How far away are Americans from the "breaking point"?

Great Debates
21

While I’m sure you think that whatever conditions you are seeing prevail throughout the country, I assure you that this isn’t the case. There aren’t a lot of starving masses looking for cake in my own neck of the woods. Do you have a cite that food banks and charity kitchen are seeing more demand than ever before? I’m simply interested…I don’t doubt that it’s the case, considering how hard this recession has been on some.

Of course, the reason those food banks and charity kitchens can give out unprecedented amounts of food is, well, because it’s still so cheap, relatively speaking…no? Even the price of cake is cheap…

-XT

22

It depends on what you want an indicator of. CPI for social security benefits, inflation protected treasury bonds and savings bonds, and probably COLA would include the volatile costs of food and energy. So, for the purpose of measuring purchasing power and payments tied to that, it’s used.

However, for trying to figure out whether the economy is overheating leading to a rise in inflation, it’s often excluded. I don’t think the Fed should start tightening now, even though food and energy is higher, do you? I don’t think increases in CPI due to food and energy spikes is an indicator of an overheating economy right now.

23

It’s hard enough getting Americans show up at the ballot box once every 4 years let alone getting people to take to the streets in a violent uprising. I have better odds of being able to go the Moon on vacation thatn seeing that in my lifetime.

24

Yeah, and my teenage self thought there would certainly be revolution, just like my father’s teenage self thought the Bonus Marchers and Hoovervilles in the Great Depression would absolutely lead to revolution.

We were both wrong. But his climate of revolutionary ferment led to Franklin Roosevelt while mine led to Richard Nixon.

25

Who are these Powers That Be of which which you speak? Hint: Jeffrey Sachs, while a respected economist, isn’t a PTB by a long shot. And neither are you.

If we need another revolution, we’ll outsource it.

26

Um…you first?

America is the most resistant country to revolution in human history. There’s the comfortable lifestyles of its citizens, the facade and trappings of a formal democracy (like the guy said in this thread, without a hint of irony, just go vote), the culture of conformity, the extensive propaganda system, too many diversions to list (someone already made an Idol joke) and if somehow there’s ever an actual threat it has the strongest military ever devised by man. Plus many of its citizens are obese, which means they aren’t very good at activities like lugging 50 pounds of gear across a forest or digging a hole in frozen ground to hide the weapons cache.

27

When I get on later tonight I’ll try to find one of the many local stories about this. I’m in the Bay Area, remember, not Appalachia. And I’m not disputing that the price of food is relatively cheap - hell we waste huge amounts of it. However it is not so cheap that affording it isn’t still a problem for those in the most need.

We’ve stepped up our level of donations to the Alameda County Food Bank for this very reason. It seems like one of the most effective ways to help.

As for the price of cake, it was cheaper when I worked near the Orowheat/Entemann’s bakery thrift store.

28

Maybe, but one thing we know for sure. It will be televised.

29

I’m uncertain why you’re asking for a cite when you yourself admit that the recession has been hard on some. Also, please note that the comment was that food banks are seeing demand, not that they are giving out unprecedented amounts of food.

Food banks throughout the country are running low on supplies due to greater demand and lesser donations.

With just 21 jars of baby food left on its shelves, the United Churches of Algiers food bank has closed until further notice, Director Sheila Riviore said. (Louisiana)

The Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia has hit a critical shortage in donations and is asking for the public’s help. (Virginia)

The Woodbridge Fuel/Food Fund is experiencing a shortage due to the high demands this winter season. (From a Republican member of the Connecticut legislature!)

An extreme food shortage prompts the South Plains Food Bank to call an emergency food drive and they need the community’s support now more then ever. (Texas)

Now lets look at food stamps:
The program has already grown from 26.3 million users per month in 2007 to almost 42 million in 2010. It’s projected to reach 43.3 million users per month in 2011.

30

Well, we wouldn’t personally overthrow the government. We’d hire some Asians to do it for us.

31

Sachs implied it is when the programs that the elderly depend on start getting cut.

