Here's Rachel Maddow giving an excellent overview of how Wall Street blew up the economy. This is the corrupt casino mentality that now dominates our lives. It is what happens when wealth is dramatically concentrated in the hands of so few that they literally don't know how to put it all to productive use.
It doesn't help that many of those same people are America's most rapacious and reckless, the ones that want you to think they are creating wealth and should only be envied. Perhaps you have heard that investment bankers show personality characteristics very similar to psychopaths. And no, it is not the occasional rogue trader.
And who protects these guys? Who refused to investigate years of fraud? Who denounces Occupy Wall Street as unAmerican practitioners of class warfare, but has shown remarkable indifference to Wall Street's trillion dollar scams?
Who were Elliot Spitzer's mortal enemies, the ones who gleefully rejoiced when he was brought down?
Those are not rhetorical questions. You know the answer.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Conservatives Get Their Way
At the heart of America's often shallow debate about political economy, policy, and the direction this country should take, is the cluster of variables surrounding taxes, regulation, economic policy, and the proper role of government. The basic conservative argument is that taxes are too high, regulation is too onerous and counterproductive, and business is too hobbled by misguided bureaucrats.
The Republican prescription has been simple, persuasive for some, and amazingly consistent for a generation: cut taxes and everything good will happen. It is the elixir, the panacea, the cure-all for all that ails you. And if tax cuts are not enough (they are always a prerequisite), then just cut back on all that wasteful spending, which for conservatives means the welfare state and other transfers that go from deserving producers to the undeserving takers.
To hear Republicans tell it, America is near comatose because of high taxes, radical unions ("big labor," as they say with a straight face), and more recently, government spending, not on defense of course, but on character-destroying entitlements such as social security, medicare, welfare, public education, and infrastructure boondoggles.
Millions of Americans believe this argument; teabaggers in particular have been convinced that they are "taxed enough already" and that Democrats are transferring massive amounts of money "we don't have" to undeserving liberals who vote Democrat for that precise reason. Joshua Holland has an excellent article the title of which precisely captures what has become a real problem for the reality-based community: Thanks to Decades of Conservative Spin, Americans Are Hopelessly Confused About Taxes, Spending and the Deficit.
As Holland states:
My immediate purpose is not to resolve ideological differences or to prove the efficacy of certain policy preferences. In this occasional series; let's call it "Conservatives Get Their Way," I want to show that regardless of how else you or I might feel about it, the inescapable conclusion is that on economic policy and legislation, including taxation, conservatives, the right-wing, the Republican party, and most assuredly, corporate America, have gotten most of what they have wanted on the policies, legislation, and legal opinions that overwhelmingly benefit them.
It is not a matter of conservatives wanting to move away from what they consider to be harmful, liberal policies. The reality is that Republicans, with the help of some Democrats, have undercut what they hate, and have already turned over power to wealthy oligarchs. The conservative charge that liberals, socialists, Democrats, dirty fucking hippies, a black President, "teh gays," and all the rest are destroying America, is demonstrably false. We do not have "Big Labor", high taxes, or profit-killing regulations, a large and expensive public sector, high social spending, or job-killing environmental regulations. In fact, we lag other industrialized nations on each of these points; our taxes are among the lowest, as is union membership and pubic sector spending.
So where does the US lead? Corporate profits and executive compensation. And of course, we do spend a pantload on defense, precisely what most conservatives and nearly all Republican politicians demand.
The evidence more clearly shows that corporate America, the Republican party, and the conservative policies and legislation they say we need, but have already enacted, are undermining America's economic strength, its political institutions, and its social fabric. In other words, America's right wing not only has got its arguments mostly backwards, it is precisely the conservative policies they claim we need that have created the current mess, one that has been in the making for 35 plus years.
Conservatives get their way and they have the results one would expect; massive inequality, an unending gravy train for our bloated defense industry, executive compensation that has reached obscene levels, is largely detached from job performance (golden parachutes anyone?), and is loaded with money-saving perks denied to the rest of us.
They succeeded in largely gutting private pension systems for workers, outsourced much of our manufacturing base to cheap labor countries, hobbled unions, have enjoyed significant productivity increases but have not shared those increases with their employees, and have beat back nearly all efforts to hold them accountable on the environment, tax loopholes, and regulations.
Much of this is vividly on display on Wall Street, where the perpetrators of massive fraud and malfeasance have managed to beat back essentially all efforts to hold them accountable and to rein in their ridiculously irresponsible behavior.
Any no, it is not because Congress can't do anything; progressive Dems favor and vote for legislation that would return us to more stable and equitable times, legislation that we once had in place, such as Glass-Steagal.
It is because nearly all Republicans, joined by a few Blue Dog Democrats, have voted for the legislation that is so overwhelming favorable to the overclass.
It isn't Congress; it is Republicans in Congress.
The Republican prescription has been simple, persuasive for some, and amazingly consistent for a generation: cut taxes and everything good will happen. It is the elixir, the panacea, the cure-all for all that ails you. And if tax cuts are not enough (they are always a prerequisite), then just cut back on all that wasteful spending, which for conservatives means the welfare state and other transfers that go from deserving producers to the undeserving takers.
To hear Republicans tell it, America is near comatose because of high taxes, radical unions ("big labor," as they say with a straight face), and more recently, government spending, not on defense of course, but on character-destroying entitlements such as social security, medicare, welfare, public education, and infrastructure boondoggles.
Millions of Americans believe this argument; teabaggers in particular have been convinced that they are "taxed enough already" and that Democrats are transferring massive amounts of money "we don't have" to undeserving liberals who vote Democrat for that precise reason. Joshua Holland has an excellent article the title of which precisely captures what has become a real problem for the reality-based community: Thanks to Decades of Conservative Spin, Americans Are Hopelessly Confused About Taxes, Spending and the Deficit.
