE to their colleaugues or other industries. They will thus increase their productivity of labour and produce more for their company. This is economic competition.
However, this property does NOT apply to an economic system in the aggregate. The reason for this is the fact that if wages were to rise across the board, then the only long term effect of this would be a rise in prices of the goods being produced and sold by the companies the wage earners work for. The result would that everyone would be making more money, but since the prices rise by the same amount, they are no better off. Thus raising the average wage by decree will not solve the problem. Most politicians do not or cannot see this, but it is always true and has always been true.
We are seen as sheep by all those in power. The Dems, Reps, President, Generals, your boss, your manager, your supervisor..... They will whip ya, tell ya you are no good, tell you you need to do more, nit-pick at silly issues and work your ass off so that you can barely scrape by. THIS IS THE SYSTEM - THE AGENDA and no matter who you vote for ThIS WILL NOT CHANGE! -- I guarantee, you will not get the healthcare you deserve or need, You will not get the FREE Community college you also deserve and need, We will dump time, money and resources in developing ethanol and other inefficient forms of alt energy... WE'RE SCREWED because our government does not fear its people. Who would be afraid of an entire society of dumb-ass, lick-ass, zombie- American idle - piss pants citizens? Corporations and corrupt politicians and "news" journalists sure arent.
[...] So Will The Democrats Only Be About War, War, War, War? NO. Another important theme will put the Demmies back on track to run populist campaigns. [...]
"They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market"
The dems, along with all leftist liberals and most republicans, do not understand that the standard of living of the middle class is falling due to the Federal Reserve's increasing the money supply all the time which makes middle class and poor class people all the worse off due to a depreciated currency they earn. It is NOT due to capitalist greed because capitalists own most of their wealth in the form of capital goods (real physical wealth, not incomes or cash) which are used by these workers to produce products. The more wealth in control of the capitalists, and thus the higher the productive rate of the wage earner who utilizes those capital goods, the more prices fall relative to wages, and thus the better off that wage earner is. The only thing that can raise the standard of living of the average wage earner is a higher productivity of labour, NOT higher wages. Remember, higher aggregate wages only raises prices.
"...and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”
She is right, trickle-down economics is NOT occurring in the US right now. But she doesn't understand WHY this is. She doesn't understand the real nature of the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury. All the Treasury has to do is ask the Fed for money out of thin air. This is why the first places this new money tends to land (Wall Street, investment banks, government spending programs) do spectacularly well all the time. THEY have first purchasing power over the real victims, these real victims are those who receive this new money LATER, much later in most circumstances. Thus, pensioners, wage earners, fixed income type people always see their fixed money incomes buy less and less over time. There is no trickle down because the government backed Fed is ruining this process that WOULD occur if they were to get out of the picture completely.
"Populism is hardly new in the Democratic Party. Al Gore vowed to fight for “the people versus the powerful” in his presidential campaign seven years ago, and Republicans have long accused the Democrats of practicing “class warfare.”"
Those Republicans can SAY the talking points of free markets, yadda yadda, there is no such thing as class warfare, yadda yadda...and it drives me nuts, because the dems have a point here. The unfortunate thing here is that again NOBODY knows or wants to know WHO are the powerful and WHY they are powerful. Remember when working hard would have its rewards? Anyone can get powerful in this way, but the elite don't want this process to occur. They prefer to leech off of you and I using their sick game of first money in their pockets.
"But the latest populist resurgence is deeply rooted in a view that current economic conditions are difficult and deteriorating for many people, analysts say, and it is now framing debates over tax policy, education, trade, energy and health care."
All these pathetic attempts by these "researchers" to try and find a solution is moot. They are paid by the same shills who want the current system to continue. There is little chance of a government paid economic researcher to say that he concluded the Fed and government should stay the hell out of the way of people. THEIR prosperity depends on it. This is why I hate those two faced cowards.
"Given that we’re in the midst of a modern-day “Gilded Age,” in which the United States has the most dramatic concentration of wealth at the top since the 1920s, it’s probably a good time for a populist message."
