Contributors

Monday, December 06, 2010

A Chronic Lack

The fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans these days is one very simple core belief: the middle class drives our economy. Either you believe this or you don't. If you don't, you live on Fantasy Island. There are less people spending less money so we are stagnate and unemployment remains high. It's really quite simple when you think about it. The solution of most on the right (libertarian, conservative, whatever) is to give the rich more money whether it's through tax breaks or charity vis a vis corporate welfare or Tea Party "grass roots" organizations (© The Koch Brothers).

Many of our nation's companies have already accepted this new normal. Remember the Citigroup document? This is but one example of hard evidence that the middle class is all but gone. So, when will those of you in the middle class wake up and realize that you are the solution to our economic woes? More importantly, when will you see that there is one party that is decidedly against that solution and one that is trying to realize it?

Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, wrote a brilliant piece last week on Sarah Palin and the angry middle class. I won't comment on his thoughts on Ms. Palin. That's not allowed, of course, because I'm "obsessed." You can add that rule to the lexicon of BIG NO-NOS in our little Lewis Carroll looking glass prism of unreality. You know which one I'm talking about, right? The one where all criticisms of George W. Bush are manifestations of psychosis and ignorance, denial, redefination, and counterattack/competing victimizations are perfectly normal when discussing race.

Instead, I'm going to talk about the other stuff he put in his column, regarding the middle class, which was far more insightful. Case in point...

The anxiety began three decades ago when the median male wage that had been rising for three decades began to stagnate. Families responded by sending wives and mothers into the paid workforce, working longer hours, and then, finally, going deep into debt.

Three decades ago? Hmm...who has been saying that lately? Me.

So, why is the middle class (and many of you) so angry?

According to the right-wing narrative, the calamity that's befallen the middle class is due to the cultural and intellectual elites who run the mainstream media and direct the government, dispense benefits to the undeserving (immigrants and poor blacks), advocate multiculturalism, and dominate popular culture (supporting abortion and gay marriage).

Remember Alinksy's last interview in Playboy? He saw all this coming in 1972.

The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave." But we're not going to abandon the field to them without a long, hard fight -- a fight I think we're going to win. Because we'll show the middle class their real enemies: the corporate power elite that runs and ruins the country -- the true beneficiaries of Nixon's so-called economic reforms. And when they swing their sights on that target, the sh-- will really hit the fan.

Alinsky died that year and clearly his battle was lost. Many in the middle class--many of YOU--have accepted the right's narrative, as defined by Reich, as gospel.

So, if we can get past this lie, what is the real problem? Reich knows.

In reality, the bad economy is likely to continue for most Americans beyond seven years -- maybe for 10 or more -- because of a chronic lack of aggregate demand. So much income and wealth have now concentrated at the top that the broad middle and working class no longer has the buying power to get the economy going again.

Folks, this is the one and only reason why I am as upset as I am. It's not because I'm envious of those who have more money than me. I'm not 10 years old for crying out loud. It's because I am so enormously frustrated at those who can't accept this simple fact that Reich has so eloquently summarized. The working class of this country has no buying power any longer. They are being gouged out of every dime they have by people who DO NOT NEED THE MONEY. Until this changes, our economy is going to suck. Big time. In order for that to change, the wealthy are going to have to alter their lifestyles.

The real problem lies in our economic structure: the yawning gap between Wall Street and Main Street, the incentives operating on large corporations to pare American payrolls and expand abroad, and the demand for short-term profits over better jobs and wages for most Americans.

In "Inside Job," former Fed Chair Paul Volker calls Wall Street CEO salaries "excessive." No shit. They are quite literally ruining this country's economy.

So, what should we do?

The real solution lies in changing that structure: making taxes more progressive, investing in education and infrastructure, and having a national economic strategy for good jobs and wages.

In other words, the platform of the Democratic Party. The three ideas listed here are anathema to any conservative or libertarian even though they have been proven to work in the past, time and again. They worked for FDR. They worked for Harry Truman. They worked for Dwight Eisenhower (a pinko Commie by the standard set by today's right with his 9o percent tax rate). They worked for Jack Kennedy. All of these men had a progressive tax platform, invested in education and infrastructure, and had sound economic strategies for good jobs and wages. Even Bill Clinton had this in the beginning and then he began to succumb to the lure of that ol' siren song of deregulation and look where that led us.

