Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

If This Is Such a Rich Country, Why Are We Getting Squeezed?

By Heather Boushey and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 18, 2007.


While the rich are getting richer, they're slashing social security, medicare and other social programs for the rest of us. What gives?
07182007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The commercial media is telling us two perfectly contradictory stories about the American economy. The first is how wonderfully rich we are in the United States. The stock market's booming -- some analysts predict the Dow will break the 15,000 this year -- the economy is expanding at a healthy clip, productivity growth is up and unemployment and inflation are relatively low.

But, at the same time, we're also told that we don't have the money to pay for a robust social safety net. When it comes to paying for universal health coverage, affording retirement security for our elderly, investing in programs for the poor or educating our children, we need to pinch pennies. According to this story line, we face a looming "entitlement crisis" -- we won't be able to afford to keep the Baby Boomers in good health and out of poverty, we're told, unless we slash their benefits and privatize the programs that their elderly parents enjoy today.

This is the line we hear from the administration when it talks about entitlement "reform": Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says that "the biggest economic issue facing our country is the growth in spending on the major entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." The solution, according to the Heritage Foundation, is to cut entitlement spending. "Reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the only way to get the budget under control," it says.

How can two narratives that are so clearly at odds with each other be so pervasive? Are we seriously supposed to believe that Paris Hilton has to dig between the cushions of her sofa to buy a can of tuna?

What reconciles these two themes is absent from our mainstream economic discourse: We "can't afford" all sorts of programs that are clearly in the common good because most of the benefits of our growing economy have gone to a very small group of Americans, who have, in turn, seen their taxes slashed again and again in the past six years. It's a story that isn't told as often as it should in the commercial press, because it's a supposedly "liberal" narrative -- never mind that über-conservative former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that there is a "really serious problem here, as I've mentioned many times … in the consequent concentration of income that is rising."

Saying that the majority of the country's economic gains in recent years have gone to the top 1 percent of the income ladder understates the trend. You have to cut the pie into even smaller slices to get the full picture. Because, while the bottom half of the top 1 percent of the income distribution have done far better than the average wage slaves, it is a smaller slice still -- the top .01 percent -- that has grabbed most of the gains, seeing an impressive 250 percent increase in income between 1973 and 2005 from an economy that's grown by 160 percent.

An analysis by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez gives us the best perspective of what's going on for everyone else. They found that despite several periods of healthy growth between 1973 and 2005, the average income of all but the top 10 percent of the income ladder -- nine out of ten American families -- fell by 11 percent when adjusted for inflation. For three decades, economic growth in the United States has gone first and foremost to building today's modern Gilded Age. The recipients of those gains don't care about a fully funded Social Security system or a healthy Medicare program -- they don't need them.

Meanwhile, even as the top earners' incomes have gone through the roof, their tax burden has shriveled. At the same time, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined -- by two-thirds since 1962.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy

Heather Boushey is a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy and Research. Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh yeah, the class war that isn't happening
Posted by: ssegallmd on Jul 18, 2007 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where’s the surprise here? The nation is more productive than ever, and the total wealth of the nation according to financial indicators like the Dow and GNP is rising to reflect that. But that inwash isn’t rain sprinkling on all. It’s an irrigation system that shunts most of the water to a few large lakes and parches the remaining landscape. That’s old news. That’s the class war – rout, really.

In essence, the American people are not the owners of America. They just work it for the owners, the ruling class, the aristocracy. Yeah, you have freedom. Not once you’re in debt, join the record number of felons, or join the military. Even without any of that, we’re not going to be buying a yacht or a chalet. With a family, you’re not going on any serious vacations or purchasing any toys beyond vehicles and electronics anyway. Grazing cattle are free, too, just as long as they don’t try to go anywhere.

Just as surely, the people are being ranched by their ruling class. And like farm animals, they’ll get the equivalent subsistence food and shelter, and whatever health care is as cost effective as veterinary care. That’s what you give an animal, no more. OK, a few get a little more as incentive to train and educate themselves as engineers and scientists and doctors and lawyers. But people oriented government spending is under attack (health care, education, social security, student loans, etc.) and the kind of spending that benefits the wealthy or makes them feel safer – military, war, police, prisons – that goes up.

