Pardon a small correction here, but corporations that are engaged in activities like mountain-top removal to ravage the environment for coal or fracking for oil might have somewhat different motivations than media like the New York Times whose primary business is information and the fundamental preservation of democracy through an informed populace.
The business of institutions like the NYT isn’t to maximize profits through environmental destruction, but to be a free press and the impartial disseminators of information governed by standards of journalistic integrity – something that has always been recognized as essential to an actual and functional democracy.
The fact that you and others like you can’t even discern a difference is exactly why an idiot like Trump has become a serious candidate, to the embarrassment of most of the country and the GOP itself, and why US political campaigns like this one are more and more becoming the laughingstock of the world.
Considering the fact that I’m not a supporter of Donald Trump makes your argument here look really dumb.
No, it’s nothing to do with Trump or people like Trump. The issue is that those of us who believe in free speech don’t believe that only certain groups get to have it.
I notice you don’t even support the idea that “the media” is protected by the First Amendment but merely “media like the New York Times.”
I don’t know whether that’s the proper framing of a question. But I think I can show an example of conservative 501c(4)s seriously distorting the marketplace of ideas.
It happens in the state houses. These are low bore elections. Back in 2008 the highly conservative Republican John Ward of Montana was challenged by a not particularly charismatic contender in the primary. But four days (!) before the election, outside groups smeared him with attack fliers. Because most people are disengaged at that level (even political junkies like myself) they are vulnerable to such shenanigans. Examples: [INDENT][INDENT] “John Ward voted with criminal-coddling liberal activists.” “Are high energy prices killing you?” “John Ward had a choice.” Instead, you raised their taxes. “Mothers Against Child Predators”— “certified to be true and accurate.” Wow.[/INDENT][/INDENT] It turns out these different groups were basically run by the same guy. He runs a number of organizations out of PO Boxes. The underlying operation appears to be Western Tradition Partnership, which accepts corporate contributions but does not disclose its names.
Summary: [INDENT]Prof. DAVID PARKER, Montana State University: Voters have far less information at these local elections. There’s a lot less money that’s being spent on these elections already, so if you have a big gorilla come into town and drop a lot of cash— let’s say $100,000, $200,000 in that race— I think the effect there could be much more tremendous than at the federal level. [/INDENT]
Frontline: Big Sky, Big Money: Big Sky, Big Money | FRONTLINE
Your adamant refusal to recognize the facts discussed throughout this thread doesn’t change those facts. The facts as cited particularly in the Gilens-Page study and the Mayer book in question, clearly describing how the US has become an almost comical caricature of plutocratic dominance unique in the world, where an actual majority of eligible voters are so jaded that they typically don’t even bother to vote any more and the government is widely and correctly regarded as a tool of the oligarchy, where the middle class is stagnant and the rich are getting vastly richer and getting ever more preferential tax treatment and corporate handouts. The persistent and adamant refusal to recognize these basic facts is nothing short of breathtaking.
No. Just no. That is not just the only principle, it’s the very definition of democracy. If you happen to value unlimited political spending regardless of consequences and regardless of the harm it does to democratic principles and to society, that no longer has anything to do with democracy and has a lot more to do with the kind of libertarian delusion that actually stems from distrust of democratic governance.
I’m not “ignoring” it, I freaking just explicitly stated it! But the second sentence is Alice-in-Wonderland backwards logic. Regulation of political spending so that ordinary people actually have a voice instead of being drowned out by the overwhelming dominance of moneyed interests is precisely how you get your government back.
You don’t seem to have any appreciation for how insidiously and completely big money can infiltrate the public dialog and shape the public mindset. Why do you think it took so many decades and such tremendous effort to shake the tobacco lobby – something that never would have happened at all except for the fact that millions of people were dying right in front of us? How come somewhere around half of Americans think climate change is a hoax or exaggeration perpetrated by liberal environmentalists despite the incontrovertible scientific evidence? How come the US is the only industrialized country on earth without universal health care despite being the best able to afford it, and despite the enormous toll on treasure and suffering that it exacts from its own citizens?
No one cares who you support. Who you happen to support has absolutely nothing to do with the problems created by the kinds of ideologies that you support, like the inability to distinguish between the right of free speech and plutocratic domination of the political system.
Good, now you’ve just contradicted yourself.
Well, I believe in free speech and I’ve never suggested that “only certain groups get to have it”. Didn’t you just say something about “makes your argument here look really dumb”? How ironic!
You’re the one who brought up the NYT as an example, not me. There’s nothing special about the NYT in terms of press freedoms, except maybe to you.