I understand that many of you are control freaks who can't admit when you are wrong but you are completely in error about this one. Worse, by not supporting these very clear solutions, you are exacerbating the problem. Why this leads to more bile and mouth foaming heaped at me and the Democrats is beyond me. Is it hubris? Adolescent power fantasies? I guess I'm really not certain.

But if you look at history, this sort of blindness produces a kind of state that I know that none of you want. So, get with the fucking program, pull your heads out of your asses, and start supporting solutions. Even if you have to admit that you are wrong and that someone else with a different perspective might know what's in your self interest.

People like me do this every day. It's called reflection.

And it's what saves civilizations.

43 comments:

Haplo9 said...

You know, for a guy who says he isn't an expert at economics, you sure enjoy acting like you are an expert.

>The working class of this country has no buying power any longer. They are being gouged out of every dime they have by people who DO NOT NEED THE MONEY.

So.. your argument boils down to.. prices are too high? Corporate profit margins are too high? What exactly is causing this gouging Mark? And once again, I see you have presented no way to measure this gouging that you decry (and neither did Reich.) Just a bunch of outrage that other people don't see your incandescent brilliance as easily as you do.

>People like me do this every day. It's called reflection.

Of course you're reflective Mark. Of course. *pat pat pat*

6Kings said...

But if you look at history, this sort of blindness produces a kind of state that I know that none of you want. So, get with the fucking program, pull your heads out of your asses, and start supporting solutions. Even if you have to admit that you are wrong and that someone else with a different perspective might know what's in your self interest.


Wow, how very 'enlightened' of you! Not only are you on the wrong side of history, you project that on your opponents. Too funny!

You know your 'Platform of the Democratic Party' is:
1. Redistribution socialism
2a. Education - tried and failing
2b. Infrastructure - hindered by the left
3. National economic strategy - shades of command economy and against free market principles

That plan sucks and why it is opposed. There are lots of better solutions, you just happen to buy into a suckers game.

How about one of a million better plans in those 3 areas:
1. Flat tax at 10% - flat tax is a progressive tax and is fair as can be.
2. Education back to the states and just set standards. Allow Nuclear plants.
3. Government out of the way (don't get bent, this doesn't mean completely)

The Democratic Party Platform you so blindly follow is the path towards more of what you rail against. A more powerful and intrusive government which you advocate is more likely to have corruption as more money and power flow through the center - corporate welfare, perks, and waivers. Oh wait, exactly like we have seen in the two primary Obama 'Successes' - Health Care and GM.

Your 'Reflection' must consist of staring into a black hole.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you'd better explain yourself Mark. You say that none of us are in control of ourself?

Here's your chance to convince me that your way of thinking is better than my own personal opinion.

I say that each of us is under their own control. Depending on your level of self-control, your mileage out of life may vary.

Show me where I am wrong.

dw

-just dave said...

Thaaaaaaaar sheeeeeee blooooows!!!!!

I knew it was coming. Increase those progressive taxes! Please, please, please, oh, please do.

Basing your policies on a theory that Peter should pay more to drive on the same roads as Paul is the surest path to a quick a long Democratic withdrawal.

GuardDuck said...

There are less people spending less money so we are stagnate and unemployment remains high.

So for the last decade it hasn't been lefty liberal hippies decrying the rampant consumerism of the American people? The left's vision of reduce, reuse, recycle is really a method of increasing middle class spending?

How do you reconcile that belief of the left with the drivel you've just posted?

Damn Teabaggers said...

The anxiety began three decades ago...

Let's see, that'd be... 1980...

So you're saying the US economy reached it's peak during the Carter Administration and has been going downhill ever since?

Oh.Kay...

Sir, please put down the Hope & Change, and back away slowly.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Ever heard of Hauser's Law?

Here's a better explanation (clearer and more in-depth, but I don't know how long it will remain available).