The 1920's had a high concentration of wealth for the same reasons it is happening again. In the 1920's, the government engaged in the highest rate of money expansion in the US's history, causing massive inflation. Prices remained stable, however the forces of more new money ALWAYS operate, and eventually the economy tanks. A decade of inflation on the part of the Fed in the 1920's is the SOLE reason there was a market crash in 1929. Since history repeats itself if people are ignorant of it, it is no surprise that the current age is ripe for the same thing to happen. Some (usually ignored) economists have been warning of this for like, since 1870. They were always ignored and this is why the same crap always happens over again.
It is high time people start to realize what is really going on behind the scenes in this country. It is not the "failure of capitalism", on the contrary, it is the "failure of government intervention", i.e. socialism. Trust me when I say this, if there was no such thing as the Fed, or the Treasury, minimum wage would one day be able to pay for a house, kids, and a car, easily. But the Fed always makes prices RISE, which businessmen are always trying to combat by lowering prices. Prices are rising because the Fed makes MORE money than businessmen can lower prices. If it weren't for businessmen acting and seeking profits and thereby lowering prices, prices would rise by 10 times each year. If the businessmen were able to lower prices without Fed manipulation, prices would lower every year, and like I said, there would be no need to raise the minimum wage every year at all. I just hope more people understand this, because all of our lives depend on it.
sh@dow @ 46:
Help! What does THAT have to do with what I said?
Damned Tired of the DLC @ 37:
where are the Links?
Private Freedom @ 62:
that starts off with an incorrect premise and gets worse. "the standard of living of the middle class " has more to do with the distribution of wealth and has nothing to do with the increasing money supply because within the closed system, i.e. the US, the relative value of the dollar is the same for all. when vehicles such as the tax code and income disparity within companies is taken into account, you have the basis for the disparity. Add job exports and downsizing and government fund distribution and you round out the equation. FDR saw this and made it work to strengthen and grow the middle class. Please review your analysis.
jr @ 38:
Yes, thanks for mentioning him. He is one of the few who continually sticks up for the working and middle classes.
Another problem with this theory is that there are those who simply cannot do more skilled work. Does this nation simply abandon them? And what of those workers who have not only an education, but experience, who find their jobs outsourced to countries that pay their workers a fraction of what it costs to survive in the U.S.?
Back to Hillary:
John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, is to invite senior staff to a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton on Monday, in a pointed endorsement of the Democratic presidential hopeful from an important backer of President George W. Bush in 2004.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/33446d20-32ef-11dc-a9e8-0000779fd2ac.html
[...] So Will The Democrats Only Be About War, War, War, War? NO. Another important theme will put the Demmies back on track to run populist campaigns. [...]
I will NOT vote for any politician who fails to call for the impeachment and prosecution of both Bush and Cheney.
Any politician or political party that is too gutless to take a stand to defend our country and constitution is not worthy of support.
BaScOmBe:
"that starts off with an incorrect premise and gets worse."
Uh, I hate to burst your bubble, but F.A. Hayek (who won a Nobel Prize in economics) says the same thing. SO do many other notable people.
"...the standard of living of the middle class has more to do with the distribution of wealth..."
Excuse me while I cough up half a lung at this comment...
The distribution of wealth you refer to is an arbitrary distribution, not one that reflects true consumer value or worker ability. See, the increasing money supply causes profits to rise year after year for the average company, because the new money that is created goes into the net investments of caompanies. This investment is an equivalent revenue for the sellers of the goods that the first firm bought. As such, profits increase at the same time as the prices of goods. However, these extra profits are taxed and so companies sometimes have difficulty replacing their assets due to higher prices. If it were not for the undue increase in the quantity of money, net investment would eventually disappear. The money that is not taxed tend to come into the hands of those who recieve the new money first, and so there is an arbitrary redistribution of wealth from those who make the same wages to those who gain the new money and hence purchasing power. People's wages therefore become more and more unable to buy goods over time. THIS is the redsitribution talked about in the media. Cash in itself is useless, it is only a medium, so you have to look at what dollars can buy you before you talk anything about wages or "wealth". "Wealth" is just another word for physical "stuff", not money. I could have 1,000,000 pesos in my bank account. Does this mean I am "wealthy"? No. Because that 1,000,000 cannot buy a lot of "stuff". Got it? Good.
