Not at all. Take care of yourself and hope you feel better soon.
-XT
No, but it does give us a reasonable and objective standard that’s easily defined. Otherwise it’s too easy to change the status of the “middle class” by changing the definition.
I don’t think there are a whole lot of Marxist leftists, er, left in America outside academia. And I don’t think the academic Marxists have a lot of influence. The only exception would be the leftist Trotskyites who became neocons. But of course, they’re not Trotskyites any more, they’re neocons.
It puzzles me, too, not for Marxist reasons but for humanist reasons. The indifference of some free market advocates to those whose lose their homes and/or their families due to economic dislocations is amazing to me. Unfathomable. I can see not wanting America to become a nanny state offering cradle to the grave security at a fixed economic level, but some people seem to interpret that as a rationale for totally dismantling all the social safety nets that various recessions and depressions have demonstrated are a very good idea. Kicking people who’ve lost their jobs out of their homes and feeling good about it is just strange to me.
Welfare itself was deeply flawed, I’ll grant you that. It destroyed a lot of families with its weird rules. But WIC was and is a great program that I entirely support. I’d like to see universal health care funded by someone other than employers and some kind of program to help people who’ve lost jobs keep their homes while they look for work as well.
Some symptom I would suggest are the increasing amount of US wealth owned by a tiny minority of the wealthy elite (It’s, like, the top five percent own 65 percent of US wealth – I’ll get you a cite if you need one); the stagnation of wages for middle class and lower class workers while upper class workers and people who just own things for a living are doing incredibly well economically.
More specifically, the corruption in Congress as evinced by the Abramov scandals, the shameless advocacy of bridges to nowhere and other obvious boondoggles, the defense by some Republicans of the horrible labor practices in the Marianas Islands, Halliburton’s no-bid contracts in Iraq and the disappearance of billions in Iraq – oh, the list is long, and it all point to some very predatory conduct between some business and government leaders.
Galbraith himself points to the links between the Bushes and the S&L failure scandal of the 80s. I mean, the evidence is out there.
I don’t think it’s ever been done on the scale it’s being done now … well, not since the Gilded Age. Almost every cite Galbraith uses in that paragraph has happend when Bush took office. Galbraith is saying this is something beyond the occasional corrupt episode, it’s more systemic and thus more common. It’s what defines a predator state.
The economy is working very well for the rich, but not nearly so well for the middle class. See ‘stagnant wage.’
milked
Of particular interest – the chart with the red and black background has a listing for Distribution of Household Income – I believe the 50% in the middle making between 22,000 and 77,000 is roughly there, though for a family of three $35,000 is probably closer to the limit between lower class and upper class.
Further down the page is a chart labelled ‘Household income over time’ that graphically reveals the economic stagnation experienced by the poor and middle class.
Why single out the USA, one country of many, at this time, one small part of the whole of human history since money and/or bartering was invented?
People being greedy have been around since forever. Yet we manage to muddle through…
I’m far from conservative; in fact I’m quite liberal. But I always have an issue with those charts of income by time. They seem to imply the assumption that someone will stay in the same quintile of income throughout his or her life. In that case, there is indeed a striking difference in income growth between those at lower income levels and those at higher levels.
But people can change income quintiles during their life. In my adult life, my household income has been in all five quintiles at different times. Should I have been annoyed that my income was “stagnant” fifteen years go, when I was in the bottom quintile, or should I be happy that my income is rising, now that I’m in
the top quintile?
Ed
Because I live here?
And greed has been an evil part of human nature throughout time. I suppose you’d be OK with slavery, since the Roman and Greek empires were built on slave labor, because ‘greed has been around since forever.’ Just because an evil is persistent, that doesn’t mean we should stop fighting it.
Y’know, if you read Galbraith’s essay while wearing special sunglasses, the word OBEY becomes visible.