Tess said...

Quite possibly the finest thing you have written. Succinct. Directly to the point. Great analysis and the exact solution that we need right now. I'd ignore most of these comments, Mark. At least you tried. I will tackle one, though.

@just Dave, I'm not sure if Adam Smith is one of your heroes or not but he usually is with the right wing crowd due to his invisible hand of economics theories. You do realize that he was one of the earliest champions of the progressive tax, right? Mark mentioned this recently. As was Teddy Roosevelt. Not an issue if you disagree with them but I'd like to hear an alternative. Remember, if you say flat tax, account for how you will get the wealthy to pay it considering they have it so sweet right now with cap gains.

Mark Ward said...

STI-I'm quite familiar Hauser's Law and how it is incorrectly used to support supply side assertions. Do you think that Hauser's Law adequately delineates individual income taxes from other types of taxes like corporate taxes or social programs? I don't think it does.

Hauser also cites the Laffer curve in his conclusions and time has failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture. Reagan cut taxes and revenue from personal income taxes dropped. Basically, all of this boils down to more excuses to continue our plutonomy. Sorry, not buying it. Here's a nice rebut of his little chart

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition

DT-No, it didn't peak during the Carter years. Actually, it was during his presidency that deregulation began (1978, airlines). I would think you guys would like him more, right? My challenge to you would be to point to a major financial crisis, on par with last five we have had, from Glass-Steagall to the 80s when the effects of deregulation began to take hold.

Dave-nice comment but what's your alternative?

6Kings, from your first list of numbers.

1. No. Complete lie. It's welfare capitalism if you want to put a label on it. But we do have several successful socialistic institutions in this country. Since you have not taken the pledge I put up a while back, I would assume you, at the very least, agree with some of them.

2. Not sure what this means, exactly. Our problems in education are all the fault of the Democrats? Really?

3. Infrastructure has been hindered by the right because the want to privatize everything. This park brought to you by Chuck E. Cheese. Ten bucks admission, 15 to go on the jungle gyms, kids!

4. Not really close when you consider that investment firms had the right to risk my money as opposed to only being allowed to risk their own before Glass-Steagall was torpedoed.

Your second set of items, of which we have some agreement.

1. It won't happen because the wealthy of this nation will never allow it. BLK has pointed this out. They already pay less because they put their income in cap gains. But I do agree. It is progressive and it would be more fair.

2. Your first sentence is at loggerheads with itself. States want to set their own standards. President Obama has tried the national standards route with CORE and has achieved some success but there are still holdouts. I do agree, though, that we need national and rigorous standards for both students AND teachers.

President Obama also supports nuclear energy as do I. We agree there.

3. More definition is needed here. Lack of specificity is what got us into trouble in the first place. For example, should the government regulate the complex mathematical formulas that were used to start the derivative boondoggle? I say yes.

As to rest of your comment, it's more anti government pathology so there's not really much to say.

Mark Ward said...

DW-there are many ways we can speak about control. You don't have control over how your water is purified, do you? Or how the gas tanks at the local gas station are regulated. These are regulated by the government and it does so fairly effectively. Not perfect, of course, but done well enough to maintain a very workable society.

It's the invisible hand of government, if you will, that allows you to live the life that you do. I'm not 100 percent certain but you do have a problem with this, correct? The simple fact is that I want my federal government to make and enforce laws that don't allow some greedy butthole on Wall Street (who just lined up some rails on the stomach of a hooker) to be able to gamble with my money. Thanks to President Obama, that's more difficult for him now but not impossible given people who want the market to be left alone--which is you, right? And others here?

So why do you want to enable him? The results from this Randian self governing are clear: 20 trillion dollars=gone.

Angela said...

I agree with Tess. Brilliant piece, Mark. I've been waiting a while for such a summation and this is it. What it really shows is how the Democrats, who certainly aren't perfect, are at least willing to try to tame the beast. I don't see any of that from the Right. It's more of the same which will lead to more failure. Someone wrote on here-I can't remember who-"unleash the market and watch the economy take off." What a profoundly insane idea. Yeah, let's do it again-only harder! Give that caffeine addicted tiger a case of Red Bull, eh?