An oft-repeated myth on this board is that the middle class has stagnated since the 70s. But while this is ludicrous on its face (who among us would rather live a 70s, 80s, 90s standard of living?), it also isn’t born out by the facts. See the Congressional Budget Office (PDF)
Yes, it definitely helps to get the facts straight, and that’s just what I was doing. Not sure what counterpoint you’re trying to prove. Of course we’d mostly rather live in the present era because advances in technology and medicine make life better, not because income distribution isn’t becoming regressively lopsided. The US Gini coefficient is way above all other advanced nations and rising faster than any except China.
First of all that CBO report doesn’t really say anything substantially different than what I’ve said once you actually delve into details, like this from the text of your own cite:
For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 (see Summary Figure 1).
For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979.
But here are some more fascinating facts you ought to get straight (emphasis mine):
In 81 percent of American counties, the median income, about $52,000, is less than it was 15 years ago. This is despite the fact that the economy has grown 83 percent in the past quarter-century and corporate profits have doubled. American workers produce twice the amount of goods and services as 25 years ago, but get less of the pie.
Since 1990, CEO compensation has increased by 300%. Corporate profits have doubled. The average worker’s salary has increased 4%. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage has actually decreased.
Tax rates for the middle class have remained essentially unchanged since 1960. Tax rates on the highest earning Americans have plunged from an almost 70% tax rate in 1945 down to around 35% today. Corporate tax rates have dropped from 30 percent in the 1950s to under 10 percent today.
The average wealth of an American adult is in the range of $250,000-$300,000 … But that average number includes incomprehensibly wealthy people … The median per adult number is only about $39,000, placing the U.S. about 27th among the world’s nations, behind Australia, most of Europe and even small countries like New Zealand, Ireland and Kuwait.
Excellent cite. It shows the impact that advocacy can have.
I agree with everything here except your first (apparently misdirected) sentence. I think you’re confusing me with someone else.
Again, you’re not arguing with anything I’ve said. I do not “value unlimited political spending regardless of consequences” etc. I’m willing to consider limits on speech–that’s why I’m asking for any evidence that speech is being drowned out. I’ve suggested what kind of evidence I’m looking for: “show me the failures in the marketplace of ideas: what the barriers to entry are for alternative views, what prevents advocates from increasing their viewership, how voters are coerced into voting against their preferences”.
But you’re “rebutting” with stuff I already agree with. Try responding to what I’ve told you would change my position.
Our fundamental disagreement seems to be that you value the political ends more than I value the means to get there. I’m not willing to limit anyone’s rights to advocate or organize, because they advocate and organize more than I do, unless there’s evidence that others are being denied their rights to advocate and organize. So please address that rather than make complaints about the system that we already agree on.
On the one hand we have a political activist organization that wants to keep secret the identities of its members/supporters for fear that if the information were published, it might lead to personal reprisals against them – social ostracism, termination of business dealings, termination of employment, perhaps even beatings and lynchings.
On the other hand we have billioinaires and megacorps who want to keep their political spending anonymous for fear, perhaps, that it would lessen the impact of the advertising if its sources of funding were publicly known.
No, there is no equivalence. What made you think there is any equivalence?
This has nothing to do with a stagnant middle class and has no bearing on my quality of life and standard of living as a middle-class American.
It shows middle class income growth, which is substantially different than what you said about the middle class being stagnant.
This has nothing to do with the middle class, let alone a stagnant middle class, and has no bearing on my quality of life and standard of living as a middle-class American.
These folks might not count as middle class, but that sure looks like growth to me.
Since CBO shows us that their piece of the pie is bigger, then people must have moved elsewhere to make their money. I did. I’m doing it again this summer, for the fifth time in ten years.
CEO compensation, the minimum wage, and the taxes on the rich and C corps have little to do with the middle class stagnation.
This may actually be interesting and relevant to middle class stagnation, although we’d need to see the trends.
That’s hardly the only point. All the others are equally valid and tell the same story.
But to follow up on this one point, I’m not sure quite what trends you’re looking for, though it would be nice to see what the median was in different countries in prior decades. However, for starters, the increasing US Gini coefficient I mentioned certainly suggests that the median income is doing much worse in the US than in other industrialized nations. Here’s another example of the divergence of wealth share.
I would also cite the rather extraordinary difference in median net worth between the US and other first-world nations. In 2012 it was $115,245 in Great Britain, $81,610 in Canada, and $38,786 in the US.
These things are all self-consistent and here’s the kicker that supports my assertion of a stagnant middle class. Median income in real inflation-adjusted terms has been practically flat since 1967. It rose 20-something percent, but that’s in half a century. Ask the Koch brothers how their wealth has been doing, and if they consider that a decent ROI.
