Simple question...

[Arkady]

President Barack Obama has made income inequality the focus of his re-election campaign.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/14edd8fc-71c4-11e1-b853-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pq1wIM3G

Is this the "focus" of a "capitalist?" I would think economic growth would be the "focus" of a capitalist running for President. What do you all think?

The long-term survival of a capitalist system is dependent on having buy-in from the majority of the populace. Without that, capitalism is soon overwhelmed by corruption, embezzlement, and general crime, turning it into kleptocracy. So, of course anyone who values capitalism will focus on income inequality, when that inequality gets bad enough to represent a long-term threat to the system itself. FDR is a great example. In the early 1930s, the Communist Party and fascists were both making huge gains in the United States and it seemed like a realistic threat that the angry masses would give up on capitalism entirely if the Great Depression just kept dragging on. We'd seen in Russia and Germany how sufficiently impoverished and desperate masses would line up behind extremists willing to impose radical new solutions. FDR helped to head that off, by addressing the failings of capitalism in a way that preserve the fundamental capitalist system. He fixed the system enough that the majority again had a vested interest in keeping the system functioning, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Today, we're not quite where we were in the early 30s, but income inequality is as bad as it's been since then. We're again in a situation where mass movements are forming of people that have largely given up on the way things are working. And that includes mass unemployment among the young, and particularly among young men (the group that forms the backbone of any revolutionary movement). A capitalist should again want to find a way to get enough of the benefits of our system to spread to enough individuals that people see they have a vested interest in preserving it, so that latter day Hitlers and Lenins don't find fertile grounds for their ideas.

Also, recall that sometimes income distribution matters more to the majority than growth, even in the short term. Take the period from 2000 to 2012. On paper, we're richer today than in 2000. Median per capita GDP is up slightly since then. In other words, even adjusted for inflation and population growth, there's more money to go around today than there was at the peak of the Clinton prosperity. And yet, despite that, poverty is way up, median real incomes are down, consumer debt is up, unemployment is up, etc. Why is that? The answer is that the growth of the pie doesn't matter to the majority if the relative shrinking of their proportional share happens at a faster rate. ALL the new gains of wealth went to the elite, along with a portion of the old wealth that used to belong to the masses. We, as a people, made our nation richer, but most of us got poorer. Addressing that inequity is actually more important to the majority, right now, than focusing on growing the overall economy. What good is economic growth when most people are getting poorer?

 

[Doc]

Barak Hussein Obama is far from being a "Capitalist."

In fact, he's pretty much an "Anti-Capitalist..."

 

[Lukey]

The long-term survival of a capitalist system is dependent on having buy-in from the majority of the populace. Without that, capitalism is soon overwhelmed by corruption, embezzlement, and general crime, turning it into kleptocracy. So, of course anyone who values capitalism will focus on income inequality, when that inequality gets bad enough to represent a long-term threat to the system itself. FDR is a great example. In the early 1930s, the Communist Party and fascists were both making huge gains in the United States and it seemed like a realistic threat that the angry masses would give up on capitalism entirely if the Great Depression just kept dragging on. We'd seen in Russia and Germany how sufficiently impoverished and desperate masses would line up behind extremists willing to impose radical new solutions. FDR helped to head that off, by addressing the failings of capitalism in a way that preserve the fundamental capitalist system. He fixed the system enough that the majority again had a vested interest in keeping the system functioning, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Today, we're not quite where we were in the early 30s, but income inequality is as bad as it's been since then. We're again in a situation where mass movements are forming of people that have largely given up on the way things are working. And that includes mass unemployment among the young, and particularly among young men (the group that forms the backbone of any revolutionary movement). A capitalist should again want to find a way to get enough of the benefits of our system to spread to enough individuals that people see they have a vested interest in preserving it, so that latter day Hitlers and Lenins don't find fertile grounds for their ideas.

Also, recall that sometimes income distribution matters more to the majority than growth, even in the short term. Take the period from 2000 to 2012. On paper, we're richer today than in 2000. Median real income is up slightly since then. In other words, even adjusted for inflation and population growth, there's more money to go around today than there was at the peak of the Clinton prosperity. And yet, despite that, poverty is way up, median real incomes are down, consumer debt is up, unemployment is up, etc. Why is that? The answer is that the growth of the pie doesn't matter to the majority if the relative shrinking of their proportional share happens at a faster rate. ALL the new gains of wealth went to the elite, along with a portion of the old wealth that used to belong to the masses. We, as a people, made our nation richer, but most of us got poorer. Addressing that inequity is actually more important to the majority, right now, than focusing on growing the overall economy. What good is economic growth when most people are getting poorer?