Haplo9 said...

>Quite possibly the finest thing you have written.

Man, I'd hate to see something that you thought was poorly written. Actually, check that, it would probably be worth seeing, because it wouldn't be incoherent like this was.

I actually missed the last line of the piece the first time through:

"And it's what saves civilizations."

Man oh man. I can't believe you accuse other people of posessing hubris or arrogance after seeing that one.

So once again we are at the same place - do you have some way of quantifying the gouging that you are talking about? Or are you just going on your gut? And once again, I'll simplify this for you into a yes/no question: do you have a measure for this gouging such that people who don't share your biases can see the data for themselves? Put your ego aside for a moment Mark - yes or no?

>As to rest of your comment, it's more anti government pathology so there's not really much to say.

I think I should start dismissing things Mark says with "that's just your pro government pathology, so there's not really much to say." You wouldn't accuse me to avoiding your points, would you Mark?

juris imprudent said...

Either you believe this or you don't.

You're either with us or against us, right? Sheesh, what happened to all the ranting about simple-minded propositions? About being able to see nuance instead of just black and white? That was supposed to be the great gift of leftist vision as opposed to Bush-right-wing ocular deficiency!

Oh, wait, I get it - you are actually satirizing everything you believe in.

Brilliant!

-just dave said...

Alternatives, Tess? How about lower taxes and, more importantly, lower spending? How about accountability in spending? Every once in a blue moon taxes are lowered and revenue increases but spending never ever goes down. (Sadly, under GOP administrations too.) (I think that’s the genius of Obama, though…throw the party (and the nation, one could argue) under the bus to pass universal health care because once anything is enacted, it never, ever goes back….but don’t get me going on that…) Heck, I’d even be content with taxes staying the same if gov’t could just live within its means. Why this is considered radical thought mystifies me; just try to envision it working, like, say, a normal household where if you don’t have the money in your bank account, you don’t go Porsche shopping. (Well, I would, but that’s just because I’m irresponsible and going through a midlife crisis.)

Angela, isn’t your argument the exact same one (flipped) that Democrats used for the failure of the economic stimulus? “We just need another stimulus but harder this time”, or ”we’re not spending enough…”? Now that I think of it, that’s the same argument used to prop up FRD’s policies for the Great Depression too…just should’ve spent more. More, more, more, more, more… (Well, at least you’re always trying something new, right?...Love that Donkey ingenuity.) Except we had a Bush stimulus and an Obama stimulus and, well, it never quite stimulated anything. Well, let me rephrase that…it is working quite well if…say…you’re a banker receiving the corporate welfare to invest in T bills rather than spur the economy or if you’re a union leader or perhaps that benefits company GM.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

> http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition

The scale of the chart has nothing to do with the basic fact which the chart shows, and which Hauser claims: that while revenues may occasionally exceed 19% of GDP, THEY DON'T STAY THERE! Even the "big" spike—if you can call peaking at a maximum increase of 2% "big"—only exceeded 19% for about 6 years. Yes, it is easier to see the fluctuations on TNR's version of the chart, but I would LOVE to see your explanation of how scaling the chart undermines the subtitle on Hauser's chart, "The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long", because even TNR's version PROVES THAT EXACT POINT!!!

Now, let's ask who's playing with statistics here to lie and manipulate. Why does TNR's chart cover a shorter time period than Hauser's? Why doesn't TNR's chart compare tax rates to GNP related revenues? I think it's because TNR is using their chart to lie. (The kettle calling the porcelain sink black.) Hauser discovered that raising tax rates doesn't increase the percentage of revenues. It is that comparison which is critical, and which TNR is trying to hide.

Here's a hint Marxy, you can also spot when someone is lying by what they exclude. Notice that TNR never even address the effect of tax rates on the GDP, which is the economy, which which is just another way of saying jobs. Let's put it this way, "It's the economy, stupid!"