As Holland states:
Holland implicates the mainstream media for its failure to critically assess and challenge what has been Republican class warfare disguised as common sense. It is a narrative that has proved persuasive to people who do not often hear, and don't want to hear, analyses that challenge that narrative.A good number of Americans are hopelessly confused about taxes, deficits and the debt. And it's no mystery why – conservatives have spent 30 years divorcing the taxes we pay from the services they finance. They've bent themselves into intellectual pretzels arguing that cutting taxes – on the wealthy – leads to more revenues in the coffers. They've invented narratives about taxes driving “producers” to sunnier climes, killing jobs by the bushel, and relentlessly spun the wholly false notion that we're facing “runaway spending” and are “taxed to death.”
My immediate purpose is not to resolve ideological differences or to prove the efficacy of certain policy preferences. In this occasional series; let's call it "Conservatives Get Their Way," I want to show that regardless of how else you or I might feel about it, the inescapable conclusion is that on economic policy and legislation, including taxation, conservatives, the right-wing, the Republican party, and most assuredly, corporate America, have gotten most of what they have wanted on the policies, legislation, and legal opinions that overwhelmingly benefit them.
It is not a matter of conservatives wanting to move away from what they consider to be harmful, liberal policies. The reality is that Republicans, with the help of some Democrats, have undercut what they hate, and have already turned over power to wealthy oligarchs. The conservative charge that liberals, socialists, Democrats, dirty fucking hippies, a black President, "teh gays," and all the rest are destroying America, is demonstrably false. We do not have "Big Labor", high taxes, or profit-killing regulations, a large and expensive public sector, high social spending, or job-killing environmental regulations. In fact, we lag other industrialized nations on each of these points; our taxes are among the lowest, as is union membership and pubic sector spending.
So where does the US lead? Corporate profits and executive compensation. And of course, we do spend a pantload on defense, precisely what most conservatives and nearly all Republican politicians demand.
The evidence more clearly shows that corporate America, the Republican party, and the conservative policies and legislation they say we need, but have already enacted, are undermining America's economic strength, its political institutions, and its social fabric. In other words, America's right wing not only has got its arguments mostly backwards, it is precisely the conservative policies they claim we need that have created the current mess, one that has been in the making for 35 plus years.
Conservatives get their way and they have the results one would expect; massive inequality, an unending gravy train for our bloated defense industry, executive compensation that has reached obscene levels, is largely detached from job performance (golden parachutes anyone?), and is loaded with money-saving perks denied to the rest of us.
They succeeded in largely gutting private pension systems for workers, outsourced much of our manufacturing base to cheap labor countries, hobbled unions, have enjoyed significant productivity increases but have not shared those increases with their employees, and have beat back nearly all efforts to hold them accountable on the environment, tax loopholes, and regulations.
Much of this is vividly on display on Wall Street, where the perpetrators of massive fraud and malfeasance have managed to beat back essentially all efforts to hold them accountable and to rein in their ridiculously irresponsible behavior.
Any no, it is not because Congress can't do anything; progressive Dems favor and vote for legislation that would return us to more stable and equitable times, legislation that we once had in place, such as Glass-Steagal.
It is because nearly all Republicans, joined by a few Blue Dog Democrats, have voted for the legislation that is so overwhelming favorable to the overclass.
It isn't Congress; it is Republicans in Congress.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Tax Loafers? Maybe Not
Conservative media continues to repeat the infantile and laughably incomplete argument that roughly half of Americans don't pay taxes, the implication of which is that rich guys are bearing the burden and that millions of Americans are loafing off the hard work of others.
There is a lot to this Republican morality play, except maybe for facts. I will set aside the political psychology of conservative morality for the moment, except to say that it drives all conservative attitudes; not facts, not empiricism, not logic.
The federal income tax burden may be low for many of us, but payroll taxes disproportionately hit the working poor and the middle class. The tax-free argument really falls apart when we include all taxes. Republicans either don't notice, or hope you don't notice, these numerous other taxes; they are much more regressive, and they hit lower income people much harder. These include sales taxes, especially those on food and other basic needs, and indirect or semi-hidden taxes, such as those on phone bills, or those with a tax already built into the price, such as gasoline.
There is a lot to this Republican morality play, except maybe for facts. I will set aside the political psychology of conservative morality for the moment, except to say that it drives all conservative attitudes; not facts, not empiricism, not logic.
The federal income tax burden may be low for many of us, but payroll taxes disproportionately hit the working poor and the middle class. The tax-free argument really falls apart when we include all taxes. Republicans either don't notice, or hope you don't notice, these numerous other taxes; they are much more regressive, and they hit lower income people much harder. These include sales taxes, especially those on food and other basic needs, and indirect or semi-hidden taxes, such as those on phone bills, or those with a tax already built into the price, such as gasoline.
Here is David Leonhart of the New York Times, explaining why the conservative spin is so misleading:
I have slightly edited the original due to length. Go here to read the whole article.The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.
Focusing on the statistical middle class — the middle 20 percent of households, as ranked by income — underlines this point. Households in this group made $35,400 to $52,100 in 2006, the last year for which the Congressional Budget Office has released data. That would describe a household with one full-time worker earning about $17 to $25 an hour. Such hourly pay is typical for firefighters, preschool teachers, computer support specialists, farmers, members of the clergy, mail carriers, secretaries and truck drivers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Taking into account both taxes and tax credits, the average household in this group paid a total income tax rate of just 3 percent. A good number of people, in fact, paid no net income taxes. They are among the alleged free riders.
But the picture starts to change when you look not just at income taxes but at all taxes. This average household would have paid 0.8 percent of its income in corporate taxes (through the stocks it owned), 0.9 percent in gas and other federal excise taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. Add these up, and the family’s total federal tax rate was 14.2 percent.
If anything, the government numbers I’m using here exaggerate how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. These numbers fail to account for the income that is hidden from tax collectors — a practice, research shows, that is more common among affluent families. “Because higher-income people are understating their income,” Joel Slemrod, a tax scholar at the University of Michigan, says, “We’ve been overstating their average tax rates.”
State and local taxes, meanwhile, may actually be regressive. That is, middle-class and poor families may face higher tax rates than the wealthy. As Kim Rueben of the Tax Policy Center notes, state and local income taxes and property taxes are less progressive than federal taxes, while sales taxes end up being regressive. The typical family pays a lot of state and local taxes, too — almost half as much as in federal taxes.
