Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice rant. It seems to take for granted that action by the national government is what is needed for the US to be successful. If you believe as I do that action by the national government is often counterproductive and wasteful, then the current "gang of nitwits" has rendered great service by constipating the system. They have prevented the excretion of more wasteful and counterproductive programs.
There is no fear of Obama's proposals being succesful. There is much concern that continuing the same failed policies and the small-minded, pessimistic philosophy that animates those policies would result in even more crushing debt in an economy strangled by ideological idiocy.
As a Canadian, how does Obama's job-killing obstruction of the Keystone pipeline help you? I hope the "gang of nitwits" is able to foil that nonsense, as well.
Well, Obama's delay of the keystone project doesn't really hurt me much. I'm in Eastern Canada and it's mainly the Albertans who will get the most benefit of it. Americans of course will benefit greatly by the entire concept of "Ethical oil".
I noticed with great interest though that it did not take TransCanada pipelines very long to propose a different route that does not go through such a sensitive area. In that respect alone I'm thinking that it was a good decision to delay final approval. I'm very sure that the pipeline will get built and it's in the best interests of both the American and Canadian people that it gets done right. You can not trust corporations like Trans Canada to do what is in the People's best interests because they will always do what is best for their own best interests and their bottom line.
I don't take it for granted that action by the government is necessary to solve the current problems. I know without a shadow of doubt that it is Absolutely a requirement to stop the bleeding and turn America around. These great and huge problems are not going to solve themselves. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT OBAMA'S SOLUTIONS WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW WILL WE? As FDR said it's far better to have tried something that DIDN"T work than to have done nothing at all.
I think the very first thing that should be done is to get the tax rate back to where they were when America was very successful. Where the middle class was growing and the economy experienced a steady and stable expansion.
Obviously the government has to cut expendures by a huge %. Canada had to do that back in the 90's or we would have ended up just like Greece is today. The thing is that this can be done without impacting important social programmes much at all. I shudder to think how much $$$$ is lost in the USA through corruption, nepotism, cronyism, theft, patronage and all kinds of backroom dealing that is just like stealing the money right out of YOUR pocket. The military industrial complex needs to be stepped on really hard. You need to start closing bases you have all over the world that do nothing for the country, in fact many of them have a net negative effect for America. Do you think the USA still needs to have soldiers stationed in Europe? What a waste. What about in Japan??? Same thing. Let these allies start to look after themselves. In most cases they are there to protect the interests of this same military industrial complex alone and not the interests of the people of the USA.
America needs to get tough with American Corporate interests. If they are not useful to the people of the USA then what good at all are they? They might as well be Chinese or Indian corporations. They enjoy the stability and rule of law they recieve by being American and they don't think they should have to do anything at all in return.
What you write sounds so logical and reasonable, but here is the fundamental question:
How did the United States of America, in the decades and centuries after 1776, become the most productive, wealthy, advanced nation on the face of the Earth? The lot of the average person improved unimaginably over any fifty year period through that timespan.
We did not have high taxes on the wealthy for most of that history. In fact, the income tax only arrived to stay after 1913.
So what are the factors and principles that explain America's success? Evidently, failure to confiscate enough wealth from our most valuable producers doesn't enter into it.
I agree, but that is a different time period. Imagine that, little or no taxes at all!
What you write sounds so logical and reasonable, but here is the fundamental question:
How did the United States of America, in the decades and centuries after 1776, become the most productive, wealthy, advanced nation on the face of the Earth? The lot of the average person improved unimaginably over any fifty year period through that timespan.
We did not have high taxes on the wealthy for most of that history. In fact, the income tax only arrived to stay after 1913.
So what are the factors and principles that explain America's success? Evidently, failure to confiscate enough wealth from our most valuable producers doesn't enter into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
I agree, but that is a different time period. Imagine that, little or no taxes at all!
I see the problem. You both have a distorted view of American history. Production gains in the 19th and 18th century were not due to lack of government. The government was very much involved, starting with the Louisiana Purchase and included large purchases that drove the building of armament factories and provisions factories needed for the Civil War.
The government built canals and later awarded rights to build railroads through government owned territories resulting in a greatly improved distribution system of people and goods. However the largest production gains did not happen during this period. Most average people were relatively poor in the 18th and 19th centuries. That was reason so many headed west into the frontier.