And my social security. Sure, I’ve paid in for a lifetime. But that gets me nothing but what Congress wants to trickle my way. Can you imagine any other forced withdrawal (or voluntary) “investment” where you put money in for forty years to get it back at a certain rate at a certain age, and they kept changing those amounts and ages to their benefit?

And yet people paste flag decals on their oversized, overpriced vehicles and are genuinely nuts for something red, white and blue. I look around and see nothing that I consider mine outside of my house. I used to feel like I owned a little piece of the roads and the power grid and the government buildings and the national parks. They’re not ours. And they’ll tell you which ones you can use, when and how.

I suppose that if people let you ranch them, someone’s going to do it. Some species can’t be domesticated well. Some herd real nice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Were being reemed Posted by: Krain61
» Who's Hunting and Who's Hunted Posted by: cognitorex
» Thoughts on "Gross" Pay Posted by: cognitorex
Oui, mais...
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Jul 18, 2007 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the increasing disparity in incomes is not positive, but I think it's symptomatic of a deeper problem in the system. One thing that isn't commonly understood is that big corporations more often than not [i]love[/i] it when taxes go up. Not because they like having their money stolen, no, but because it allows profits in a given industry to concentrate in the hands of the bigwigs who have more resources to throw at finding (and creating) and exploiting loopholes in the tax system.

For instance, Warren Buffet's support of the Estate Tax, known by Republicans as the Death Tax, was not because he's some altruistic liberal democrat but because he makes a lot of money by buying up small businesses on the cheap that have run out of money because of that tax.

As to why people are working harder without seeing equivalent returns, it's because the tax system is essentially an upwards-directed transfer system to the politically connected, a system which has increased taxes on the working man quite a bit over the last few decades. Even if you don't think taxes are theft (is it so hard to believe that Saddam Hussein was stealing from his subjects?), the federal income tax is itself not mandated according to US law, so you must at least admit that working 4 months out of the year for uncle sam is not quite just.

As for universal healthcare, no, it really is untenable. Not because there's not enough money, but because it'll have miserable effects. Imagine being a Canadian and being unable to choose your doctor on the basis of their credentials, or being one of the 1,000,000 million Britons on waiting lists for treatment--or how about the 200,000 waiting to get ON waiting lists. Making something "free" doesn't make it free: if you remove the money cost, you just add an equivalent time-cost, hence the lines people die while waiting in. And then the route to getting efficient treatment lies not through money, but on social and political connections. Very egalitarian, right?

What we need is an actual free market in health care--the first and simplest measure to take is to remove or lower licensure restrictions for doctors. That way, the supply of doctors would increase, which would drive prices down, so going to a guy who went through seven years of medical school to get ibuprofen will be an extravagance of the rich and not a requirement. Also, making it so that congress had no power over the industry, so Big Pharma cannot write favorable legislation for itself.

As for those who think that an increasing disparity between the rich and poor is simply the effect of the free market, take heed of the words of the 19th century businessman James J. Hill, who built his own railroad network (without subsidies) from Chicago to the Pacific and who understood that "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you."1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: sausage
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: duck-lady
» Delusional rationale Posted by: ladmeaux
» RE: Delusional rationale Posted by: bifheart
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: babs
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: fleurdelamer
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: dseilhan
» RE: Oui, mais, and more mais... Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Oui, mais... Posted by: Maryanne
"It's a beautiful world, but not for me"
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jul 18, 2007 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This issue is not just the elephant in the room: it's the thirty thousand square kilometres of Serengeti desert, complete with scrub, lions, zebras, and elephants, in the room.

This from the NY Times piece:
Stephen J. Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, and other supporters of the cuts said they did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more would go to investments that produce jobs. For investment income, Mr. Entin said, "the proper tax rate would be zero."

Oh indeed, Mr. Entin.