There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Gallows Humor
In solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, I share with you a few timely and appropriate funnies. They would be funnier if they were not so true.
This last one is my favorite. I recall the John Maynard Keynes quote: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
This last one is my favorite. I recall the John Maynard Keynes quote: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
Friday, October 14, 2011
Our Corrupt and Fraudulent Economy
Here's Dylan Ratigan from a while back, just in case you missed it the first time. Ratigan's anger is what Occupy Wall Street is all about.
I share that anger and disgust. The only thing unusual about his critique is that it aired on mainstream television.
Hat tip to Angel Guerrero for refreshing my memory.
I share that anger and disgust. The only thing unusual about his critique is that it aired on mainstream television.
Hat tip to Angel Guerrero for refreshing my memory.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Why Occupy Wall Street is Angry
This country once had a stable financial system. It was the direct result of the New Deal. The crash of '29 had been created by greed, lax rules, and government institutions unequipped and ideologically unprepared to tame capitalism's most rapacious players.
Enter FDR and the New Deal. With it Americans enjoyed roughly 50 years of prosperity and a largely stable banking system. The good 'ol days, as conservatives seem to pine. And there was good reason why we look fondly at what seems to have been our economic heyday. What conservatives forget is that we had far less income inequality, higher taxes, greater union membership, lower consumer, state and federal debt. We had a trade surplus, a much larger manufacturing base, and little outsourcing. And we did not have job-killing free trade agreements, such as NAFTA!
Underlying all of this was a rigid set of banking rules that, among other things, kept commercial banks out of the stock market and enforced prudent capitalization requirements. Upon assuming office, President Reagan immediately worked to overturn regulations and help Wall Street's rise to dominance, a rise that continues today despite Obama's half-hearted and ineffectual efforts to reprioritize Main Street.
Banks quickly capitalized on the changes Reagan set in motion; systemic banking failure began within a few years. Those failures have been with us in regular intervals ever since, all the while wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of those who created the economic chaos in the first place.
Here is Elizabeth Warren explaining the process.
Enter FDR and the New Deal. With it Americans enjoyed roughly 50 years of prosperity and a largely stable banking system. The good 'ol days, as conservatives seem to pine. And there was good reason why we look fondly at what seems to have been our economic heyday. What conservatives forget is that we had far less income inequality, higher taxes, greater union membership, lower consumer, state and federal debt. We had a trade surplus, a much larger manufacturing base, and little outsourcing. And we did not have job-killing free trade agreements, such as NAFTA!
Underlying all of this was a rigid set of banking rules that, among other things, kept commercial banks out of the stock market and enforced prudent capitalization requirements. Upon assuming office, President Reagan immediately worked to overturn regulations and help Wall Street's rise to dominance, a rise that continues today despite Obama's half-hearted and ineffectual efforts to reprioritize Main Street.
Banks quickly capitalized on the changes Reagan set in motion; systemic banking failure began within a few years. Those failures have been with us in regular intervals ever since, all the while wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of those who created the economic chaos in the first place.
Here is Elizabeth Warren explaining the process.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Occupy Wall Street's Message
Leave town for a week and look what happens. Our corporatist media is finally paying some attention to Occupy Wall Street. Not that it is offering many insights. The prevailing characteristics seem to be that protesters are malevolent malcontents, dirty fucking hippies, and anarchists, all in a stew of disorganized resentment. In particular, the claim is that the OWS protesters do not have a coherent message.
No coherent message? Really? Anyone who cannot immediately grasp the significance of the protest is likely to be uninformed teabaggers, fearful of all that they don't understand, or class warriors, like the Republican presidential candidates, Romney and Cain in particular.
How obtuse, or ideologically rigid, do you have to be to not see that America's wealthy corporatist media is determined to delegitimize citizens who have decided to fight back against Wall Street's recklessness?
Here is Alan Grayson taking the small amount of time needed to explain to dickhead PJ O'Rourke what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about.
The privileged class is letting its fear show. Nice to see we got their attention.
No coherent message? Really? Anyone who cannot immediately grasp the significance of the protest is likely to be uninformed teabaggers, fearful of all that they don't understand, or class warriors, like the Republican presidential candidates, Romney and Cain in particular.
How obtuse, or ideologically rigid, do you have to be to not see that America's wealthy corporatist media is determined to delegitimize citizens who have decided to fight back against Wall Street's recklessness?
Here is Alan Grayson taking the small amount of time needed to explain to dickhead PJ O'Rourke what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about.
The privileged class is letting its fear show. Nice to see we got their attention.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Bread and Circus
Hey sports fans. Some wonder why I am so indifferent to pro sports these days. Classmates will recall that I was a typical American school kid; I loved pro sports. Once I went to college, my interests.. uh... diversified. More recently I had a rekindled interest in college football, though that too is waning. I realize more than ever that money and power dominate and corrupt what is supposed to be an amateur enterprise. Not on my dime; not if I can help it.
We have become more like Rome than we realize. It is bad enough that modern sports are a diversion that help keep our public discourse so inane and uninformed.
It's actually much worse. Here is an interview of sports writer Dave Zirin. The essential problem, as he points out, is that wealthy owners get the public to pay for their arenas and stadiums. Massive tax breaks are usually involved. The owners are enjoying outsized profits precisely because they get taxpayers to underwrite their business. To cap it off, the owners use their profits to fund right-wing, anti-government agendas. They want you to think they are self-made captains of capitalism. They don't say much about the millions of tax dollars they pocket.
Hypocrisy anyone? Dave Zirin's most recent book, Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love, tells the whole story.
I still want the Pac-12 to do well. Anyone but the SEC.
We have become more like Rome than we realize. It is bad enough that modern sports are a diversion that help keep our public discourse so inane and uninformed.
It's actually much worse. Here is an interview of sports writer Dave Zirin. The essential problem, as he points out, is that wealthy owners get the public to pay for their arenas and stadiums. Massive tax breaks are usually involved. The owners are enjoying outsized profits precisely because they get taxpayers to underwrite their business. To cap it off, the owners use their profits to fund right-wing, anti-government agendas. They want you to think they are self-made captains of capitalism. They don't say much about the millions of tax dollars they pocket.