So did Bush's tax cuts cause the GDP to drop? No. The rate of growth of the GDP went up after the cuts took affect. (From 3% growth to 7%) Here's a zoomed version with quarterly GDP numbers.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Correction: Why doesn't TNR's chart compare tax rates to GDP related revenues?

juris imprudent said...

The anxiety began three decades ago when the median male wage that had been rising for three decades began to stagnate. Families responded by sending wives and mothers into the paid workforce, working longer hours, and then, finally, going deep into debt.

Funny, but I recall women joining the workforce as an outgrowth of feminism more than economic necessity. I also recall people decrying the incessant hum of increasing materialism back in those glorious times. Jerry Brown and "Small is Beautiful", or living within our means?

30 years ago. How odd, right after the New Deal inspired Great Society had culminated in the previously unthinkable - stagflation. You do remember that M? For economists it was like having the law of gravity suddenly repealed. According to Keynes you could always trade off stimulus/inflation against unemployment - that is one of his fundamentals. Then poof - there was no trade-off, just more and more of both!

Oh, and the "male wage" that stopped going up then - unskilled to semi-skilled labor. But there is a whole 'nother post on the collusion between say steel industry management and labor up through the 60s - and how it was undone by global competition.

Partially in response, Carter and the Democratic-controlled Congress kicked off federal de-regulation - eliminating control of commercial airlines (fares and schedules) and trucking. Of course that caused a lot of pain there, but it opened lots of opportunity too. You wouldn't have Southwest Airlines without that. Terrible thing isn't it - having so many people able to fly when it was once the privileged and businessmen that dominated that?

It is really ironic to contrast that with what the Nixon Administration and then Ford had attempted prior; remember wage and price controls? How about "Whip Inflation Now"? You know how much you love those old school Republicans - the country club crowd. Those people knew how to use status and wealth - not like upstarts such as Gates, Buffett and Soros.

Well, I remember those days, and I have no nostalgia for them. Things certainly are not perfect now, but I'd rather be here than there (particularly since there is no going back). Funny, but I seem to recall some discussion about Manzi writing on that.

Mark Ward said...

So personal reflection doesn't save civilizations, Haplo9? I guess everyone should just stick to what they believe and consequences be damned, eh?

As far as a measure of gouging, did you see the figures in the Citigroup Doc? I would urge you to take the time and scan the document fully. There is a ton of data in there and it all boils down to the same thing. From the document.

1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered
by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

3) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as“the U.S. consumer” or“the UK consumer”, or indeed the“Russian consumer”.There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

The data is all there. Read it and tell me what you think. Pay attention to the conclusion and how they divide up the consumers. Here is the link again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

juris imprudent said...

did you see the figures in the Citigroup Doc?

1) That is a marketing document intended to flatter their wealthy clients. I think on that count it succeeds.

2) It contains some spectactular pseudo- and junk- science. I can see how that would entice you, M.

3) Everything they say about Switzerland (low taxes, etc.) supports an egalitarian result while the U.S., Canada and the U.K. (especially) - with higher taxes - are "plutonomy". Of course you don't notice that because the hard-on you have has drawn all the blood away from your brain.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

A correction to a post which no longer exists. WTF?!?

It was still there 5 minutes after I posted it!

Go take a closer look at your link. TNR is the one manipulating charts to hide the truth.

Look at the title on Hauser's chart: "The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long". Even TNR's zoomed version of the chart (which is a technique frequently used to make small changes seem huge—as in Mann's hockey stick temperature chart) supports this conclusion. The longest tax revenues stayed above 19% was about 6 years, and that really wasn't much above 19%, peaking at 21.9% before immediately dropping off again. The scale of the chart had nothing to do with the conclusion, which was based on an absolute position on the graph (19%) not how much, or how little change there was.

That's called misdirection.

TNR's chart also omits the comparison to the top rate, WHICH IS THE WHOLE F***ING POINT! If raising tax rates really increased the percentage of taxes received in relation to the GDP, then there should be correspondence between the tax rates and the percentage of revenues received. There ain't.

That's called LYING. By. Omission.