"...and has nothing to do with the increasing money supply because within the closed system, i.e. the US, the relative value of the dollar is the same for all."
This comment makes no sense at all. Closed system? Is that something you heard off-hand from a prof? The US system is NOT closed! If it were "closed", then the money supply would STAY THE SAME. If the money supply stayed the same, then all prices would lower, because production would continue and since all the goods made will be sold, the prices of goods would be less. The Fed has made a system that is OPEN, that is, the money supply can increase as much as they want it to increase, there is NO LIMIT to how much new money they can create, thus it is OPEN. If you want to talk math lingo,
Open sets have either no max or no min.
In the case of our country, it has NO MAX. Hence it is OPEN. Got it again?
"...when vehicles such as the tax code and income disparity within companies is taken into account, you have the basis for the disparity."
You are right on this one. The tax code ALSO contributes to the inequality, but it is SECONDARY compared to the increase in the quantity of money.
"Add job exports and downsizing and government fund distribution and you round out the equation. FDR saw this and made it work to strengthen and grow the middle class. Please review your analysis."
You sound like a TA I had back in university where he would make these ridiculous comments with nothing backing it up, saying such things like "please review", and "check your work"...this is lazy talk for "I can't disprove what you said, so I am just going to write something to make it seem like I know better."
OK one by one:
1. Job exporting
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as it is due to legitimate competition and cost cutting, both resulting in lower prices and thus higher standards of living for everybody. Nobody complains when jobs move from say New York to Chicago (which is also "job exporting" from the perspective of New Yorkers), so why do you complain if they move from the US to abroad? It's called XENOPHOBIA. Fear of non-whatever you are.
2. Downsizing
Again, nothing wrong with this either. If it less efficient to have manual labour do the things machines can do for less, this is called PROGRESS. For example, assembly lines are robotic because it is CHEAPER and better for the consumer. People like paying less for things so THAT'S why downsizing occurs. The US went through (and is still going through but not as much) downsizing because of global competition which has resulted in better lives for Americans. Those jobs going overseas must go overseas because this is the market's signal saying "you are better for society doing something else".
3. Government Fund Distribution
I don't know why you wrote this little tidbit, because this is exactly what I have been saying all along...
Would somebody, anybody, please tell the MSM and the rest of the population that Edwards was talking populism long before the rest of the groupies were.
Private Freedom @ 67,
On your point about job exporting. It is all well and good that competition requires this, except when wages and prices are kept artificially low in the country the jobs are being exported to. As a case in point, the Chinese have kept the Yuan pegged to the Dollar, making it virtually impossible for it to appreciate against it, thereby keeping wages and costs artificially low in China. Without some form of heavy taxation against imported goods from China into the US, this causes competition to be stifled here and results in what we have seen in huge trade deficits with China. In the end, the only ones getting wealthy off of this are the corporations which have exported jobs to China.
I love the Republicans' cry of "class warfare."
I say, "Yeah, it's class warfare. Just like you've been practicing for years. Except our class is much bigger than your class."
If an election comes down to class warfare, guess who's going to win?
Hint: There are a lot more poor and middle-class people out there than rich people. About a 90% to 10% advantage.
If the Democrats figure this out, they might actually win one.
dothehop:
"It is all well and good that competition requires this, except when wages and prices are kept artificially low in the country the jobs are being exported to."
I see your point, that this state of affairs SEEMS unfair to American workers competing for jobs. But you have to look at things a little differently. Yes, China pegs the Yuan to the dollar at a rate below the market. This has effects on both the Chinese and on Americans naturally. On the Chinese, it empoverishes them unfairly, as THEY have to pay ABOVE market rates to exchange their US dollar revenues for domestic currency. So, the Chinese are working hard and not getting equal returns.