Hypocrisy anyone? Dave Zirin's most recent book, Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love, tells the whole story.
I still want the Pac-12 to do well. Anyone but the SEC.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Republican Platform
So how many of these early warning signs do you recognize? Twenty-first century America sounds a lot like 1920s Italy. And if its similarity to Republican talking points doesn't unnerve you, you may be part of the problem. Read more on pre-fascist America
from Naomi Wolf, here, here, or watch her video here.
from Naomi Wolf, here, here, or watch her video here.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Our illiberal Media
Have you been following the action on Wall Street? You know, the protests by a couple of thousand of people near the stock exchange, complete with handcuffing, mace, and arrests? What? You haven't heard of Occupy Wall Street?
You aren't alone, and that is the way our corporate media wants it. The video below will give you an idea of how corporate domination of American media plays out. The point here is not whether you agree with the protesters, or think Wall Street is, or isn't, at the heart of America's economic pain. The point is that almost no mainstream media outlet is willing to cover, even critically, the mini-occupation, the arrests, the shouting. The foreign press is covering it, as are alternative news sites on the Internet. Our major networks will get to it, but they will be slow and shallow; the more revealing the story, the slower and shallower the coverage will be.
How can you not cover protests in the streets, Wall Street? And as Keith Olberman notes, if this were a crowd of teabaggers bitchin' about taxes or Obama's birth certificate, the coverage would have been wall-to-wall. This is what media do in banana republics, or the old Soviet Union.
You see what they want you to see.
Speaking of Wall Street, if you get a chance, get a copy of Inside Job.
You aren't alone, and that is the way our corporate media wants it. The video below will give you an idea of how corporate domination of American media plays out. The point here is not whether you agree with the protesters, or think Wall Street is, or isn't, at the heart of America's economic pain. The point is that almost no mainstream media outlet is willing to cover, even critically, the mini-occupation, the arrests, the shouting. The foreign press is covering it, as are alternative news sites on the Internet. Our major networks will get to it, but they will be slow and shallow; the more revealing the story, the slower and shallower the coverage will be.
How can you not cover protests in the streets, Wall Street? And as Keith Olberman notes, if this were a crowd of teabaggers bitchin' about taxes or Obama's birth certificate, the coverage would have been wall-to-wall. This is what media do in banana republics, or the old Soviet Union.
You see what they want you to see.
Speaking of Wall Street, if you get a chance, get a copy of Inside Job.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
She'll Do More Good As Senator Anyway
Elizabeth Warren is running for Scott Brown's senate seat in Massachusetts. You may recall that Warren was the favorite to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a position she did not get because President Obama caved in to Republican demands. Instead, she was appointed as a special adviser, where she reports directly to Timothy Geithner, a man who is a big part of the problem, and does not want to see or hear her.
For those keeping score at home, Warren is seeking the seat held for decades by the Lion of the Senate. No-name Brown lucked into his temporary job when State Attorney General Martha Coakley, who had all the advantages, instead ran an inept and listless campaign that disgusted many democratic stalwarts and independents alike.
So, yeah, Warren for Senate, 2012. Chances are good this will turn out better than if she had been buried in that bureau with a man like Geithner always ready to block reform.
I might add that people like Warren are advocating what we had in this country in the past. It is not some dangerous and untested territory to want to protect consumer interests or to hold financial firms accountable for their behavior. We had higher tax rates, lower debt, stronger growth-and far more equality-before we began the long slide towards reduced taxes on the wealthy, the gutting of regulations, and the growing dominance of a financial sector that is beholden to no one.
If you want to know how Warren thinks, and in the process learn a lot about the mess the American middle class is in, read this book.
For those keeping score at home, Warren is seeking the seat held for decades by the Lion of the Senate. No-name Brown lucked into his temporary job when State Attorney General Martha Coakley, who had all the advantages, instead ran an inept and listless campaign that disgusted many democratic stalwarts and independents alike.
So, yeah, Warren for Senate, 2012. Chances are good this will turn out better than if she had been buried in that bureau with a man like Geithner always ready to block reform.
I might add that people like Warren are advocating what we had in this country in the past. It is not some dangerous and untested territory to want to protect consumer interests or to hold financial firms accountable for their behavior. We had higher tax rates, lower debt, stronger growth-and far more equality-before we began the long slide towards reduced taxes on the wealthy, the gutting of regulations, and the growing dominance of a financial sector that is beholden to no one.
If you want to know how Warren thinks, and in the process learn a lot about the mess the American middle class is in, read this book.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
What Have Unions Done For Us?
I don't imagine that many have seen this video, but it should at least give pause for thought about this country's ridiculous and staggeringly ill-informed assault on American labor. It started with Republicans, of course; they have hated working Americans for generations. But the real problem is that too few Democrats seem prepared to fight for what made this country great.
Nor can we depend on our feckless media to remind us of what we once had and why we had it. Without a more vigorous media, voters remain confused, uninterested, and susceptable to manipulative framing that has reached absurd levels.
Ignorant shits who can't tell you what GDP stands for, or how many Senators are in their state have convinced themselves they know what this country needs. They have lapped up right wing crap about how "big labor" is strangling the economy. They don't hear, and don't bother to read about, how high union membership coincided and contributed to middle class stability, at a time when we had a much greater manufacturing sector as well as a trade surplus.
All of this happened while the US was a creditor nation, consumers had far less debt, did not rely on two or more jobs to make ends meet, and were able to save far more. Nor did our government depend on our trading partners' dollar surpluses to buy our debt. And it all happened when marginal tax rates were far higher than today.
Now look at the graphs below. You can see that most of America has not done well economically in the last 30+ years, not considering overall growth. This is why we have a stagnant economy; wages are too low, which has led to weak demand. Does it look like the tax burden, regulations, or labor unions have held back the rich? Does it look like they need more tax breaks?
FDR's New Deal created the middle class. Son, if you don't know that, you need to set about reading some American economic history. You do know what FDR stands for, yes?