Another omission TNR makes is that they totally ignore the effect of tax changes on the GDP, which IMHO is the key part of Hauser's law. For example, after the "Bush Tax Cuts" took effect, GDP jumped from 3% growth to 7% growth. (Charts and tables of the GDP here and here.)

True critical thinking requires taking ALL the facts into account. TNR lied by intentionally obscuring and minimizing facts. You bought their lies hook, line and sinker because they confirmed your biases. Way to be a critical thinker there Mark… NOT!

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

A correction to a post which no longer exists. WTF?!?

It was still there 5 minutes after I posted it!

And now another one disappeared!?!

Go take a closer look at your link. TNR is the one manipulating charts to hide the truth.

Look at the title on Hauser's chart: "The Government Can't Raise More than 19% in Taxes for Long". Even TNR's zoomed version of the chart (which is a technique frequently used to make small changes seem huge—as in Mann's hockey stick temperature chart) supports this conclusion. The longest tax revenues stayed above 19% was about 6 years, and that really wasn't much above 19%, peaking at 21.9% before immediately dropping off again. The scale of the chart had nothing to do with the conclusion, which was based on an absolute position on the graph (19%) not how much, or how little change there was.

That's called misdirection.

TNR's chart also omits the comparison to the top rate, WHICH IS THE WHOLE F***ING POINT! If raising tax rates really increased the percentage of taxes received in relation to the GDP, then there should be correspondence between the tax rates and the percentage of revenues received. There ain't.

That's called LYING. By. Omission.

Another omission TNR makes is that they totally ignore the effect of tax changes on the GDP, which IMHO is the key part of Hauser's law. For example, after the "Bush Tax Cuts" took effect, GDP jumped from 3% growth to 7% growth. (Links to charts and tables of the GDP omitted in case that's why my posts keep disappearing.)

True critical thinking requires taking ALL the facts into account. TNR lied by intentionally obscuring and minimizing facts. You bought their lies hook, line and sinker because they confirmed your biases. Way to be a critical thinker there Mark… NOT!

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Here are dead links to the GDP history charts and tables. Maybe this time my comment won't be deleted.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/graph-us-gnp.html

http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-us-gnp.html

Anonymous said...

Mark, how do you write this thoughtful blog, which so often explains the obvious, in a funny way, yet it seems the only people who it read it are crazy? The upper class quit re-investing in the USA long ago. Giving them more money just allows them more luxuries (manufactured abroad) and gives them more money pass on to their already spoiled children, who buy products, once again, made abroad. This fear the vanishing middle class has; if the corporation owning the desk they work at (or hope to work at) doesn't get every demand they scream for, then we will all be homeless deifies my ability to understand.
Those "Good Old Days" of the '50's had EXTREMELY high taxes, and incredible expanse of the middle class. Want giant Corporations to employ more people here at home? Cut off the freebies they get for doing business abroad, and tax the Hell out of them. What will they do in response (besides smears and even selected executions)? FIND NEW WAYS TO MAKE MONEY! That WILL require employees.

Some chickens just can't believe that Col. Sanders isn't working in their best interest.

-The "Other" JC (whose ACTUAL values I share, too bad more conservatives don't).

Anonymous said...

Mark, you fall into a tired old soundbite, arguing against anarchy when no anarchists have posted.

There are many forms of control, perhaps; but we speak only of one. Why confuse the issue? I can control myself. You say that I can't - in fact you say that nobody can possibly control themselves. One of us is wrong.

"...government... allows you to live the life that you do..."

NO! I ALLOW MYSELF to be governed because that is the price of civilization. Government does not 'allow' me to do anything. I allow myself to do as I see fit, based on my morals and personal values, but you profess that I need to be 'ruled' by someone else.

You can skip anything specific about Republicans, Democrats, or Obama/Bush. The actors change, but the principles of fair government should last longer than an election cycle.

You whine about the deck chair rearrangement, while insisting that your rulers be entrusted with more and more power to force people to do 'the right thing'. How much power will your rulers have, when you find that they don't share your view of 'the right thing' anymore?

Nope. You haven't convinced me.

dw

jeff c. said...