The major production gains happened during the 20th century. In the early 20th century average wealth grew but that wealth was concentrated in few hands. Factory workers were still poor and exploited by their employers and didn't share in the nation's production explosion.
We can see this in the chart below estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Income remained about as unequally distributed as it had been the late 19th century (or as it is today.) Public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact.
The middle-class society, that you said "[t]he lot of the average person improved unimaginably," didn’t happen between '1776 and 1913' and didn't happen gradually or automatically by a hands-off government. Instead, it was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart above shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich's share of income shifting to middle-class working Americans, who saw unprecedented gains.
For the first time middle class America broadly shared prosperity and the middle-class grew, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.
Since the late 1970s the America economics and politics unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2007 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 1% of Americans rose 275 percent. According to Forbes, "The top 0.1% — about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million — are making about half of all capital gains." According to Wiki: "Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics showed that the share of income held by the top 1% was as large in 2005 as in 1928. The data revealed that reported income increased by 9% in 2005, with the mean for the top 1% increasing by 14% and that for the bottom 90% dropping slightly by 0.6%."
Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.
The cause of growing income inequality is movement conservatism, whose political dominance caused taxes on the rich to fall, and the holes in the safety net to grow bigger. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.
I see the problem. You both have a distorted view of American history. Production gains in the 19th and 18th century were not due to lack of government. The government was very much involved, starting with the Louisiana Purchase and included large purchases that drove the building of armament factories and provisions factories needed for the Civil War.
The government built canals and later awarded rights to build railroads through government owned territories resulting in a greatly improved distribution system of people and goods. However the largest production gains did not happen during this period. Most average people were relatively poor in the 18th and 19th centuries. That was reason so many headed west into the frontier.
The major production gains happened during the 20th century. In the early 20th century average wealth grew but that wealth was concentrated in few hands. Factory workers were still poor and exploited by their employers and didn't share in the nation's production explosion.
We can see this in the chart below estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Income remained about as unequally distributed as it had been the late 19th century (or as it is today.) Public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact.
The middle-class society, that you said "[t]he lot of the average person improved unimaginably," didn’t happen between '1776 and 1913' and didn't happen gradually or automatically by a hands-off government. Instead, it was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart above shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich's share of income shifting to middle-class working Americans, who saw unprecedented gains.
For the first time middle class America broadly shared prosperity and the middle-class grew, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.
Since the late 1970s the America economics and politics unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2007 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 1% of Americans rose 275 percent. According to Forbes, "The top 0.1% — about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million — are making about half of all capital gains." According to Wiki: "Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics showed that the share of income held by the top 1% was as large in 2005 as in 1928. The data revealed that reported income increased by 9% in 2005, with the mean for the top 1% increasing by 14% and that for the bottom 90% dropping slightly by 0.6%."
Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.
The cause of growing income inequality is movement conservatism, whose political dominance caused taxes on the rich to fall, and the holes in the safety net to grow bigger. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.
MTAtech, although I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate your thoughtful post. Here are the points I would add to the discussion.
1. You cite unions as a factor in those wonderful years of greater income equality. The work force then consisted of two classes of workers: union and non-union. For a spell, it appeared to be possible to pay above-market wages in unionized industries. The disparity between union and non-union workers was large, without accounting for the fact that large fractions of the workforce had no chance to join a union trade due to discrimination. To a great extent, the prosperity of union workers was gained at the expense of non-union workers, who paid excessive prices.
I propose that it is not possible to pay above-market wages on a sustainable basis. The history of the US auto industry over the past sixty years seems to support this theory. For definitional purposes, let's say that market wages are those which an employer must pay in order to get needed quantities and qualities of labor to show up for work every day.
2. The 80/20 rule applies, and it is more powerful than ever due to technology. (Roughly, 20% of the participants in a competitive endeavor win 80% of the business, 20% of the customers do 80% of the volume, 20% of casino customers are responsible for 80% of casino profits, etc., etc.) And the network effect: an internet auction site that has half the buyer/seller traffic is likely to be a better market than one that has ten percent of the traffic. And the continual improvement in systems and processes enables the big do business on ever-lower margins and evergrowing volumes.