Nor can we depend on our feckless media to remind us of what we once had and why we had it. Without a more vigorous media, voters remain confused, uninterested, and susceptable to manipulative framing that has reached absurd levels.
Ignorant shits who can't tell you what GDP stands for, or how many Senators are in their state have convinced themselves they know what this country needs. They have lapped up right wing crap about how "big labor" is strangling the economy. They don't hear, and don't bother to read about, how high union membership coincided and contributed to middle class stability, at a time when we had a much greater manufacturing sector as well as a trade surplus.
All of this happened while the US was a creditor nation, consumers had far less debt, did not rely on two or more jobs to make ends meet, and were able to save far more. Nor did our government depend on our trading partners' dollar surpluses to buy our debt. And it all happened when marginal tax rates were far higher than today.
Now look at the graphs below. You can see that most of America has not done well economically in the last 30+ years, not considering overall growth. This is why we have a stagnant economy; wages are too low, which has led to weak demand. Does it look like the tax burden, regulations, or labor unions have held back the rich? Does it look like they need more tax breaks?
FDR's New Deal created the middle class. Son, if you don't know that, you need to set about reading some American economic history. You do know what FDR stands for, yes?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Politics as Personality
There is an interesting new study on the personality of Teabaggers called Cultures of the Tea Party, written by Andrew Perrin of University of North Carolina, Steven Tepper of Vanderbilt University, and others. It's posted at TPM (that's Talking Point Memo, not Tea Party Movement). It is basically a personality inventory of persons who identify with the so-called Tea Party.
The study identifies four primary cultural dispositions: authoritarianism, ontological insecurity (fear of change), nativism, and libertarianism. None of these strike me as dispositions I would personally want to have; they are sub-clinical conditions that most of us would want to address or suppress.
Libertarianism, you might say, is different. Isn't it all about freedom, rugged individualism, and equality in a free, unregulated market, where we are all unfailingly rational in our pursuit of maximum utility? Isn't that just the stuff the Founding Fathers wanted?
That's what true believers would say. Many respondents, and especially teabaggers, have some idea what libertarianism means. I don't believe they have actually thought about it that much, but they like the idea of libertarianism, at least the version preached on Fox News and talk radio. As with many other philosophical concepts whittled down to talking points, proponents embrace it without necessarily understanding it. They identify with the concept of libertarianism, but not necessarily with nativism or fear of change, two traits that many of us have not thought much about, and may not feel comfortable acknowledging.
The authors' definition of libertarianism is questionable. In their survey they asked respondents whether they favored more rules restricting personal expression, such as public dress codes, content (censorship) on TV and the Internet. Tea Partiers scored a bit higher than average on this.
Is that really getting at libertarianism? Are questions about personal expression and Internet censorship acceptable proxies for libertarian ideas of free markets and free enterprise? High scorers would as likely be progressives as Ayn Rand acolytes.
Nativism focused on attitudes on immigration and immigrants. Negative or anti-immigrant scores indicated high levels of nativism. Now that's got teabagger written all over it.
Ontological insecurity measured attitudes towards social and cultural change. Previous studies on right-wing attitudes have shown hostility to change and preference for tradition, so no surprise here, either.
This leaves us with authoritarianism, what I believe is the most important of the four cultural dispositions, in part because of its troubling implications. The authors measured authoritarianism by attitudes towards child-rearing. The study replicated previous studies which show that authoritarian parents demand high levels of obedience from children, and are less willing to allow them to decide, and think for, themselves. Authoritarians show a strong "father knows best" attitude.
The authors did not elaborate much on the implications of their findings except to argue that the Tea Party Movement cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the significance of the four cultural dispositions, especially in the way they coalesce. However, one can see why teabaggers are so intolerant of outsiders and why they like to see themselves as the "real America," not those blue state big city elitists who vote forcommunists Democrats. It has less do with an understanding of policy and more to do with personality.
Nice study, but by far the single best source on authoritarian personality has been Bob Altemeyer. But there are others that are getting some deserved airtime, including George Lakoff, and Karen Stenner.
Altemeyer has repeatedly found that authoritarian personalities have high levels of ethnocentrism, high levels of submission to "legitimate" authority, and high preference for what one could call tribalism, an us-vs-them world view that is intolerant of those outside of their experience. That includes different skin color, religion, creed, and sexual orientation. I'll say right here that Altemeyer makes clear that authoritarianism really means right-wing authoritarianism, or RWA. While not all conservatives are authoritarians, those with right-wing sentiments will generally show elevated authoritarian traits. And those who score high on authoritarianism are invariably right wing. Left-wing authoritarianism is practically a oxymoron.
RWA's also show a marked preference for absolute or simplistic interpretations of complex events. They often accuse others of ethical or moral relativism.
Altemeyer stresses that authoritarian behavior reflects genuine personality traits, and not policy preferences. This helps explain the constant moralizing of authoritarians, and why many of their policy preferences seem so incoherent and contradictory to the rest of us. As George Lakoff has argued, the authoritarians moral sense is fundamentally different than others and has given rise to fundamentally different political views.
I am just scratching the surface on this; there is so much more already in the literature and I'm guessing more to come. That's cool, but I know that most people do not read academic literature. The problem is that the implications of the role of RWA are anything but academic. They are pervasive and troubling.
I'll explain why in future posts.
The study identifies four primary cultural dispositions: authoritarianism, ontological insecurity (fear of change), nativism, and libertarianism. None of these strike me as dispositions I would personally want to have; they are sub-clinical conditions that most of us would want to address or suppress.
Libertarianism, you might say, is different. Isn't it all about freedom, rugged individualism, and equality in a free, unregulated market, where we are all unfailingly rational in our pursuit of maximum utility? Isn't that just the stuff the Founding Fathers wanted?
That's what true believers would say. Many respondents, and especially teabaggers, have some idea what libertarianism means. I don't believe they have actually thought about it that much, but they like the idea of libertarianism, at least the version preached on Fox News and talk radio. As with many other philosophical concepts whittled down to talking points, proponents embrace it without necessarily understanding it. They identify with the concept of libertarianism, but not necessarily with nativism or fear of change, two traits that many of us have not thought much about, and may not feel comfortable acknowledging.
