Fuck that guy, seriously.
11 Likes
That’s assuming you have a government that feels it’s important to preserve the democratic institution it represents.
Once that’s out the window, dirty tricks are par for the course. Hitler ended Germany’s democracy simply by detaining enough opposition party members on spurious grounds so they couldn’t vote to oppose his becoming dictator via the Enabling Act when the time came.
If you don’t think that could happen here, look what’s happening in North Carolina:
They’re basically instituting one party rule.
14 Likes
I think you read something in my comment that wasn’t there.
I have been saying for years the only place a trickle-down economy works is the Thrift Shop industry. Thrift Shop business is booming, because the goods that form the base of our consumer economy are so readily available. Also, it is good for one’s personal economy (cheaper goods, more poor=more thrift shoppers). it’s good for the environment (re-use, recycle) and it is often associated with additional charitable givings.
I just resigned after many years from the board of the non-profit Ann Arbor PTO Thriftshop, where I was honored to help direct the shops growth to a gross of over $1.25 million a year, with all net profits going directly to the Ann Arbor Public Schools. We give over $300,000/year directly to the schools PTO’s, making sure that the things kids need the most for classroom enrichment are available to them. We also help pay for bussing for field trips and after-school activities.
None of this could be done without the favorable tax rules that allow us to operate as a 501 c3, and essentially convert donations into cash. You might say we pay nothing for our raw materials, our costs are those associated with regular retail like rent and labor. We have done away with most traditional marketing, marketing directly through the schools with the help of the PTO’s in exchange for donations. So, trickle-down works in one tiny segment of the economy, and we have made it work for good.
Instead of (only) raging against the machine, try to find a place down in the corner of the gearbox and do some good for your community.
4 Likes
I’ve read some analyses that support his findings and some that don’t. I find it’s a good way to increase my understanding of complex issues while challenging my own prejudices.
This is the problem. There are, according to economists on the right, left, and center, three, four, even five (and possibly six!) ways about it when it comes to these large economic theories. Simply because this one book confirms what you’ve always suspected about how simple the truth is in regards to macroeconomics, it doesn’t follow that those who disagree with Piketty (whether it’s his analysis or policy proposals) are only “right-wing.”
It’s true that those on the right are more likely to disagree with Piketty, especially in regards to his policy proposals, and those on the left will agree him. But ignoring critiques of Piketty from the right simply because they’re from the right is no different, intellectually, than right-wing ideologues dismissing Piketty altogether simply because he’s on the left.
While it’s plain that wealth gaps are increasing and the rich are getting richer, the wealth has not just been moving upwards. Most of the disappearing middle class in the U.S. moved up and this is the first year in human history that less than 10% of the human population is living in extreme poverty. These facts complicate the narrative, at least in the poorest countries of the world.
I’m not arguing that Piketty is wrong or right (like most, if not all, economists, he’s probably both), I’m only saying that it’s not constructive, nor is it accurate, to pretend that it’s a simple matter and that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is motivated by negative personal qualities.
Perhaps the problem here is the other things you are doing, that have somehow become more important than food logistics. If you were working 20 hours a week for the same salary you make now, you’d have plenty of time to search for and find meaning in stuff like growing and preparing healthy foods carefully selected for your family, and we’d double the number of employed people, and rein in the consolidation of wealth at the top.
But of course you and I are in high tech so we’ll just work more and more hours (now, with cell phones, 24 hours a day on call!) to try to compete with the 20-somethings that never go offline.
I consider this very much the failure of modern politics and culture, although I find the labels “neoliberal” and “neoconservative” to be too plastic to be useful.
1 Like
Thanks for the well thought out post.
I’m ready to entertain any revision of the tax code as long as the numbers are run carefully and the income equals the outgo. I’m just tired of hearing that everyone can have free college and free healthcare and a comfy retirement if we just tax more of the 1%'s income.
Look at the Colorado single payer health plan, which I thought was very meticulously thought out and had a good chance of being actuarily sound over the long run. It went down to a rather resounding defeat, because the taxes and expenses were made quite clear to the voters.
1 Like
Indeed. If you want your state to have a higher income tax and lower sales tax, go campaign for it. I won’t object in the least.
1 Like
I’d be the first to agree that contemporary existence isn’t something you do for your mental health; but unless everyone around me is just better at pretending to be OK than I am; I think I’m less functional that average for a variety of annoying routine logistics stuff.
It’s strange; because as a knowledge/cognitive problem, lightweight logistics is pretty trivial; but ‘to know the good’ is not ‘to do the good’; and don’t believe Plato’s lies to the contrary.
2 Likes
incorrect.
the middle has been shrinking, and the top and bottom growing – roughly equal percentage points.
however, the real dollars of the tiers have itself been changing, in fact falling.
while at the same time, the very upper tiers are taking a greater and greater share of the overall wealth.
we are the richest country, yet have some of the greatest income disparity – and that’s only been getting worse.
nearly half of americans are one crisis away from financial ruin.
i find it hard to interpret that in a way that says the middle is moving up.
i think global poverty and the stability of individual americans are somewhat separate issues.
right now – if you look at the current antagonism against immigrants and refugees – people seem mostly interested in pulling the ladder up behind themselves. in part, i think, because they do feel so insecure.