My little town used to have an egg candlery, a wholesale/retail dairy, a butcher, a baker, a dry-goods store, and a "variety shop." Then one day seventy years ago, some wise guy put up a 48 foot wide "super" market that had a meat case, a dairy case, bread from a factory, etc. This little "super" market put five businesses out with lower prices and lower margins. Then came the bigger grocery chains...then came Walmart. Very few of us in today's society could afford the margins of seventy years ago.
So we have a trend in business that has been there since the invention of fire: shrinking margins on larger volumes over time. This does not mean that the big win and stay on top forever. Sears "ruined" retailing beginning in the 1800's with new technology and methods that enabled it to dominate retailing for a century; notice that it is not much of a factor today. But it does mean that concentration is an issue.
You blame "movement conservatism" as the cause of growing income inequality. I believe that income inequality has increased due to natural forces, some of them timeless, and corruption. The corruption arises from capture of policy by the winners in a winner-take-all economy.
1. The tax code is a breeding ground for corruption. The cure is to do the bipartisan proposal made by the Rivlin Commission, Simpson Bowles, and the Gang of Six outline: take the garbage out of the tax code. It would help if special breaks for any industry by any level of government were judged to be a violation of equal protection under the law--to level the playing field for everyone. Now we have a 35% corporate tax rate that no big players seems to pay. Get the favors and garbage out of the code, lower the rate, collect more money--all the bipartisan studies and commissions and proposals have offered this path as the one way to fix it. The corruption of the tax code has been a bipartisan affair: corporate America has captured enough of both parties to have too much influence. With high rates and the ability to carve out deals for friends, corruption is inevitable. I would say that "movement conservatism" has a better angle on the fix than the current Dem leadership, which wants to increase tax rates and keep the power and value of corrupt favors high. We the people should demand Simpson Bowles-style reform to cut the opportunity for corruption.
2. You have correctly pegged the safety net as a key issue. We need to be sure that nobody freezes to death or starves to death or dies from lack of basic medical care. At the same time, we cannot possibly continue to pay $2400 for $400 wheelchairs, nor can any society sustain itself with one out of three adults sitting in rocking chairs. (Two workers cannot support one retiree, period, end of story.) Making the needed changes in a way that does not result in people freezing to death, or starving to death, or dying from lack of basic medical care is the challenge of our age.
This is what I think; don't know for sure if I am a "movement conservative," but I do know I appreciate your thoughtful additions to the discourse.
Religion has nothing to do with not wanting people who have nothing wrong with them at all ....other than they think that they should profit from the sweat of the brow of others....to sit there with their hand out and expect those of us who pay our taxes to take care of them.
it is a Christian thing to give to the poor and the needy...but not to those who make it their life's ambition.
The traditional Christian message is that a free gift will not be in vain. If we go around trying to qualify on what terms we will help other people, that's not really loving. I'm not saying there's no practical reasons to restrain or limit how much the government or individuals help people, rather making dogmatic statements about how people should be self-reliant and "earn their own way" doesn't reflect the deepest truths of our experience, which is interdependence and grace. There are no self-made people, "No man is an island", the fortune even of somebody like Bill Gates is built on the efforts of other people, many of whom he isn't even consciously aware of.
MTA - What your chart is showing is the war economy, again. That would be the period where there was near zero unemployment and the government was spending enough money to get to a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. That would be the time period where the soldiers that were literally destroying all of the competition were also sending their money home to their families who were also working because of the war economy.
Unless you want another world war you should drop trying to use those events as some sort of standard.
Obama has in fact done very little at all. The disfunctional congress has pretty much obstructed everything the president would have wanted to do. To hold the president to blame for today's problems in the country is just plain total STUPIDITY.
A lot of what Obama wanted to do we have already done here in Canada and guess what? It's works and it works well. The party of obstruction has no ideas at all, just none, zero, ziltch Nada and if you don't think that is true then just listen to the next GOP debate.
The right's biggest fear is if they would have let the country try the policies that Obama would like to try they just might be successful. That's correct, these traitors would rather see the country in total turmoil than have the problems solved by some one else. The best thing that could ever happen in the USA is for the GOP to disappear entirely The country obviously needs a good conservative alternative but it's not this gang of nitwits that's for sure. If you take the whole gang of them and add up in total their ability to move the country forward you will still be going in reverse because they have no interests outside of their own very narrow and selfish ones. If you are unable to see that then you are blind.
Tell you what, you stay in Canada and we will take back our country and attempt to restore it to her once previous greatness. I do not need or want government hand outs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