Actually, the story that "more investment == more jobs" is a bit of a myth these days. Certainly, back in the day, investment meant investing in land (productive of food and other consumables) or plant (productive of manufactured goods), then that was true. The money went into real, solid, physical things that directly affected employment.

However, those days are gone, well and truly. These days, most investment is in intangibles, and could be described more accurately as gambling. When I say intangibles, I mean various investment "products" that are simply a means of betting that something will or will not happen. I don't have exact figures, but there's a very large threat here that I'll mention in a moment.

The other factor is that, as Joshua mentions, the investment isn't used to increase production, but simply to increase quarterly profits. So basically, the investment money is returned to investors as immediate profits, rather than actually invested in anything that looks like growth. There's another threat here too.

The first big threat comes from the fact that most of the 'wealth' in the economy is fairy gold. That is, there's nothing backing it up. In the old days, the US dollar was backed by gold, but that's no longer true. When you had a thousand dollars in cash, you could exchange that for a thousand dollars worth of gold. These days, the value of the dollar is only a polite agreement that a thousand dollars in cash can be exchanged for gold: there are far more dollars in circulation, and their agreed value (what we all believe them to be worth) bears no relationship to their real value.

What that means, and I know I'm expressing it badly, is that one day, something might happen to make us stop agreeing about that. The economy is what the software trade calls "vapourware": you get promises and enticing images, but nothing comes of it. And that is a bubble that can burst very unpleasantly.

The second problem is the short-sheeting of industry: when investment money is essentially used to reward investors, instead of being invested in the business, that depletes what should be a long-term lifeline for the business. When you don't look to the long term, and don't plan for it, and don't expend some current wealth on preparing for it, your business may go belly up.

So combine those two flaws, along with the others, and there's a pretty good chance of a very nasty Kondratieff winter coming to hit us hard in the face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The black market leads the way! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: The black market leads the way! Posted by: dangerouslysane
Rent an Army
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 18, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rent an Army

When oil tycoons use the U.S. Armed Forces to invade and steal oil from other countries, they should pay for it. But instead of paying for their Wars for Profit, corporate tycoons have engaged in price gouging, while getting huge tax cuts. They hit us with a triple whammy, and that doesn’t seem fair. Any corporation that wants to wage a War for Profit should be required to pay for it; after all, that’s a cost of doing business. Why should those costs be passed on to taxpayers?

Corporate tycoons own damn near everything, including the government, and they ought to be required to pay a property tax, or at least a rental fee for the using the U.S. Armed Forces for private gain. If they don’t agree, let them hire an Army overseas. They’ve privatized and outsourced everything else, so let’s make them finance their Wars for Profit out of their profits and with foreign troops. Why should we sacrifice American lives for their bottom line?

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL News Promise
Posted by: Rshaw on Jul 18, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Help develop awareness to this aspiring independent world news network by rating and commenting on their video. Watch the video and learn more! Very exciting.

Watch it:
http://coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1986

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balanced Arguments?
Posted by: edith on Jul 18, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But when the masses ask for help paying for health insurance or child care, or request that everyone be given the right to paid sick days, we're told we cannot afford it. "

1. The above quote's diction expresses one major reason Americans do not listen to the US left or to its rationales for income distribution. The authors use, probably without reflection, the term "masses" for the American people. For reasons that stretch back to the Pilgrims, de Tocqueville and the failure of Marxists to capture the US labor movement, the American people do not consider themselves undifferentiated masses. The individual may be exploited by Big Business or Big Government, but the term "masses" connotes an eltism and non-American value system of the speakers.

2. There is no analytic discussion by the authors on the vast amount of wealth locked up in retirement funds that are owned by at least one person in the majority of American families. Whether or not you like capitalism or the US retirement paradigm, social security is almost irrelevant to the retirement plans of most Americans. The 401(k) and its permutations cannot be ignored. It represents wealth, wealth which could in a market crash disappear, or as of today, could increase far more than a comparable govt program like Social Security. Yet a major comparison by the authors is the wealth accumalation by the top 1% versus the threat to social security. The appropriate comparison would have been to compare savings wealth increase for most Americans in the past 20 years compared with Social Security, which the authors assume is the major retireement vehicle for most Americans, which it is not. The private retirement/wealth accumulation tool of the US may be flawed, but to ignore it as the authors do casts a shadow on their overall argument that Americans are poorer.