12 Likes
i totally get that. the policy sanders had ( for instance ) had more to it than that. but, the nuance gets lost. and people on both the left and the right definitely reduced it to a “tax the rich” sound bite.
here’s to hoping it will come back.
i remember hearing an interview with its authors saying they didn’t expect it to pass this time around. it sounded like it was meant as a way to start the conversation. ( of course, maybe they were just losing in the polls already 
)
4 Likes
From the very same report you’re quoting:
In at least one sense, the shift represents economic progress: While the share of U.S. adults living in both upper- and lower-income households rose alongside the declining share in the middle from 1971 to 2015, the share in the upper-income tier grew more.
So, yes, the picture is simply not black and white.
Somewhat, perhaps, but increasingly related, I believe.
And I hasten to add that I don’t think any Americans should fear for homelessness or hunger, or economic ruin due to medical issues. I think we have more than enough resources to spare all our citizens from that kind of anxiety. And I also believe providing that kind of economic security is a somewhat separate issue from the question of the efficacy of free trade and capitalism.
Do you see who we just put in office, bro? The next 4-8 years ain’t gonna be about expanding our anemic social safety net.
You talk to any American, and they fear all of these things, intensely. Probably more so than terrorisms or black people.
I think that for most Americans, the cruel logic is clear: if I lose my job (which can happen basically at any time for any reason), I won’t be able to pay for the health and safety of myself or the people I care about. Why do people lose jobs? Well, because of free trade and capitalism - because profit-seeking companies export labor to cheaper places while paying shareholders the difference.
4 Likes
I think this is too simple an explanation for why people lose jobs. But it is an explanation that Donald Trump agrees with, which is why he joined Sanders and (eventually) Clinton in opposing the TPP. And it’s why he opposed NAFTA, which has mixed reviews from economists.
The reason I think it’s too simple is because most economists think it’s too simple.
People lose jobs for all kinds of reasons. Blaming large concepts like capitalism and free trade is like blaming police violence on the concept of government.
I don’t ignore critiques from the right because they’re from the right; I dismiss critiques from the right because it’s generally an ethically and intellectually bankrupt standpoint. False equivalency. When the right offers an idea that isn’t class war disguised as some roundabout pretense at egalitarianism, I’ll listen.
I’m only saying that it’s not constructive, nor is it accurate, to pretend that it’s a simple matter and that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is motivated by negative personal qualities.
The crux of the matter is relatively simple - more for those with more, dressed up in bullshit propaganda to seem as if it’s intended for the greater good, or more for those with less?
Making the poor folks in the first world compete with poor folks in developing nations is a pretty fucking bogus excuse while the rich keep getting ever more obscenely richer. This rubbish has traction only because of decades of propaganda, coupled with the sad fact that most folks aren’t prepared to think for themselves.
I’d suggest a large part of the problems we face these days is the inadequacy of the nation state as a concept, not to mention the lack of awareness by the poor that class war is being waged… but that’s a whole other thread’s worth, innit.
8 Likes
I agree that thrift stores are a great boon to our society. I also agree with you that we need to do work in our own communities.
But we can’t just ignore the rest of the economy/society and how warped it can be. We have some serious problems that shopping at thrift stores and volunteering will not solve.
13 Likes
right. the grey zone is that some middle income people moved upwards relative to their peers. but, see again that the tiers they moved into as a whole are actually trending down.
the wealth at the very top is growing as a percentage of the whole. robbing – for lack of a better term – the wealth of everyone regardless of whether some moved up relative to their peers.
middle income is not some fixed number, but constantly changing.
you said, and i quote again:
Most of the disappearing middle class in the U.S. moved up
and again, that is simply not true.
decreasing wealth and decreasing economic security is the opposite of moving up.
the ill of capitalism seems to be that the rich get richer. there’s no incentive, especially when mixed with automation and globalization, to grow jobs. not when the returns of actually building something are so much lower than simple speculation.
as i’ve become older and watched the failings of trickle-down, the only conclusion i’ve been able to reach is that capitalism must be balanced by the people, for the people.
as we all know, nothing is for free. that includes “free” trade. national and international companies succeed based on the laws and regulations all the various governments afford. that allowance must be met by adequate re-investment in society. charity is neither consistent nor democratic enough to work. taxation can be. but it does require everyone be willing to step up to the plate.
9 Likes
It’s funny, but I feel like I do think for myself. And I think that the people I disagree with think for themselves. They’ve just come to different conclusions, for a variety of complex reasons.
As far as the rest of it goes, like I said before, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Based on the article you cited, and I quote again:
I think your argument is with the Pew Study. I’m just pointing out that “most of the middle class moved up” is the conclusion of the study you’ve cited. Repeating that it’s wrong doesn’t make it so. If you have evidence that the Pew Study is relying on a “constantly changing” number which skews their findings, I’d sincerely appreciate you sharing it.
And there are lots of economists who would consider this simplistic and point out the decrease in global poverty at a much faster rate than predicted is, indeed, a good return.
I am not devoted to a belief that free trade is, in and of itself, a good thing. Nothing is, in and of itself. Like good government programs, free trade requires solid regulation and honest players in order to work well. I simply think that there’s a lot of evidence that free trade can improve the lives of regular people, in America and elsewhere. Again, this is not a radical proposition, but one based on the evidence of lives improved all over the world.
There is simply too much evidence of the positive effects of free trade to dismiss it as casually as it is dismissed in these parts. Replace the words “free trade” with “government programs” and I would be repeating this argument on a site like Red State or Free Republic.
There are dishonest players in the free market and dishonest players in the government. Rejecting one or the other as completely failed ignores the evidence for the good things both provide.
Don’t give popobawa4u any ideas!
5 Likes