I also think if there is another economic collapse within 10 years due to wall street mismanagement, and the US economy does not have the resources to withstand it that could contribute. When the 2008 collapse hit we had a decent level of resources. If there is another collapse in 2017 or so, the debt will be higher, the public will be anti-bailout, borrowing will be harder, etc.

But I don’t think any revolution would be violent. However, since it seems that plutocracy is pretty entrenched in both parties I have no idea what’ll happen with democracy. Why bother voting when both parties seem indifferent to the economic lives of the majority of the country? There are movements around the edges, not reform. But at the end of the day the financial system can do whatever they want, good jobs don’t exist and our health care is unaffordable. The GOP is nakedly plutocratic but the democratic party just wants to tinker around the edges w/o taking on any real entrenched powers. Either way it doesn’t change the serious problems we have (income inequality, unaffordable education, unaffordable health care, lack of jobs, an unstable financial system) no matter which party you vote for.

Right now it is pretty easy to ignore and marginalize the 20-30 million people suffering severely due to this recession. That seems to be our current response, just muddle through and marginalize all the human suffering and hope we can borrow enough money to get through this period and that the economy will fix itself.

There might be a massive political realignment. A good book on that subject is ‘aftershock’ by Robert Reich. He makes the argument that unless income inequality and plutocracy start to go on the mend then there will be a political movement that allies right wing (anti-immigrant, anti-outsourcing, xenophobic) and left wing (pro-labor, pro-subsidy, anti-corporate, high-tax) economic ideas into a political movement in the US.

Another good thing to read is Simon Johnson’s article about the IMF and the US. He thinks if another major collapse happens, maybe the US will be forced to enact necessary reforms. If not he predicts we will muddle along

32

Brilliant point, sir.

33

The OP can’t even be bothered to make a blog. He uses message boards for it.

34

Of course. My first marches were for black rights. Then the Vietnam marches. I have spend many hours carrying signs.
It was not fun and games. There were always establishment goons who were happy to bust heads. We had to march but not be confrontational no matter how nasty the goons got. Then when it was over we had to walk along with the women to keep them safe. Men did not leave alone if they could help it.

35

I daresay any American effort to violently overthrow the system will pale in comparison to the routinely violent celebration that follows a local sports team winning a championship.

36

On that note, a classic one is the one reported by Marco Polo in a Britannica documentary, Marco Polo reported that silk was so abundant in the capital of the Chinese emperor that even the poor did use it.

It seems that some people assume that the poor having a few local abundant goods means that they should not complain, the flaw on that assumption is that the people **are **still poor.

37

Here is a pdf report of a survey of food banks.

Nuff said.

38

I know, right?

Like, with all of the nuclear plants getting torn up by tornadoes and the big ocean waves causing droughts in Egypt, and, you know, like, that overthrow of Japan and stuff? I mean–really… our government is causing lots of problems for the whole world and for the children here in America, right?

And so, like, everyone in the dorm was gonna, you know, like, protest and march and all that? And then that skinny guy from 3rd Floor West was all: “Fuck that marching around with signs and shit man… this is WAR!!! It’s a WAR declared on the helpless upper-middle class by the powers-that-be, and we’ve had enough, man! The time for the Revolution has ARRIVED!!!”

And we were all, “Fuck YEAH, man!! Power to the PEOPLE!” and all that. And, like, we were all ready to burn down the Admin Building and everything—you know, start a REAL revolution, and all that, and it was gonna be really rockin’!!!

But then this one chick stood on a table and yelled, “The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised!!!”

And we were all like, Whaaaaaat? Will it be on YouTube, then?

And she was all like, “No way. Fuck that corporate-elitist shit! It not gonna be televised or even filmed at all, and nobody’s gonna Tweet it or “Like” it on Facebook. That’s the whole point, you guys!!! It’s a revolution! Get it?”

Whuuuuuhhhh???

Damn, dude! Like, that chick was a total buzzkill and stuff! I mean, why have a revolution if you aren’t even gonna be, like, in some YouTube video that goes viral, or on TV or something?