I think we have three "Jeff C's" that post on here...cool. Mark, I just posted your anti socialist pledge on The Smallest Minority. I wonder what will happen?

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/12/quote-of-day-little-socialism-edition.html

Anonymous said...

http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&chart=EmployPopPartUnemployNov2010.jpg

http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&chart=EmploymentRecessionsAlignedNov.jpg

Anonymous said...

Oops, here's the parent article for those graphs:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/12/november-employment-report-39000-jobs.html

juris imprudent said...

And for an interesting read about why politicians routinely screw up the fiscal management they are charged with...

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/06/economy-sovereign-debt-euro-opinions-contributors-charles-kadlec.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest

In the U.S. at least, the looming debt crisis among states and municipalities also reflects a lack of diligence on the part of the citizenry. This can be attributed in part to a naïve assumption by the electorate that those in government, freed from the profit motive, could be trusted to do what was "right" for the community as a whole.

Instead, what we now can see is that elected officials, following a power motive, can be as greedy and irresponsible as anyone in the private sector.


Oh noes! People (the very SAME people) are supposed to be so noble when in govt and save all of their venality for the private sector! How can this BE?!?

juris imprudent said...

the "other" JC sez Giving them more money...

Interesting concept - the rich get their money given to them, I guess by the govt that hasn't taxed it all away? Or are you giving some of your money to the rich out of your great sense of charity?

I thought the usual dumbass leftie complaint was the rich steal from the poor (when they aren't eating them of course).

Last in line said...

"Sir, please put down the Hope & Change, and back away slowly."

Haha, that's funny right there!

Good question JI...do the rich steal their money or is their money given to them? This needs to be cleared up right away.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

> -The "Other" JC (whose ACTUAL values I share, too bad more conservatives don't).

The way you stated this makes me think you believe that governments should be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Please point to the parts of the bible which teach that we are to take money from the rich (by force) and give it to the poor. (I believe that ethic was actually promoted by RH.)

And no, 2nd Cleptomanians is not an actual book of the Bible.

jeff c. said...

Mark, you should read the comments over at The Smallest Minority on the socialist pledge I put up. Those people are out of their minds. They have no sense of what sort of society we live in today. The long response by one Robb Allen had about as much to do with the real world as Jim Jones' grasp of it. God help us all if any of these folks are every put it charge.

last in line said...

One of the reasons many liberals always sound so foolish discussing economics is their belief that moral certainty trumps objective knowledge. Let's pop into the wayback machine for a minute...in his encounter with Joe the Plumber, Barack Obama expressed it like this:

"It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off...if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Wasn't that about the sum of it?

In other words, the lot of underemployed plumbers will improve when the government seizes a huge amount of money from the wealthy, keeps a large portion for itself, and distributes the remainder to poor people, some of whom will no doubt use this welfare money to hire plumbers.

Trust me - I'll keep this logic in mind the next time some liberal makes a crack about "trickle-down economics".

Mark Ward said...

It's so funny that so many people have misinterpreted this exchange...the pathology, again. It's clear to me that what he is saying is that he favors a progressive tax, welfare capitalism, and (most importantly) the fact that the middle class drives our economy. There is a chronic lack of aggregate demand, last, because the wealthy people of our country have more wealth than ever before and ARE NOT SPENDING IT.

What's left of the middle class doesn't have shit so the economy is stagnate. One way to solve this is to give them more tax breaks and those who are wealthier less tax breaks. This isn't entitlement spending...taking from Thurston Howell and giving to a lazy bum on the street...it's helping to prop up the backbone of our economy.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

M, do you, or do you not, recognize that there is a significant difference between spending, investing, and giving away money?

It's not that they're not spending that's the problem, it's that they're not INVESTING. Investment is what generates economic growth and jobs, therefore, INVESTING is the backbone of the economy.

So explain to us again how the government taking the seed money and profits from investing "prop[s] up the backbone of our economy"?

juris imprudent said...

jeff c sez The long response by one Robb Allen had about as much to do with the real world as Jim Jones' grasp of it.

That's pretty damn funny coming from a guy that believes marketing controls people's behavior (except his of course).