3. A similar omission about real estate as a savings tool for most Americans and its escalation in value over the past 20 years is present in the authors' posting. Even with recent levelling off of the real estate market, real estate values in every region over the past 20 years have exceeded inflation. The authors ignore the singular fact that the US, unlike most other nations, is a nation of homeowners. Many people are cash poor, but asset rich.

4. The purpose of the foregoing remarks is not to tear down the entirety of the authors' arguments, but to raise a question about the comprehensiveness and balance of their overall arguments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Balanced Arguments? Posted by: leafsong1
» go play in your sandbox Posted by: pzzp
» The vanguard is upset Posted by: edith
» Clean your receiver Posted by: pzzp
R. V.
Posted by: RDVSR on Jul 18, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The opportunities for success in this country are unlimited. Just ask the many recent immigrants to come here, go into business, work hard, and are affluent. They only see opportunities. You whiners only see the hole in the donut.
I must be one of those you hate because I've worked hard, and have enough of everything that I need. Am able to help the poor also.
Quit whining and go to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Quit whining and go to work. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» And don't forget... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Bush: The Ultimate Meritocrat Posted by: mrcentrist
» RE: Bush: The Ultimate Meritocrat Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Who's President? Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: . V. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: . V. Posted by: swifturtle
» RE: . V. Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: . V. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: . V. Posted by: yakirz
Computer Era Corporate Innovations
Posted by: cognitorex on Jul 18, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From "Innovations of the Paperless Age, Cognitorex Press."

Hire basic labor force at less than full time thereby shedding the cost of health care, pensions and seniority benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.
Transfer previously tax paying internal accounting divisions to Offshore Tax Havens. Transfer savings to executive management.
Underfund pension obligations, then enter bankruptcy to avoid promised worker retirement benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.

Labels: CEO embezzlement, national health plan, what pensions (at cognitorex blog)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jul 18, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows about the the not-too-bright gentleman who placed one foot in boiling water and the other in ice water figuring that the extremes would cancel each other out and produce a comfortable mean. As regards our economy, this is what the right wing spinners want us to believe is possible. An increase in gross national product and ever increasing corporate profits are, somehow, supposed to trickle down and benefit the jobless and the hungry. Such statistics are the damndest of liars and are employed by the damndest of liars as an increasingly transparent fig leaf for the economic woes of many millions of Americans. And if that isn't bad enough, and lord knows it should be, wait until the bill comes due on the debts incurred by the Bushies with their endless wars and misplaced billions (trillion). It may come as a shock to some, but these bills are going to be paid by someone. If not the very rich and the giant multinational corporations, then by whom? You guessed it...your great-grand children and everyone who comes before and after them.

Additionally, when the Zionist neocons finally drag us into a genocide against the Iranian people,in the not too distant future, and the price of a barrel of crude oil rises to $120.00, we will then understand what it was like to have lived through the great depression. Hold onto your hats, you may have to sell them for food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Francis Posted by: clthompson
» RE: Francis Posted by: Francis
» ?????? Posted by: gellero
» RE: ?????? Posted by: Francis
» Consider this... Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Francis Posted by: yakirz
Typically Disagree
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 18, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with mr. holland, however, he's nailed this one dead on. add to his article congress passing the Universal Default for credit cards and tougher bankruptcy laws, lifelong student loan debt, and you've got the recipe for not only getting pinched, but getting screwed.

bravo joshua.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typically Disagree--Not To Mention Posted by: apophenia_monkey
All a lie. Even the penny shown costs more to make than it is worth!
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 18, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was a perfect picture to represent our economy. The penny is now costing more to make than it is actually worth! Like most of our money it has become devalued, on purpose, by the private bankers who own and control the Federal Reserve and our economy.
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jul 18, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what happens when the system goes out of balance.....when government and big business start working hand in hand to get power and profits.