I want trends in median net worth because “stagnation” has a time component to it. Comparing to other countries doesn’t tell us the US is stagnant. Comparing the US to itself over time tells us about stagnation. Divergence is not stagnation.
Regardless, I expect the mid-wealthers got clobbered in ~2008, and am trying to see how that fits the trend before and after. Not having much luck.
CBO shows 35% growth over 28 years and explains their methodology. That’s not stagnant. Your picture does not explain methodology, but likely leaves out multiple inputs captured by CBO. But even if they did screw it up, 20-something percent growth in income (PS: that’s not what ROI means) is not stagnant.
Yes, it’s stagnant. The 21% increase over nearly half a century is less than a 0.4% compound annual rate of return. Even your optimistic numbers represent 1.06%. I know what ROI means, thanks. What I’m trying to get across is the simple concept that few businesses would consider such returns to be a good investment, yet that seems to be the fate of the middle class. But the wealth of the 1% has multiplied by many times that.
This is in fact the central point of the Thomas Piketty book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which is a good complement to the Mayer book. It’s not a uniquely American phenomenon that the wealthy have access to investment instruments and opportunities not available to ordinary people – not to mention tax avoidance schemes – but the US is the epicenter of the underlying mechanisms and political ideologies that drive this phenomenon and the consequent growing wealth and income gap.
It’s great if that suits your needs and ambitions and if you’re pursuing good career opportunities, but it shouldn’t be necessary to be forced to make major moves like that just to keep one’s head above water. And not everyone even has the opportunity. To people with families, family roots, children in school, and established lifestyles it can be hugely disruptive even if they did. I’ll repeat the statement that this was in reference to: “In 81 percent of American counties, the median income … is less than it was 15 years ago.” So having to paddle like hell just to stay in the same financial place is not exactly a ringing endorsement of a system in which the economy, productivity, and overall wealth have in fact all grown strongly, yet somehow the benefits never seem to trickle down to the middle and lower classes.
Businesses may or may not like that return, depending on the risk to the I part of ROI. But I and others have plenty of money locked up in investments expected to pay less than that after inflation. And that **growth **is perfectly acceptable to me.
But as for businesses and an average 1% increase in revenue after inflation, not a return on investment, please sign my businesses up.
Yes, the rich are making more money faster than I am. That does not negate my growth and that of my middle class peers.
If people moving bothers you, you’ll be pleased to learn that people are doing it much less than they used to. But the 81% of counties stat really is meaningless. I’ve already shown that people aren’t staying in the same financial place, and that’s in addition to the improved health and technology that we agree makes people’s lives better. So some number of those counties must have people moving away from them. High-earning individuals are more likely to move. Concentrate them in 19% of the counties, and we can see every single person in every county making more money, but still see decreased median income in the remaining 81%.
OK, I’ve finally read Mayer’s book (there was a long waiting list at the library), and, man! :eek: The way she tells it – and the way a lot of Republican Party officials tell it – the Koch network is actually this close to supplanting the GOP! That is, sidelining its officials and deciding who the candidates shall be. Yes, it’s that big.
Mayer nowhere says that as such, though it’s strongly implied, particularly in her coverage of the Koch network’s decades-long and successful fight against campaign finance laws. “Dark” here means “secret”; Mayer extensively documents how the Kochs and other economic-libertarian billionaires launder a lot of their political funding through foundations such as Donors Trust which exist to erase the fingerprints. More broadly, the whole thing is “dark,” the Kochs for decades have been obsessively committed to building their network and power out of sight of the public and government.
I don’t understand why you think they have a good chance of doing so, but then it isn’t super clear what their objectives are purported to be. If we assume that the OP is correct, for instance, in its interpretation of Meyer’s claim that the Koch brothers want the entire Constitution eliminated and replaced with one line protecting property - which is a stupid claim and obviously not true - what do you think the likelihood of that happening is?
You say they want to create a “dystopian” world, which taken literally also seems unlikely, what is your definition for achievement of dystopia and how likely is it?
In fits and spurts, the USA seems to be advancing, not regressing. How long have the Kochs been at this? And if their efforts have not worked to this point to create a Mad Max-like society where they rule as Immortan Joe and The Humongous, what evidence is there that their efforts will succeed in the future?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It is the most thoroughly researched book you ever saw.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, really? This book is the most thoroughly researched book I will have ever seen? Gosh, that’s saying a lot, because I’ve read some awfully well researched textbooks. Are you really willing to stand by this statement?
Since 1980, when Charles ran for president on the Libertarian Party line. At that time they both disdained conventional major-party politics, but eventually they figured out they could make the GOP their own.