So basically what you are saying is that we have to keep becoming more socialist in order to "save" capitalism. I ain't buying it...

 

[StanH]

Yes, of course you can. It's been happening like that for decades and decades, if not centuries.

Surely you can do better. Oh wait a minute, no you can't.

Can you have economic growth where there are a lot of VERY rich people getting even more rich, while the majority of people don't?

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Barak Hussein Obama is far from being a "Capitalist."

In fact, he's pretty much an "Anti-Capitalist..."

You forgot to mention Obama has a 4th arm coming out of his neck.



Thx

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

So basically what you are saying is that we have to keep becoming more socialist in order to "save" capitalism. I ain't buying it...

You are already a socialist, you don't know what the word means...

Sigh,

Can we get smaller fish or at least a bigger barrel?

Thx

 

[Lukey]

You are already a socialist, you don't know what the word means...

Sigh,

Can we get smaller fish or at least a bigger barrel?

Thx

LOL! I love irony...

 

[Arkady]

So basically what you are saying is that we have to keep becoming more socialist in order to "save" capitalism. I ain't buying it...

No. We can become less socialist in some areas, and more socialist in others, at the same time. It's about looking at the changing sociological and economic landscape and deciding what things capitalism is doing a good job at, and where its blind-spots are. But, yes, sometimes you need to more socialism in order to save capitalism.

Think of it in terms of metallurgy. It's not the hardest or purest material that's necessarily the best for building. Ideally, you want an alloy that draws on the strength of one thing and the flexibility of another, to give you the best of both worlds. When, like today, a society is showing terrible stress fractures, it suggests you don't have the mix quite right, and you need to have an open mind about where the problems are. I think it's pretty clear the problem isn't an insufficient amount of capitalism in our mix -- the overall real GDP per capita has grown, and the rich have been having a grand time of it for the past decade. Overall, we're more capitalist now than we were in the much stronger economic period from the mid-30s through the late-70s (a period that had the top bracket paying between 70% and 92% in taxes, and yet had better average income growth and GDP growth than today). We're more capitalist, even, than we were in the terrific mid-to-late 90s (before the Bush tax cuts and deregulation). When the poor and middle class are hurting, the rich are pulling away, and the nation is underachieving despite lowered taxes and greater deregulation, it doesn't make sense to think what we need to do is double-down on Bush style worship of laissez faire economics. We need a bit more socialism in our mix, to take us back to something more like the 90s, or even the 60s.

 

[Lukey]

No. We can become less socialist in some areas, and more socialist in others, at the same time. It's about looking at the changing sociological and economic landscape and deciding what things capitalism is doing a good job at, and where its blind-spots are. But, yes, sometimes you need to more socialism in order to save capitalism.

Think of it in terms of metallurgy. It's not the hardest or purest material that's necessarily the best for building. Ideally, you want an alloy that draws on the strength of one thing and the flexibility of another, to give you the best of both worlds. When, like today, a society is showing terrible stress fractures, it suggests you don't have the mix quite right, and you need to have an open mind about where the problems are. I think it's pretty clear the problem isn't an insufficient amount of capitalism in our mix -- the overall real GDP per capita has grown, and the rich have been having a grand time of it for the past decade. Overall, we're more capitalist now than we were in the much stronger economic period from the mid-30s through the late-70s (a period that had the top bracket paying between 70% and 92% in taxes, and yet had better average income growth and GDP growth than today). We're more capitalist, even, than we were in the terrific mid-to-late 90s (before the Bush tax cuts and deregulation). When the poor and middle class are hurting, the rich are pulling away, and the nation is underachieving despite lowered taxes and greater deregulation, it doesn't make sense to think what we need to do is double-down on Bush style worship of laissez faire economics. We need a bit more socialism in our mix, to take us back to something more like the 90s, or even the 60s.

I think our "economic alloy" is already so overly socialist that our economy is coming apart at its seems...