Sure, individuals move from quintile to quintile over the course of a lifetime. It’s generally agreed, for example, that for many people the only difference between being lower class and middle class is getting a decent job. Happens quite frequently, so there’s a lot of churn between those classes. Churn between the middle and upper economic strata is not nearly as prevalent.
The problem that the chart underscores is this: as our society has grown wealthier over time, the upper class has benefited greatly and the middle and lower classes have remained stagnant, which in essence amounts to losing ground. This means the income gap between the upper class and the middle class is widening. Drastically. Many economists regard this as a Bad Thing in and of itself, including some conservative economists such as the recently departed chairman of the Fed.
To my mind, it’s another symptom of the Predator State. The wealthy are gaming the system to make themselves richer, with a side effect of making everyone else poorer. Unless you’re looking forward to a future in which America is run like a Third World banana republic in perpetuity (instead of just during the Bush Administration) you should find this alarming.
By rote-learning and conditioned habits, I suppose. Same way he managed to earn a Ph.D. in economics from Yale, get a Marshall Scholarship at King’s College in Cambridge, become Executive Director of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, and become the Lloyd Bentsen Chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Any monkey could do it.
Kevin Phillips has drawn the same parallel, IIRC, but I cannot recall in which of his books/writings. He sees it as cyclic: The rich grow arrogant and predatory, then there is a populist backlash like the New Deal, but it doesn’t last forever.
Kevin Phillips? Ha! The Master has spoken on this issue!
Oh pullll-eeze. I never said greed (or slavery) was ok. I asked why the USA was singled out as something special in this regard, when greed has been around far longer, and still exists in places other than just the US…
See the difference in the question now?
More exaggeration, IMO. Greed (or at least extreme corporate capitalism) are nothing new, either. Remember Carnegie? Rockefeller? Hearst? These guys were also accused of contributing to the collapse of “Freedom As We Know It”.
Despite the raw power these types of guys held in the 1890’s, the US was able to come up with Unions, anti-trust laws, tighter copyright and trademark laws (some of the purpose of which was to protect the small entrepenuer from having his successful product idea from being “stolen” by a bigger corp), and so on. So, despite the power those guys weilded, change was still made to protect the consumer and worker. If the corporate types truly wielded absolute control, there would be no Unions, or labor laws, etc, or at least they would get repealed.
While there are still bad people trying to get rich by various nefarious means (like the Enron type scandals), the US still moves towards a “positive” direction, IMO.
Are there too many “loop holes” that those who know the system can take advantage of? I assume there are. But I also have faith that the society will be able to protect itself from financial tyrants.
I also don’t believe that all rich folk everwhere are treading upon the broken backs of the proletariat, and that each and every one of them are evil, or would be if they could get away with it, any more than there are evil middle class or poor people.
It has always been the case were the law abiders need to “stay vigilant” to catch the scammers and those who abuse others to get rich. There is no perfect system where the average law abiding citizen can be assured that crime of any type (including corporate crime and abuses) just cannot happen, and that the citizenry can finally let the “system” go on auto-pilot.
No surprise there. If you have more money, you have more to invest, which can add to your income significantly. If you’re in the middle and lower class with a family, these opportunities may not be within reach right away to make huge income gains. What should be done about it?
Okay, so we’ve got a bunch of arrogant Predators, so when do the illegal Aliens come in to fight and provide backlash?
(I’m sorry, but I’ve been wanting to make an AVP reference ever since the thread started.)
You know, ralph, you sound just like Marx predicting capitalism will inevitably self-destruct from its internal contradictions. And you should know the American welfare state is a pale and spare and feeble thing compared to what most modern industrialized states have got. Do you see any of them approaching revolution or collapse or catastrophic system failure?
And, like xtisme said, you should be careful what you wish for – which appears to be the collapse of the state, not the economy. Do you really imagine the latter can thrive without the former? It never does in any failed state. Government is not some useless parasitic growth on the private-sector economy; their relationship is symbiotic.