The authors' definition of libertarianism is questionable. In their survey they asked respondents whether they favored more rules restricting personal expression, such as public dress codes, content (censorship) on TV and the Internet. Tea Partiers scored a bit higher than average on this.
Is that really getting at libertarianism? Are questions about personal expression and Internet censorship acceptable proxies for libertarian ideas of free markets and free enterprise? High scorers would as likely be progressives as Ayn Rand acolytes.
Nativism focused on attitudes on immigration and immigrants. Negative or anti-immigrant scores indicated high levels of nativism. Now that's got teabagger written all over it.
Ontological insecurity measured attitudes towards social and cultural change. Previous studies on right-wing attitudes have shown hostility to change and preference for tradition, so no surprise here, either.
This leaves us with authoritarianism, what I believe is the most important of the four cultural dispositions, in part because of its troubling implications. The authors measured authoritarianism by attitudes towards child-rearing. The study replicated previous studies which show that authoritarian parents demand high levels of obedience from children, and are less willing to allow them to decide, and think for, themselves. Authoritarians show a strong "father knows best" attitude.
The authors did not elaborate much on the implications of their findings except to argue that the Tea Party Movement cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the significance of the four cultural dispositions, especially in the way they coalesce. However, one can see why teabaggers are so intolerant of outsiders and why they like to see themselves as the "real America," not those blue state big city elitists who vote for
Nice study, but by far the single best source on authoritarian personality has been Bob Altemeyer. But there are others that are getting some deserved airtime, including George Lakoff, and Karen Stenner.
Altemeyer has repeatedly found that authoritarian personalities have high levels of ethnocentrism, high levels of submission to "legitimate" authority, and high preference for what one could call tribalism, an us-vs-them world view that is intolerant of those outside of their experience. That includes different skin color, religion, creed, and sexual orientation. I'll say right here that Altemeyer makes clear that authoritarianism really means right-wing authoritarianism, or RWA. While not all conservatives are authoritarians, those with right-wing sentiments will generally show elevated authoritarian traits. And those who score high on authoritarianism are invariably right wing. Left-wing authoritarianism is practically a oxymoron.
RWA's also show a marked preference for absolute or simplistic interpretations of complex events. They often accuse others of ethical or moral relativism.
Altemeyer stresses that authoritarian behavior reflects genuine personality traits, and not policy preferences. This helps explain the constant moralizing of authoritarians, and why many of their policy preferences seem so incoherent and contradictory to the rest of us. As George Lakoff has argued, the authoritarians moral sense is fundamentally different than others and has given rise to fundamentally different political views.
I am just scratching the surface on this; there is so much more already in the literature and I'm guessing more to come. That's cool, but I know that most people do not read academic literature. The problem is that the implications of the role of RWA are anything but academic. They are pervasive and troubling.
I'll explain why in future posts.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Red State Mythology
Here's Rick Perry, trying to claim that abstinence is an effective means of adolescent birth control. Not only is there no evidence that abstinence programs work, he looks fairly stupid trying to claim there is. His handlers must wince when they see performances like this.
Meanwhile, Red State mythology suffers another bitch slap from reality. Conservatives, Republicans, teabaggers, Bible-belters and the rest love to claim that middle America is the real America; god-fearing, family-first types who honor traditions such as marriage and the wedding vows they swore to uphold.
I can hear it now: "No gay marriage here, fella. Real 'merkins don't like that filth. If you want to see how weak socialistic liberals want to destroy 'Merkin culture, go to California or Massachusetts. But we take marriage seriously around here."
Apparently not, Teabags; here's a list of the ten states with the highest divorce rate. Leading the pack is Oklahoma, followed by Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arizona.
Nevada is arguably purple, but the other states are bright red, the pride and joy of conservative America.
Meanwhile, Red State mythology suffers another bitch slap from reality. Conservatives, Republicans, teabaggers, Bible-belters and the rest love to claim that middle America is the real America; god-fearing, family-first types who honor traditions such as marriage and the wedding vows they swore to uphold.
I can hear it now: "No gay marriage here, fella. Real 'merkins don't like that filth. If you want to see how weak socialistic liberals want to destroy 'Merkin culture, go to California or Massachusetts. But we take marriage seriously around here."
Apparently not, Teabags; here's a list of the ten states with the highest divorce rate. Leading the pack is Oklahoma, followed by Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arizona.
Nevada is arguably purple, but the other states are bright red, the pride and joy of conservative America.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Labor Day Blues
Labor Day seems like a good time to share this interesting link. It is called IfItWereMyHome.com. What it does is compare living standards from around the world. There are different ways to do it, but the most obvious, and most eye-opening for internationally-challenged Americans, is to compare the US with similar industrialized countries. Take Germany for example.
According to the site, Germans, on average,
consume 50% less oil (!),
use 47% less electricity,
make 26% less money
are 83% less likely to have AIDS,
spend 48% less on health care, and
live one year longer
To be sure, some of the stats can be misleading; the risk of AIDS in the US is not evenly distributed. And though the US continues to show high per capita income, that fact completely masks the reality of extreme income inequality experienced in the US. Outsized incomes on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and in entertainment are the only reason average income in the US remains high.
Some trends consistently pop up when you compare the US with other industrialized countries; the US has much higher health care costs, terrible figures on child mortality, uses far more energy than most, and has a much higher class divide.
But hey, those Labor Day parades. Makes you so proud to wave Old Glory and to see all those politicans who have done so much for labor, especially those Republicans, marching and waving and such.
They must really support working families. What more proof could you want?
According to the site, Germans, on average,
consume 50% less oil (!),
use 47% less electricity,
make 26% less money
are 83% less likely to have AIDS,
spend 48% less on health care, and
live one year longer
To be sure, some of the stats can be misleading; the risk of AIDS in the US is not evenly distributed. And though the US continues to show high per capita income, that fact completely masks the reality of extreme income inequality experienced in the US. Outsized incomes on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and in entertainment are the only reason average income in the US remains high.