 

[zzigzzag]

Unlike you and your party, he wants to see capitalism work for the whole country....not just the Romneys.

So is your position that only outrageous income disparity defines a country as capitalist?

Or, like anyone with any sense who doesn't want to see a violent revolution, do you see a problem with .5% of the population (1.5 million) possessing more wealth than the other 315 million combined? Do you sense any problem with that just on the face of it? Or do you think dogma should rule.....along with the .5%?

Could it be time to do something differently when 5% of Americans have accumulated more wealth in 10 years than the rest of the world has since the beginning of time? Or is that your definition of a healthy capitalistic society?

Cons are sheep so conditioned by brainless, anti-American, anti-Christian propaganda that they couldn't care less about the condition the country is in. They only consider 5% of the people real citizens, so no problem. They're all doing fine. The problem is those so downtrodden by 30 years of fascism that they can't feed their families. They need to be thrown in the street and starved to death....right? Then everything will be okeedokee.

Does that answer your nonsensical, politically motivated question? I'm the one who believes capitalism can work for everyone. You're the one who doesn't. You think anyone who sees a problem with 5% dominating 95% in a Democracy is waging "class warfare". What a joke. School the class who can do something about it. Lecturing those who can't isn't worth much.

 

[Lukey]

Unlike you and your party, he wants to see capitalism work for the whole country....not just the Romneys.

So is your position that only outrageous income disparity defines a country as capitalist?

Or, like anyone with any sense who doesn't want to see a violent revolution, do you see a problem with .5% of the population (1.5 million) possessing more wealth than the other 315 million combined? Do you sense any problem with that just on the face of it? Or do you think dogma should rule.....along with the .5%?

Could it be time to do something differently when 5% of Americans have accumulated more wealth in 10 years than the rest of the world has since the beginning of time? Or is that your definition of a healthy capitalistic society?

Cons are sheep so conditioned by brainless, anti-American, anti-Christian propaganda that they couldn't care less about the condition the country is in. They only consider 5% of the people real citizens, so no problem. They're all doing fine. The problem is those so downtrodden by 30 years of fascism that they can't feed their families. They need to be thrown in the street and starved to death....right? Then everything will be okeedokee.

Does that answer your nonsensical, politically motivated question? I'm the one who believes capitalism can work for everyone. You're the one who doesn't. You think anyone who sees a problem with 5% dominating 95% in a Democracy is waging "class warfare". What a joke. School the class who can do something about it. Lecturing those who can't isn't worth much.

No, I'm suggesting fairly robust economic growth "defines" a capitalist country Zig. Some questions just have obvious answers, and this one (what is your main focus for re-election?) is pretty simple - economic growth. We can look at distribution later, once the economy is growing again at good speed. It's like when Chu was asked if their energy policy was lower gas prices and his answer wasn't "no." Or Jerry Sandusky when he was asked if he was sexually attracted to children, his initial response wasn't "no." These answers are common sense, they should be immediate. When they aren't you have to ask why?

 

[Norkalein]

Gee, I don't know, Lukey. That'd be tough against a guy who said he "wasn't concerned about the poor"....likes to make $10,000 bets.....thinks $375,000 in speaking fees "isn't a lot of money".....has offshore bank accounts.....and "enjoys firing people".

Real tough.

If employees don't produce, they deserve to be fired. If he can afford it ... and, he obviously can ... what's wrong with someone making a $10,000 bet? The money isn't coming out of your pocket. And, what do you think Obama will earn on the speaking circuit? What does Clinton earn for a speech? Romney earned $375,000 in a year. Clinton earns that amount for ONE speech. Where's the resentment over Clinton's fees?

 

[Arkady]

I think our "economic alloy" is already so overly socialist that our economy is coming apart at its seems...

Here's the fact pattern one would expect to see, if you were right:

(1) Our economy would be growing faster today than it was in prior eras with more socialistic policies (e.g., our economy would be doing better than in the 60s, when the wealthy paid 70% taxes on their top bracket, and the country was engaged in Great Society programs and a federal war on poverty).

(2) The poor and middle class would be doing better than the rich, in terms of growth or shrinkage of wealth. If the poor and middle class were losing ground, thanks to a depressed economy, the rich would be losing ground even faster, because our overly-socialized system would be tailored to make the blow fall hardest on the rich.