Yeah… so then we were all just like, “WhatEVER!!”

39

I’d like to hijack the thread briefly to agree with RitterSport.

Moreover, since many commodity prices are influenced by global supply and demand issues, but Fed policy aims at overheating local to the U.S., I’ve been of the opinion for some time that Fed Res needs to rethink its interest rate policies.

40

Revolutions in America do not involve violent overthrow of the government - but massive turnout at the voting booth. I do not know of anyone on the left (or the right) who is taken seriously that considers armed (or unarmed) revolution an option. The majority of radical leftists and progressives (and reactionaries) advocate electing candidates that will adopt their platform, and protest marches are not intended to be rallying cries for marching on city hall or the state capitols to ‘throw the bums out’, but to mobilize enough voters to show up on election day to throw the bums out.

You see the American-style revolution playing out in Wisconsin - what is the main tactic of the progressives there? To gather enough petitions to hold a recall election as soon as possible, and to challenge the new laws through the courts.

On the other side, the Christian Right gained political weight not by advocating revolution but by electing their candidates - starting with school boards, then state legislatures, and then national offices.

And we have had successful ballot box revolutions in America - candidates elected on the platform that they will change the status quo and dramatically reform government. And they do happen about once a generation - on the national level you have seen Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and LBJ.

Obama was elected with the hopes he would be in their mold, but has demonstrated the unfortunate tendency to be far more moderate than what his supporters had hoped for - which he paid for in the midterm election. My wag is that if he had strongly pursued the agenda he campaigned on, the left would have had his back last November, but he did not, and so they did not. Unless he decides to become more assertive, I think there is a good chance he will be a one-term president. His style suggests more assertiveness is not likely. He wants to govern from the middle - which only alienates both sides and the middle is the quietest voice in America and thus very hard to maintain support from.

The other major problem is that successful ballot box revolutions rarely happen through the existing parties. And only by alienating existing parts of their coalitions. If the new part is stronger than the old part, no problem, but the realignments are always messy. Democrats gained the civil rights coalition, but lost the South. Republicans are being dominated by the Christian Right and the Tea Party, but are losing the soccer moms and independents as well as alienating possible coalition members. (I think most Hispanics and Asians would tend to support traditional conservative values - pro-family, pro-business, smaller government, but as long as the rhetoric on the right keeps bashing immigrants and pushing evangelical Protestant Christianity as a litmus test, those groups will remain independent.)

So is America reaching the “breaking point” to support another party to support a “revolution”? Not on the left. The Greens may be a viable alternative if they can get their house in order and attract enough progressive Democrats to jump ship, but they are still reeling from costing Gore the election in 2000 and they still have trouble creating a coherent platform that appeals to progressive voters, let alone independents, (quick - what do Greens stand for?). The Democratic Party might be the vehicle if progressives can wrest control from the neo-liberals and “Third Way” politicians. If the Republicans keep overplaying their hand as they are currently doing, that might drive enough progressives to take control of the Democratic Party. It could also drive enough of them away from the Democratic Party and the left is split in two (or more), and the Republicans continue to reach a plurality at the ballot box which is enough for a majority in the legislatures.

If unemployment hits 10-15% and stays there, and we lose another $10 trillion in household wealth, and inflation starts to rise (a gallon of gas and milk both hit $5/gallon and stay there) while wages remain flat or decline further, then the door is open for a new player if they can provide a coherent platform to address those issues.

But the brunt of the pain will still be felt by two groups - the urban poor and the rural poor, which still have very different views on political and social issues. Until that divide can be bridged, and I am skeptical it can be, any chance of a revolution - ballot box or otherwise - will be slim, and the status quo of ineffective leadership will continue until we reach catastrophic failure - which would entail a complete economic meltdown and collapse of the federal government. At that point I could see the United States dissolving as states decide to go their own way, more than a national revolution. Given our current course, I would say that is about ten to twenty years away with the predominately urban states seceding, and the rural states forming a smaller Union (with a very weak federal government.)