Some trends consistently pop up when you compare the US with other industrialized countries; the US has much higher health care costs, terrible figures on child mortality, uses far more energy than most, and has a much higher class divide.
But hey, those Labor Day parades. Makes you so proud to wave Old Glory and to see all those politicans who have done so much for labor, especially those Republicans, marching and waving and such.
They must really support working families. What more proof could you want?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
A Thousand Cuts
Capitalists on Wall Street don't give a shit about you. Republicans don't give a shit either. Democrats don't know what they care about.
It takes a Socialist from Vermont to speak for the middle class.
It takes a Socialist from Vermont to speak for the middle class.
Monday, August 29, 2011
US as Third World
On August 25 I had a post on Wall Street and how it bought and captured the institutions originally meant to ensure the public was served. I wrote then, and I say here again, the outsized role of the financial sector and the obscene, short-sighted, and shameless priorities of a reckless investor class, complete with unprecedented lack of accountability and legal liability, are at the heart of America's economic difficulties.
Corporate America's dominance of media and public discourse gloss over the fact that said financial dominance was what conservatives wanted; it was they that pushed through legislation favorable to the wealthy, investors (wealthy or not), and corporations. Conservatives, especially the wealthy variety, have gotten most of what they have wanted; lower taxes, fewer regulations, free movement of capital, lucrative defense contracts, and more.
Crap about how progressive agendas have hurt America are the imaginary domain of the ignorant. Union membership is now at negligible levels, far below similar countries. Labor unions have been weak for the last 30-odd years and getting weaker, just what conservatives wanted.
New Deal legislation had made banking relatively safe and stable for generations. It was conservatives who said barriers between banking and finance were dated and holding us back. So Republicans in Congress overturned Glass-Steagall. Conservatives got what they wanted. Casino capitalism almost immediately ensued; financial meltdown soon followed. They wanted taxpayers to bail out the banks, and without any meaningful reform to prevent further catastrophes or undeserved enrichment. They got that too.
Wages for most workers have been flat for decades, precisely what conservatives have wanted. The US was a wage leader before Reagan; since then, wages for most have been flat. Conservative policy has been to suppress wages however possible. Conservatives got what they wanted.
The list goes on and on; our nation's richest and most powerful get what they want; favorable legislation, weak regulation, accommodating regulators, court rulings, and a compliant press. This should all be obvious to anyone who pays attention and doesn't walk on their knuckles. But reality struggles for attention in the face of a conservative noise machine that continually distracts voters.
Conservatives have also favored free trade, the mantra, the religion, the chiseled-in-stone gospel of laissez faire economics. It is front and center in the pantheon of conservative political economy, right up there with free markets. And here again, conservatives get what they want.
Conservatives, including Republican party operatives, rarely miss a chance to pimp free trade doctrine. American media usually goes along with Republican talking points. Even if one does find articles that dutifully report massive deficits, and even outsourcing, there are few coherent and visible efforts that explain the ramifications in detail and dare to analyze free trade as class warfare or why a lack of industrial policy is destroying us.
To get just an inkling of how international trade is playing out for the US, have a look at the figures below (Data are from Alan Tonelson's America's Increasingly Third World Trade Profile).
Below are the top ten US trade SURPLUS manufacturing categories for Jan.-June, 2011
(billions of current U.S. dollars)
Waste & scrap materials: +$15.53
Spacial classification provisions: +$11.44
Plastics & resins: +$10.19
Soybeans: +$8.81
Non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases: +$7.18
Corn: +$6.67
Wheat: +$6.45
Cotton: +$6.39
Misc. basic organic chemicals: +$3.87
Non-poultry meat: +$3.85
Next are the top ten US trade DEFICIT manufacturing categories for Jan.-June, 2011
(billions of current U.S. dollars)
Crude oil & gas: --$121.13
Autos & light trucks: --$37.82
Petroleum refinery products: --$27.62
Computers: --$22.50
Broadcast & wireless communication. equip.: --$22.35
Goods returned to Canada & reimported: --$21.47
Audio & video equipment: --$15.80
Pharmaceuticals: --$13.38
Telecommunications hardware: --$12.72
Computer parts: --$12.67
Notice a pattern? The US has become a big supplier of scrap and raw materials. Although the data do not show it, this is a substantial reversal of a few decades ago, when the US had a trade surplus in a variety of manufactures, especially high-end, high-tech goods.
Now look at the sectors with the biggest trade deficits. Except for oil, they are all manufactured goods that not long ago were among America's biggest contributors to what we once had, a trade surplus.
There is much to address here. My intention in future posts is to further explore issues in international trade and to demonstrate that America's free-trade ideology and the policies and practices that have resulted, are primarily in the interests of the overclass, have shaped corporate America to serve the interests of that overclass, but are damaging for the country as a whole.
Don't let conservatives tell you the US has a trade deficit because our taxes are too high, wages are too high, unions are too powerful, or regulations are too onerous.
They are wrong on every point.
Corporate America's dominance of media and public discourse gloss over the fact that said financial dominance was what conservatives wanted; it was they that pushed through legislation favorable to the wealthy, investors (wealthy or not), and corporations. Conservatives, especially the wealthy variety, have gotten most of what they have wanted; lower taxes, fewer regulations, free movement of capital, lucrative defense contracts, and more.
Crap about how progressive agendas have hurt America are the imaginary domain of the ignorant. Union membership is now at negligible levels, far below similar countries. Labor unions have been weak for the last 30-odd years and getting weaker, just what conservatives wanted.
New Deal legislation had made banking relatively safe and stable for generations. It was conservatives who said barriers between banking and finance were dated and holding us back. So Republicans in Congress overturned Glass-Steagall. Conservatives got what they wanted. Casino capitalism almost immediately ensued; financial meltdown soon followed. They wanted taxpayers to bail out the banks, and without any meaningful reform to prevent further catastrophes or undeserved enrichment. They got that too.
Wages for most workers have been flat for decades, precisely what conservatives have wanted. The US was a wage leader before Reagan; since then, wages for most have been flat. Conservative policy has been to suppress wages however possible. Conservatives got what they wanted.