(3) Capitalist systems with more socialism in their mix, like those of Scandinavia, would be doing worse than the US, while capitalist systems with less socialism in their mix would be doing better than the US.

Those three things would suggest that we too much socialism in our mix. But that's just not the pattern I see. We were doing better back in the 60s (and the 90s) when we had higher taxes on the rich, more regulations, and less faith in the market. The rich have been doing remarkably well, while the blow has landed hardest on the poor and middle class. And, in relative terms, more socialized systems have been doing better. Not so long ago, we were the richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per capita. Now we're eighth, according to the CIA World Factbook. Maybe we can dismiss some of those ahead of us because they're riding an oil bubble (e.g., the UAE, Qatar and Brunei), but overall we're losing our lead to a bunch of countries that are more socialized than we are (with things like universal single-payer healthcare).

For example, the most socialized of the social democracies of Europe is probably Sweden. At the end of Clinton's administration, the US had a GDP per capita 64% higher than them. After 12 years of Bushonomics (Bush's tax cuts remain in place and none of the Bush-era deregulation has been reversed) our GDP per capita is only 18% higher. It's even more dramatic in neighboring Norway. Back at the end of Clinton's presidency, we were 35% richer than them, per capita, and now they're 11% richer than us. Yet they're FAR more socialized than we are. For example, by law Norwegian women get over a year of paid maternity leave, employees get at least five weeks of paid vacation a year, a full work-week is 37.5 hours, the tax burden is 45%, there's government-paid healthcare for all (a generous system with no copays for drugs or hospital stays, and subsidized spa treatments for health). If we already have too much socialism in our system, it's interesting that VASTLY more socialized countries are prospering so much.

 

[OldGaffer]

Unlike you and your party, he wants to see capitalism work for the whole country....not just the Romneys.

So is your position that only outrageous income disparity defines a country as capitalist?

Or, like anyone with any sense who doesn't want to see a violent revolution, do you see a problem with .5% of the population (1.5 million) possessing more wealth than the other 315 million combined? Do you sense any problem with that just on the face of it? Or do you think dogma should rule.....along with the .5%?

Could it be time to do something differently when 5% of Americans have accumulated more wealth in 10 years than the rest of the world has since the beginning of time? Or is that your definition of a healthy capitalistic society?

Cons are sheep so conditioned by brainless, anti-American, anti-Christian propaganda that they couldn't care less about the condition the country is in. They only consider 5% of the people real citizens, so no problem. They're all doing fine. The problem is those so downtrodden by 30 years of fascism that they can't feed their families. They need to be thrown in the street and starved to death....right? Then everything will be okeedokee.

Does that answer your nonsensical, politically motivated question? I'm the one who believes capitalism can work for everyone. You're the one who doesn't. You think anyone who sees a problem with 5% dominating 95% in a Democracy is waging "class warfare". What a joke. School the class who can do something about it. Lecturing those who can't isn't worth much.

Social Darwinists see no problem with that at all, after all if you are born poor it is your own fault and if you are born rich, you earned it, and if the Oligarchs want to stack the deck to get more of the pie, thats OK as well. You will never see Lukey worried about society as a group, it is all about the John Galts and Hank Reardens in his mind.

 

[Norkalein]

Social Darwinists see no problem with that at all, after all if you are born poor it is your own fault and if you are born rich, you earned it, and if the Oligarchs want to stack the deck to get more of the pie, thats OK as well. You will never see Lukey worried about society as a group, it is all about the John Galts and Hank Reardens in his mind.

People who are born poor can improve themselves and become rich. Look at Oprah ... just one example. And, if it wasn't for the Johns, Hanks, and Dagneys of the world, we'd all be living in a 3rd world country. Somebody has to have the ability and motivation to build, develop, create ...

 

[zzigzzag]

It's your premise that's completely false. The economy is improving. Growth is improving right while you're denying it. Jobs are coming back. New mortgages went up 8.8% last month. Construction is picking up quickly along with home improvement spending being higher than ever. Consumer confidence is at a four year high. The DOW is over 13,000 for the first time since Bush tanked a balanced budget and a surplus.

It's like you guys want to get Obama out of office in a hurry on false pretenses because reality doesn't serve you. The strategy all along was to deny him a chance....let alone a fair assessment. It failed, thank God.