Government makes sure that our tax dollars keep going to favorite companies, and regulates certain industries in a way that makes it impossible for competition for their favored business partners.

Then, those corporations run wild, raising prices and lowering the quality of service. It's like a monopoly - closer to a cartel.

It's essential for us to reign in this beast....read on for more:

"The Value of Financial Viability" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slogans don't help Posted by: edith
Does this news make you angry?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 18, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It angers me terribly. These are the practices and results that have made me despise reagan since I was a teenager. Even as an ignorant and stupid teenager I could see something fundamentally cruel about most of reagan's policies. It's why I see republicans as little better than nazis and their poor supporters as nazi sympathizers.

Why do I consider reagan (republicans) and the democrats that agree with these proposals as cruel? :

One, Remember AIDS- The reagan administration cared nothing for the suffering since it was nothing more than a Haitian or queer disease. Our administration nor the moral majority care if queers and Haitians die a wretched death. But when some children starting contracting the disease from blood transfusions, these cruel and ignorant republicans started wondering if this might really be a problem. So much for compassion from a conservative.

Second, let's imprison as many people as we can with a new war on drugs. We surpassed South Africa for numero uno in 1989 with the highest per capita prison population. Thank you ronnie for making us number one in something. When you're a nazi republican, why care about freedom or liberty?

Third, let's use as much money as we can for weapons of war. Every one of reagan's budget had the DOD as the number one expenditure. These budgets probably could have been slashed by 90% yet still provided enough for our "defense". Eisenhower knew this type of funding is mostly a complete waste, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Fourth, these so called conservatives continually spent more money driving this nation from $2 trillion in national debt in 1980 to $6 trillion by 1989. The graph of this debt prior to 1980 was mostly linear but turned exponential under reagan.

Think of all the scandals since reagan that involve theft and deception : the savings and loan crisis, Iran-contra, 9/11, and the War on Iraq to name a few. They have all been primarily driven by republicans with the moral majority providing cover.

Here is another story related to this topic for anyone who cares:

Parasitic imperialism

And finally, being poor I see that the only thing poor people have going for them is education. It's the only thing we have that might help prevent us from being manipulated and cheated but not only is our fascist government gutting education, education is not highly valued by a large percentage of the population. And what constitutes education is alot of times little more than indoctrination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: interesting... Posted by: dangerouslysane
» DEMOCRATS ARE DIFFERENT??? Posted by: gellero
» RE: Democrats are awesome Posted by: sheena2u
Thanks, Heather and Joshua
Posted by: sausage on Jul 18, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been asking this same question for some time.

I've heard right wing politicians on the stump praise the United States for being the richest nation on the face of the earth, ever in history, with the strongest economy on the world! Then turn on a dime and say, "but we can't afford such and such and so and so," usually one or all of the entitlement programs or Social Security or a single-payer nationalized healthcare system.

But we can afford an F-22 Raptor!

We can afford to occupy Iraq to the tune of $456 billion!

But the treasury is empty so we can't afford national healthcare.

Why?

Anybody who's ever viewed True Majority.org's "Setting the Priorities Straight" Web page knows our taxpayer dollars are going down a sewer called the Pentagon. We've known the Pentagon was a sewer of taxpayer waste ever since Iowa Senator Chuck "Mr. Big Pharma," "Mr. Big Ag" Grassley raised a stink about $600 toilet seats for the Navy back in the '80s.

So why doesn't anybody in Congress do anything to rein in spending for the military-security-industrial complex?

Campaign contributions.

Congressional Republicans are beholden to funds from the mangement/investment side of the MSIC, and for the Democrats the defense industry is one of the last bastions of strong labor unionism. Don't you think it rather odd that some of the most "liberal" congressional Democrats come from states with heavy concentrations of defense contractors: Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Rhode Island, New York?

Personally, I hoped that with the fall of the old Soviet Union there would be a peace dividend. How naive.