The list goes on and on; our nation's richest and most powerful get what they want; favorable legislation, weak regulation, accommodating regulators, court rulings, and a compliant press. This should all be obvious to anyone who pays attention and doesn't walk on their knuckles. But reality struggles for attention in the face of a conservative noise machine that continually distracts voters.
Conservatives have also favored free trade, the mantra, the religion, the chiseled-in-stone gospel of laissez faire economics. It is front and center in the pantheon of conservative political economy, right up there with free markets. And here again, conservatives get what they want.
Conservatives, including Republican party operatives, rarely miss a chance to pimp free trade doctrine. American media usually goes along with Republican talking points. Even if one does find articles that dutifully report massive deficits, and even outsourcing, there are few coherent and visible efforts that explain the ramifications in detail and dare to analyze free trade as class warfare or why a lack of industrial policy is destroying us.
To get just an inkling of how international trade is playing out for the US, have a look at the figures below (Data are from Alan Tonelson's America's Increasingly Third World Trade Profile).
Below are the top ten US trade SURPLUS manufacturing categories for Jan.-June, 2011
(billions of current U.S. dollars)
Waste & scrap materials: +$15.53
Spacial classification provisions: +$11.44
Plastics & resins: +$10.19
Soybeans: +$8.81
Non-anthracite coal and petroleum gases: +$7.18
Corn: +$6.67
Wheat: +$6.45
Cotton: +$6.39
Misc. basic organic chemicals: +$3.87
Non-poultry meat: +$3.85
Next are the top ten US trade DEFICIT manufacturing categories for Jan.-June, 2011
(billions of current U.S. dollars)
Crude oil & gas: --$121.13
Autos & light trucks: --$37.82
Petroleum refinery products: --$27.62
Computers: --$22.50
Broadcast & wireless communication. equip.: --$22.35
Goods returned to Canada & reimported: --$21.47
Audio & video equipment: --$15.80
Pharmaceuticals: --$13.38
Telecommunications hardware: --$12.72
Computer parts: --$12.67
Notice a pattern? The US has become a big supplier of scrap and raw materials. Although the data do not show it, this is a substantial reversal of a few decades ago, when the US had a trade surplus in a variety of manufactures, especially high-end, high-tech goods.
Now look at the sectors with the biggest trade deficits. Except for oil, they are all manufactured goods that not long ago were among America's biggest contributors to what we once had, a trade surplus.
There is much to address here. My intention in future posts is to further explore issues in international trade and to demonstrate that America's free-trade ideology and the policies and practices that have resulted, are primarily in the interests of the overclass, have shaped corporate America to serve the interests of that overclass, but are damaging for the country as a whole.
Don't let conservatives tell you the US has a trade deficit because our taxes are too high, wages are too high, unions are too powerful, or regulations are too onerous.
They are wrong on every point.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Facts Don't Matter
Ah yes, Fox News working its magic. Get a load of the guy in this video admitting that the facts on global warming are on Republican candidate John Huntsman's side. Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments "don't hold a lot of water, but it doesn't matter."
"Perry's gaining traction, facts or not."
If ignorance is bliss, Perry must be ecstatic.
"Perry's gaining traction, facts or not."
If ignorance is bliss, Perry must be ecstatic.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?
Here's Cenk Uygur with guest Matt Taibbi acknowledging that Wall Street is now above the law.
Taibbi, who is one of America's last remaining old-school journalists, the kind that actually investigate the issues that matter and the perps behind the issues, reports on what should be on the front page of every newspaper, but isn't: The Security and Exchange Commission has been routinely destroying data, including sensitive and potentially incriminating data, for years. And it isn't data on you and me, but the bankers, brokers, and hedgies, the ones who have been defrauding us.
So not only are no charges being brought against criminals on Wall Street, much of the primary evidence against them, thanks to an accommodating SEC, has been trashed, quite literally. As Taibbi writes:
That story was in the August 17th edition of Rolling Stone, Taibbi's main haunt. There is, or should be, much more to this story. And, of course, much remains to be actually proven. But that is precisely what the media should be jumping on. Uncover the story one way or another. But we have a deadly combination of feckless media and embarrassing lack of citizen interest and knowledge. Considering all the Ritalin this country takes, you would think people could pay attention.
What do you want to bet this story goes nowhere? Republicans won't touch it because they don't care; they are ones that have largely emasculated the SEC anyway. and Obama is having enough trouble with moneyed interests as it is. He has decided he needs Wall Street's approval, so that quaint shit about equal application of the law is out the door.
Taibbi, who is one of America's last remaining old-school journalists, the kind that actually investigate the issues that matter and the perps behind the issues, reports on what should be on the front page of every newspaper, but isn't: The Security and Exchange Commission has been routinely destroying data, including sensitive and potentially incriminating data, for years. And it isn't data on you and me, but the bankers, brokers, and hedgies, the ones who have been defrauding us.
So not only are no charges being brought against criminals on Wall Street, much of the primary evidence against them, thanks to an accommodating SEC, has been trashed, quite literally. As Taibbi writes:
Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case. No more Lifetime channel specials where the murderer is unveiled after police stumble upon past intrigues in some old file – "Hey, chief, didja know this guy had two wives die falling down the stairs?" No more burglary sprees cracked when some sharp cop sees the same name pop up in one too many witness statements. This is a different world, one far friendlier to lawbreakers, where even the suspicion of wrongdoing gets wiped from the record.
That story was in the August 17th edition of Rolling Stone, Taibbi's main haunt. There is, or should be, much more to this story. And, of course, much remains to be actually proven. But that is precisely what the media should be jumping on. Uncover the story one way or another. But we have a deadly combination of feckless media and embarrassing lack of citizen interest and knowledge. Considering all the Ritalin this country takes, you would think people could pay attention.
What do you want to bet this story goes nowhere? Republicans won't touch it because they don't care; they are ones that have largely emasculated the SEC anyway. and Obama is having enough trouble with moneyed interests as it is. He has decided he needs Wall Street's approval, so that quaint shit about equal application of the law is out the door.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)