Why do you think you have to mine wingnut sites for convenient misinformation? Why do you think pubs can never run on their records and get pissed if anyone looks back to what they did last time around? Why are they so ashamed of their history? Why aren't they showcasing it? You know this one.

 

[OldGaffer]

People who are born poor can improve themselves and become rich. Look at Oprah ... just one example. And, if it wasn't for the Johns, Hanks, and Dagneys of the world, we'd all be living in a 3rd world country. Somebody has to have the ability and motivation to build, develop, create ...

Spoken like a true cultist. Ayn would be proud. Were Max Blanck and Isaac Harris some of your heroes in your youth? Incidentally 72% of the Forbes 400 got rich the old fashioned way, they inherited it. Check the stats for quintile mobility, have they been going up or down over the last 30 years? And where does the US rank in upward mobility?

Is America the "land of opportunity"? Not so much.

A new report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) finds that social mobility between generations is dramatically lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries.

So if you want your children to climb the socioeconomic ladder higher than you did, move to Canada.

The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

For instance, according to the OECD, 47 percent of the economic advantage that high-earning fathers in the United States have over low-earning fathers is transmitted to their sons, compare to, say, 17 percent in Australia and 19 percent in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

 

[Lukey]

Here's the fact pattern one would expect to see, if you were right:

(1) Our economy would be growing faster today than it was in prior eras with more socialistic policies (e.g., our economy would be doing better than in the 60s, when the wealthy paid 70% taxes on their top bracket, and the country was engaged in Great Society programs and a federal war on poverty).

(2) The poor and middle class would be doing better than the rich, in terms of growth or shrinkage of wealth. If the poor and middle class were losing ground, thanks to a depressed economy, the rich would be losing ground even faster, because our overly-socialized system would be tailored to make the blow fall hardest on the rich.

(3) Capitalist systems with more socialism in their mix, like those of Scandinavia, would be doing worse than the US, while capitalist systems with less socialism in their mix would be doing better than the US.

Those three things would suggest that we too much socialism in our mix. But that's just not the pattern I see. We were doing better back in the 60s (and the 90s) when we had higher taxes on the rich, more regulations, and less faith in the market. The rich have been doing remarkably well, while the blow has landed hardest on the poor and middle class. And, in relative terms, more socialized systems have been doing better. Not so long ago, we were the richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per capita. Now we're eighth, according to the CIA World Factbook. Maybe we can dismiss some of those ahead of us because they're riding an oil bubble (e.g., the UAE, Qatar and Brunei), but overall we're losing our lead to a bunch of countries that are more socialized than we are (with things like universal single-payer healthcare).

For example, the most socialized of the social democracies of Europe is probably Sweden. At the end of Clinton's administration, the US had a GDP per capita 64% higher than them. After 12 years of Bushonomics (Bush's tax cuts remain in place and none of the Bush-era deregulation has been reversed) our GDP per capita is only 18% higher. It's even more dramatic in neighboring Norway. Back at the end of Clinton's presidency, we were 35% richer than them, per capita, and now they're 11% richer than us. Yet they're FAR more socialized than we are. For example, by law Norwegian women get over a year of paid maternity leave, employees get at least five weeks of paid vacation a year, a full work-week is 37.5 hours, the tax burden is 45%, there's government-paid healthcare for all (a generous system with no copays for drugs or hospital stays, and subsidized spa treatments for health). If we already have too much socialism in our system, it's interesting that VASTLY more socialized countries are prospering so much.

Yes, well, since we know socialist policies always (ALWAYS) achieve the opposite of their intended effects, we can dismiss that little speculative exercise and move on to reality based examples. The very notion that more socialist economies grow faster brings your entire premise into question. That is just unsupportable by the facts.

 

[zzigzzag]

"and if the Oligarchs want to stack the deck"

Precisely. The dilemma that worsens exponentially the longer we tolerate it and will never, ever improve if cons were to get their way and have the "private sector" (all twenty of them) police themselves.

That's what the blanket theory, "get government out of the way" really means. Worship money. Screw people.

 

[zzigzzag]

Oprah. The norm. Good girl. We should use an anomaly to plot the course for 315 million people.

How "conservative" of you.

Sheesh. It really gets dumb sometimes.