Our generals and politicians and Wall Street investors (true parasites on the body politic) and union leaders all conspired to keep the war machine birthed in the combat of World War II growing. And it is very hungrey indeed.

We are doomed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why they won't impeach... Posted by: dover23
» why they won't impeach... Posted by: dover23
Economics, politics and greed
Posted by: american on Jul 18, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are informed as we are because the owners of everything own the press too. The press, along with “K Street” money broking, is what provides access to the political arena.

To commune with the people, politicians must be wealthy or go to the wealthy. This is the only access. The politicians who see the point of view of the wealthy most decisively are the ones who get the most money and exposure via the media assets owned by the wealthy.

Once candidates get the money, it gets back to the wealthy via their media ownership.

The political discourse as well as our understanding of our government and economy, to be sure, is regulated by the press's interpretations and coverage levels of issues and candidates; the length of the leash the politicians are on; - and the policy_philosophy inclinations of the pre-selected candidates.

Via this system we are getting the best candidates for Capitalism-gone-loose and not getting the best candidates to activate the will of the majority. Activating the intentions of the majority is the objective of democracy. Activating the intention of the few is the objective of capitalism.

I am not necessarily anti-capitalism, but I am against it steamrolling democracy: so I am against how it is functioning now.

The source:

In our country, as the business and political bodies are functioning right now, it is clear that the sweet cream is not rising to the top. It is clear, by nearly all metrics outside of the Dow and S&P, that this country is not in great shape - yet leaders who continually fail to improve things sit in front of the television cameras recombining the same old pacifiers, making it easy for people to let things slide one more day that we may hope, against our better judgment, that their courses of action - as they say - will improve things "in the future."

Wait...

Let me explain.

Democracy and capitalism are not necessarily congruent in the way a hand fits in a glove. One does not necessarily require the other, although we are told as much. The capitalism practiced at present is a one variety of economic theory. Democracy is a political philosophy. Enforceable laws originate both. At present, the forces of today’s capitalism far more than populace-originated representative democracy are originating laws, policies and initiatives.

Economic theories and speculative "predictions" are trumpeted to explain how things will work out. Know this though: all of economics is theoretical. This means it is not proven to be true. Ask an economist. And as for the spewing of speculative predictions, recall the opinions of all the stock market "analysts" on CNN prior to the tech bubble crash of the late 90's. Ninety-nine of a hundred were bullish. So they didn't know what they were saying or they were saying what they knew to be untrue. (This may be the surest way to get on CNN...)

How is this happening? Well, the number-one quality for obtaining wealth, typically, is greed. For extreme wealth extreme greed is typically required. Greed-synonymous traits are selfishness, control-freakishness, hoarding, secrecy, anxiety, and blind disregard for external consequences. To an outstanding degree, the type people running the corporatocracy own these characteristics and they are the ones essentially pre-qualifying the ensembles of candidates we time and again ultimately choose from. The end result is we have candidates who are either members of the greed set or ones whose ambitions are bridled by the adverse consequences of tampering with the status quo.

This is our problem. And if we want to solve a problem, we have to go to the root. I do not seek a revolution, you can be sure, but I do seek a just and livable society. For this to occur, where there is an impasse, democracy must trump capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Workers More Produvtive?
Posted by: Jack Saturday on Jul 18, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it curious that Ms. Bouchey and Mr. Holland would say “Americans have become much more productive.” You hear this from trade union representatives as well.

I don't think Americans work 80% harder or smarter. Technology has become more productive, I think it is essential now to make a clear distinction between humans and technology, though it is correct to call commodity laborers “tools.” But as tools they are not themselves working so much more productively than their forbears.

The tech is much more productive. This tech has issued from R&D paid for by the American people so that it can displace them, but they get no return on that investment.

Trace who paid, through their taxes, for the R&D that brought an 80% rise in productivity, then deliver a decent return on that investment to the investors, the American people.