M sez There is a chronic lack of aggregate demand

Or, as the hard-left put it in the 60s through the 90s - rampant consumerism and gross materialism.

What's left of the middle class doesn't have shit so the economy is stagnate.

So, tell us, what have you had to cut back on? Have you bought a new car? Gone further into consumer debt to spur the economy? Why aren't you doing your patriotic duty and going to the mall and buying something - even if you don't need it?

GuardDuck said...

Mark,

How you do reconcile saying middle class spending is the key to the economy here when in your very next post you rail against consumerism?

Anonymous said...

I'm a little tired of Conservatives ramming the bible down my throat all the time, claiming it should dictate law. That was the reason for remark.

As for "taking money" from the rich, I just want them to pay their fair share. I find the greatest reward of making more money paying more taxes, and therefore securing more civilization. I have no children, yet always vote for higher property taxes to funds schools, so that I will live in a better educated community.

As for an actual bible reference, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Jesus who said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven"? Sounds to me like the wealthy should be more concerned with contributing to society, and less about spoiling their kids, and collecting more money than they can ever spend.

-The "Other" JC

Anonymous said...

Excellent 'other JC'. You and I can discuss conservatism without any reference to the Christian Bible. We can also not refer to the Koran, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I find them all interesting, but hardly pertinent to a strictly fact-based discussion. So you can now drop the 'all the time' argument.

The worst soundbite ever = 'pay their fair share'. Are you aware of the amount of taxes paid by the richest 5% vs the lowest 50%?

How exactly do YOU define "fair"?

Ironically, you then use a Christian bible verse to bolster your argument. I stopped reading at that point, since you say you don't want to bring 'the Bible' into this conversation.

dw

rld said...

Your greatest reward of making more money is paying more in taxes? You need to set your standard for Rewards a little higher. More money funneling into education does not automatically equal better educated students in that community.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

j.c.,

You claimed to be "closer" to the Real JC's teachings than conservatives, but you can't back that up from the Bible? So what, you're just pulling the "real" teachings out of your a**?

What does it take to get into heaven?

Summoning the crowd along with His disciples, He said to them, “If anyone wants to be My follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me and the gospel will save it. For what does it benefit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his life? What can a man give in exchange for his life? For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
— Mark 8:34–38

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
— Acts 8:20

You certainly can't buy your way into heaven. How many rich people think they can? That's the problem.

Now read the verse you quoted in its full context. Matthew 19:16-30

You're reading that verse as if it says being rich is somehow wrong. Then why does the Bible describe King David as "a man after God's own heart"? Why is Abraham thought of so highly in the Bible? And what about Job? Weren't all these men extremely wealthy? And they're just the beginning of rich men that the Bible speaks highly of.

According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts:

giving, with generosity;

— Romans 12:6,8

How do you have a "gift" of giving without having something to give? And how are you "giving" if something is being taken from you by force?

You talk about "the Bible" being crammed down your throat, while in the very same post, you promote cramming your own beliefs down our throats, and with far more violence and less basis, to boot. That's so rich with irony that I'm amazed you can't smell it, even through your respirator.

Mark Ward said...

"Your greatest reward of making more money is paying more in taxes?"

Yes. It is. Remember my Adam Smith quotes?

"The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and

"Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

STI,

Romans 10: 9-10. That's it in a nutshell.

And other JC is correct. In fact, what does it tell you that the same line is in THREE of the 4 gospels? And why did Jesus over turn the money machines and destroy them with a whip? I wonder what he would with Wall Street? Or what he would think about capitalism in general?

GuardDuck said...

Well as long as we are talking Adam Smith quotes;

[The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.

The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Part IV, Chapter I, pp.184-5, para. 10.


And

The proprietor of stock is necessarily a citizen of the world, and is not necessarily attached to any particular country. He would be apt to abandon the country in which he was exposed to a vexatious inquisition, in order to be assessed to a burdensome tax, and would remove his stock to some other country where he could either carry on his business, or enjoy his fortune more at his ease.

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Article II, pp. 848-9. para. f. 8