I found the article startling, it’s weird to see an article about the rich in a conservative magazine that SO EXACTLY parallels what you might find in a progressive magazine on the same topic. To me, it suggest that the truth is becoming so obvious that only True Believers of various stripes can’t see it.
Here in Georgia, progressive types have joined with Tea Party types to make some headway in getting the things they agree on passed in the legislature. Perhaps it’s time for a national meet-up between progressives and old-style conservatives on this issue. We may have our differences, but we both agree that our super-rich are THE problem in America right now.
Dude. :rolleyes: There have always been different degrees of engagement, including near-complete, available for purchase, as well. The author is engaging in revisionist history with his examples.
There is no data in the article to support the author’s opinion that the rich are supposedly the most detached from the rest of the people that they ever have been. It is just an opinion.
In my opinion, the “very rich” are closer to the hoi polloi today than ever in history (still doesn’t mean it’s very close) because of the rate of innovation and use of innovation in everyday life. They use the same computers as the rest of the people, they play the same games on the same iPads that the rest do, they watch the same movies and TV shows that the rest do, I bet their TVs are usually not bigger than the 80" one I have, they play the same MMORPGs that the rest do, they access the same Internet that the rest do and I bet their access speed to the 'net is less than mine in many cases.
True, their kids don’t go to same schools that mine do, and they don’t spend their vacations in the same places I do, and they don’t fly in the same planes that I do. But that has always been so, and there’s not any more “detachment” today than there used to be in those areas.
What are the substantive differences between this article and Michael Moore’s standard arguments against globalism and multi-national capitalism?
How is this writer a conservative, or Republican? The positions he takes in the article seem more moderate Democrat, like a retired Blue Dog who’s free to speak his mind because he doesn’t have to do anymore campaign fundraising.
Is that because this guy isn’t truly a conservative, or because the Republicans have sprinted so far to the right that actual conservatives look moderate?
Actually, I’ll answer that: It’s neither, mainly. The writer is someone who still takes pride in his country, and sees (accurately, I believe) that the plutocrats controlling the Republican party are paying mere lipservice to the notion of patriotism while soaking the country for every bit of wealth they can. And when America folds, fuck it. Transfer that wealth into Euros and go live in Dubai. That’s not even on the left-right spectrum, that’s just pure selfishness and greed, and someone who still cares about America as a country can see that and oppose it without necessarily being a socialist liberal.
Here’s a NYT op-ed piece that discusses something along the same line - only in regard to large manufacturers. Back in the day, the actual job creators understood the importance of treating their workers with respect and saw that there was a circle of prosperity, and that they had to hold up their part in it for everyone to prosper (pay decent wages, decent benefits, etc.). In turn for this decent treatment of workers, the workers could afford to buy the company’s products (or services) and those of other manufacturers or businesses.
Seems that entire mindset has disappeared for the short term profiteering that seems to be the main goal in today’s economy. Get the cheapest labor to make the cheapest product and get your investors the most short term profits. Not a recipe for long term success, IMO. Once the rich - or the business leaders (usually one and the same) sever their attachment, or feeling of connectedness, to the population at large, how can society prosper?
Well there is conservative the ideology and conservative the political orientation. Not necessarily the same thing. Conservative the political orientation is more vested in emotion and who you identify with, which tends to be political leaders and commentators. Currently conservative political orientation involves a slobbering worship of the wealthy or “job creators” as they are fawningly called, seeking desperately to please them by lowering taxes and punishing the poor for being poor, or whatever else their lords and masters will help.
Conservative the political ideology tends to favor the wealthy too, but draws a distinction when they see the wealthy at odds with the welfare of America in general, as is the case now. The author strikes me as a typical Reagan conservative, much like Barrack Obama. And yes … the Republicans and the right HAVE shifted that far in the last few years.
Well there is conservative the ideology and conservative the political orientation. Not necessarily the same thing. Conservative the political orientation is more vested in emotion and who you identify with, which tends to be political leaders and commentators. Currently conservative political orientation involves a slobbering worship of the wealthy or “job creators” as they are fawningly called, seeking desperately to please them by lowering taxes and punishing the poor for being poor, or whatever else their lords and masters will help.
Conservative the political ideology tends to favor the wealthy too, but draws a distinction when they see the wealthy at odds with the welfare of America in general, as is the case now. The author strikes me as a typical Reagan conservative, much like Barrack Obama. And yes … the Republicans and the right HAVE shifted that far in the last few years.
[/QUOTE]
I’m in general agreement with all of this, but very little of it seems to resonate with Republican primary voters. Maybe they reason that the Democrats are just as bad when it comes to embracing scorched earth capitalism, so they might as well vote for the candidate that will put the smack down on them uppity libruls and rowdy coloreds.
Very well said, and I agree. I know this is an op-ed piece, but it has a resonance to it that smacks of truth, particularly given the “side of the aisle” this is coming from. Although I do think that the Republican Party has gone completely sideways and that a moderate voice like the author of this article’s is like a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it.
Mr Henry Ford comes to mind as an example of “the right way” to get rich. Pay your workers well, thereby engendering loyalty, make a quality product that people want to buy, streamline your process and there you go (his anti-semitism aside).
To a certain extent you are correct. One of the benefits of outsourcing and globalization and free trade is that the common man can purchase the products and services they need at an affordable price.
However the point of the opinion piece is not that the author has a problem with the super-wealthy have access to cooler toys than everyone else. It’s that their vast wealth allows them to create what is essentially a separate, self contained, self-perpetuating socioeconomic class. If you are not born into that scoiety with their gated communities and private schools, you have little chance to gain access to the education, capital and other resources that would allow you to join the upper classes, regardless of your drive and talent.
While you’re playing on your iPad, they are living in gated communities, sending theri kids to private schools, and lobbying for policies that will outsource your job to India and reduce the number of qualified teachers in your kid’s school.
Have you read any American history? The issue of taxing imports is one of the central issues. At the moment, “free traders” (traditionally Southerners and farmers) have the upper hand. They use it to implement policies that allow cheap stuff into the US and so kill off low-level jobs.
Seriously, this is explained at public schools most days.
Pfft. What the GOP base is really looking for is fairy tales. Lie to them about society and the economy in ways that flatter them and their beliefs and they’re yours.
You know, I had put a sentence in there that we could change government policy to raise tariffs if we wanted to prevent outsourcing, but I deleted it because I didn’t think anyone would actually advocate it. So yeah, we could raise tariffs on all that “cheap stuff” that Americans love to buy, but all that will do is raise the cost of living and make American companies less competitive in the world market.
Tariffs don’t help consumers. They help uncompetitive companies.
No, his point is (I think, correct me if I’m wrong) that this class is MORE self-perpetuating than before, that the gated communities are MORE exclusive than before and private schools are MORE exclusive than before, and access to education, capital and other resources is harder to get for non-members of the class than before.
Of course, he doesn’t give any data to support this point, and I think it’s bunk.
But why not produce those things here? Why outsource? Obviously the answer is cheap labor. Why can’t an American company produce things for Wal-Mart that China does? Who benefits from this in the end?
Based on what? The income gap has been widening for at least 40 years now. You’re telling me you think that the wealthy are MORE involved with and directly connected to the middle class and poor NOW than THEN?
Maybe you’re right, but…what’s the evidence? The larger the income gap gets, the less people at the extremes have in common…so why would they mix MORE?