John Henry learned a long time ago that to compete in productivity with a steam-drill kills you. What we need to learn is that the steam-drill ain’t the problem, it’s that the top .01% claim to own that steam-drill and all benefits accruing. Some suggest that John Henry should have taken his hammer to the boss instead of trying to compete with centuries of design science evolution paid for when US workers signed their John Henry on an income tax form to pay private bankers for printing money backed by thin air, and to cover the costs of industrial technology through state subsidies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Workers More Produvtive? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Workers More Productive? Posted by: Jack Saturday
» PRODUCTIVITY Posted by: gellero
What about...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 18, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Military Spending? That most sacred of sacred cows we collectively herd and feed what ought to be funding all these things you say keep getting cut? Even here it hardly gets mentioned. We are told we must make further cuts to programs other countries guarantee as part of their citizenship but you're labeled a terrorist or worse if you suggest that any cuts be made in military spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing's gonna change, it'll only get worse.
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 18, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's history, "the rise and fall of the USA"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wah! Wah! Wah! Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Wah! Wah! Wah! Posted by: NumberSix
Up the ante
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jul 18, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution to social security is simple: Just increase the interest that the government gives to the payees in return for the use of their money to run the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Up the ante-- ? Posted by: wmGreybeard
» RE: Up the ante-- ? Posted by: Gaubladt
masochisme
Posted by: richholland on Jul 18, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let us face it. MIllions of germans were victim of the rich americans and english between world war 1 and 2 they were on the brink of starvation.
Hitler and the national socialists promised work and better conditions t the first stage they got health insurance, vacation, housing, volkswagen etc. but then a second world war.

the problem in america is many people not understand it is not
Capitalisme or Communisme;;
Karl Marx was right Hedge fundings captalisme leads to destructing of enviroment, destruction of values but the solution is not SOCIALISME.
the solution is working together, respecting values.
A pimp or a drugsdealer with a billion dollars is still an arshhole, althouhg some Republicans call him a Patriot.
Europe is fed up with American fascists, the people of USA are wunderfull nice people, but many of your leaders are fascists. America back to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WW I Posted by: gellero
Visual Representation of This Article
Posted by: astromathman on Jul 18, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The picture portrayed in this article can be visualized by graphing the US income distribution. See http://www.lcurve.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its called capitalism
Posted by: wleming on Jul 18, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors must consider that capitalism is a greed driven ideology... or as John Kennth Galbraith... who was a very great economist put it: "Capitalism is the assumption that the very worst, for the worst of reasons, will do the very best."
Mr. Galbraith, alas, could speak clearly, directly, and concisely-- but that was before the Right Wing Think Tank, and the tepid, sad
Liberalism that was to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: its called capitalism Posted by: kellysgarden
It's called an Oligarchy
Posted by: dover23 on Jul 18, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The elite despise the lower classes and have purchased the government to "legally" keep everyone else down and destroy the middle class. They could not do this without the use of sanctioned violence that people seem to cheer on.

If you think you can end the reign of these elites by using the tools that they control and use against you, you're falling into their trap and playing by their rules. There is only one alternative... dismantle the killing machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

follow the money
Posted by: kellysgarden on Jul 18, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
follow the money and you'll see it didn't end up in my pocket, or in your's. It ended up in the pockets of large corporations.

We in the "middle" and "lower" classes are merely slaves to these large corporations, which are run by the owners, CEOs, directors, etc. of corporations.

When the masses are ruled and governed by large corporations, we are truly seeing one of FASCISM's defining definitions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» truly??? Posted by: dover23
» RE: truly??? Posted by: kellysgarden
» 14 defining features of Fascism Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: 14 defining features of Fascism Posted by: kellysgarden
» USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: dover23
» RE: USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: USA... 14 for 14! Posted by: sterlingdave54
Democracy? Think again. Oligarchy the rule of the rich is what Bush has done to us all.
Posted by: jgdewey on Jul 18, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are his base the filthy rich. In addition, these right wing republicans have always hated the social programs of Franklin Roosevelt. From deregulating electricity( think enron what a mess) to making medicare a laugh to all who use it. But what bothers me the most, is after years of paying trillions for a bogus useless war they cry foul over social services. Here's the problem with the budget, it's no