Americans on the other hand are actually BETTER off in the long run. Since the Chinese government forces its citizens to exchange their US dollars for Yuan at below market rates, the effect of this on Americans is simply that Americans can have plenty of cheap goods and not have to give up as much in return. The fact that jobs are going over there is not exactly a problem, although politicians like to prey on this sentiment among the public. People in the US find other jobs. They always do, because the US is the most free country in the world. If it stays that way, then free trade is NEVER a problem. In a free market, unemployment cannot become high and STAY high because of jobs being "exported" to countries like China (I don't actually like to use the word "export" because jobs are not a commodity, they are the means used to make commodities). When jobs are moved overseas, it doesn't happen all at once and cause a shock to the economy. It is the sum of individual people's decisions over lonf periods of time. One at a time, people could lose their job overseas and so they must find work elsewhere. There is still plenty to do in the US so they almost always find new work. You can thank the "greedy businessmen" for that fact. Rampant unemployment cannot exist in an unhampered market. It can only exist because of non-market laws being made by government, and other policies like China pegging the Yuan too low. You see that jobs are going ot China because of the peg (non-market); you realize how governments can mess everything up don't you?
Also, if wages were free to fall to market rates instead of being dictated by government (politically unpopular), then frictionless unemployment WOULD NOT EXIST. Wages would fall to the level that creates full employment. People would not be worse off, in fact they would be better off because the lower market-driven wages would lower prices by MORE than the fall in wages. This can be proven using straightforward logic. In one statement, it is the higher productivity of labour (too long to get into here).
"Without some form of heavy taxation against imported goods from China into the US, this causes competition to be stifled here and results in what we have seen in huge trade deficits with China."
There is nothing wrong with trade deficits with other countries. I still cannot understand why so many people think this. How to see this? YOU personally have a trade deficit with all the other cities in the US OTHER than the one you live in. You make money and spend lots of it in other cities when you go on vacation, say. Hence, if you live in New York and visit Chicago and spend money, you have a trade "imbalance" with Chicago. If you go to a supermarket out of town, you have a trade imbalance with that town. Is this a problem? No. Now just add up everyone's "deficit" in the nation and you now have a country trade deficit. Another way of looking at it is imagining a bare coastline that is being industrialized by the rest of the nation. Lots of stuff goes into the area to develop it, to modernize it, to make it hospitable for human life. Materials, bricks, trucks, water, food for the workers, etc etc go the coastline from elsewhere. During this time, it has a trade deficit with the rest of the country. But can you say this is a bad situation for that coastline? Of course not.
"In the end"
There is no end.
"...the only ones getting wealthy off of this are the corporations which have exported jobs to China."
Ah yes, the old corporation hoolahbaloo...
Actually, the people getting really rich are the ones most intimately connected with the government. Except of course those who can get by on their own like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Jim Basillie. They are not "connected" yet they made billions.
PF-Bill Gates grew up in an all WASP-by-bylaw gated community created by William Boeing. They don't have house numbers for their mail. 'The Highlands' was sufficient address for mail and deliveries.
He went to an exclusive prep school and Harvard. By the time he was an adult, his father was well networked. His law firm has employed Jack Abramoff and Slade Gorton.
While Bill Gates got where he got by smarts and hard work, he hardly can be considered 'Unconnected'. As for the others you mention I am not well versed in their background...But when you post it, it certainly is not a given.
miss_kitty @ 73:
What does that mean, his father was "well networked". My boss is "well networked" with others in our industry.
Are you saying Bill Gates somehow got special treatment from government that came at the expense of other companies? Hardly. In fact, before Bush, Microsoft was constantly targeted for anti-trust by the government. He could hardly be deemed "well connected" if he is being sued by the very same people that are supposedly his "friends".
Why can't you just be proud of the guy and see his legitimacy? Why go out of your way and play "6 degrees of separation"? Geez...I know the US is having its problems but that doesn't mean we have to be sceptical of anything and everything...
you're just pretending to be this thick, aren't you Thickie Freedom?
Intentionally ignorant through and through.
No, I am just not sanctioning your double speak and innuendo. If you are trying to say something, just say it. I am not going to reply with the same suggestive style of writing that you want me to write with.
If I am ignorant, let me know of what.
I said it. You choose not to understand, thickie.
Stop asking Miss Kitty to justify her statements. She doesn't do that well (or at all, I've noticed).
Comments are closed on this entry