dagblog - Comments for "Are American Attitudes on Wealth Distribution About to Change?"

Soory, Dan, wrong spot. I

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:16:00 +0000

In reply to AA, we seem to not only share

Soory, Dan, wrong spot. I almost completely agree with you , too.

It does look as though the

we are stardust — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:13:28 +0000

It does look as though the Republicans want to change the rules to allow States to go into default. I don't know much about the mechanisms that prevent that now, but I'm sure it will be an ugly fight.

I agree that positive outcomes as people wake up a bit to the causes of their suffering will be hard, and that civil unrest may look scary; it scares me, to be truthful. But if there can be dialogue on the ground that focuses the debate, and causes some shifts that crack open the almost blind acceptance of the past thirty years' worth of suppression of the middle and lower classes, it will be better than a bunch of pissed-off right-wingers taking to the streets under the command of some demogogue.

AA, we seem to not only share

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:12:08 +0000

In reply to AA, there are all sorts of

AA, we seem to not only share an opinion on broader aspects of this subject but also to be close on the nuances. Your quote of Upton Sinclair says much of what I was trying to express above in my first comment which came one minute after your first. This comment [liked above] of yours in another thread says much of the rest.

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/huey-long-and-old-school-populism-7922#c...

The way the language is used is extremely important. Throw out an idea that most people would embrace and call it, or let it be called, socialism, and many if not most of those people will reject it out of hand. They will be biased against the idea before giving any thought as to its substance. Let a progressive tax, that can be easily justified, be characterized as "taking" someone's rightful property and "re-distributing" it, and many people being taken advantage of in the workforce to the benefit of the person who would pay that graduated tax, will say it is unfair to penalize that person's success.

Thanks for the morning lump

we are stardust — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:14:48 +0000

In reply to Ridiculous? As in open to

Thanks for the morning lump in my throat, Jeezus. ;o) I'll join you gladly in my willingness to appear to look ridiculous to the self-annointed adults here. And I'll offer again that I think as this depression-for-us-not-them endures, that new conversations about fairness and inequality will take shape, and maybe even begin to take hold. It's our only chance at pushback, I think.

Slogans and bumperstickers aren't really the problem yet: it's defining what's right, wrong, fair, and not, and explaining that, as campaign Obama said: if things are good at the bottom, the country's better off'. Or something like that. Trickle up. ;o)

One of the things I liked early about One Nation Working Together was that churches got involved with the unions and other groups who want their Democracy back; reminded me of the other civil rights movement.

There are many things to

David Seaton — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:09:22 +0000

In reply to Are American Attitudes on Wealth Distribution About to Change?

There are many things to watch, but municipal and state defaults come high on my list. Much of what we call government including pensions and salaries are municipal and state. If these entities go down....

Really the classic answer to social unrest is a national emergency (read war). That is more likely than Americans developing a welfare state. Murdoch would prefer a war to that, I would imagine.

And "I Like Ike" is just one

Dan Kervick — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:02:38 +0000

In reply to AA, there are all sorts of

And "I Like Ike" is just one guy.

AA, there are all sorts of

Dan Kervick — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:01:05 +0000

In reply to I'm reminded that even this

AA, there are all sorts of ways of effecting a redistribution of wealth without overthrowing the fundamental legal traditions of American life with respect to property. The way wealth is distributed in a society organized around private property is a function of the tax policies that society has in place, the spending policies that society has in place, the financial incentives that that are created for different kinds of spending and saving, and the way businesses are and are not regulated, especially with regard to their labor and compensation practices. This is common sense. Wealth is not distributed by magic. It is distributed by the accumulated impact of both individual and social choices. The distribution systems that currently prevail are already the result of social choices. There is no reason that people can't or won't engage in rational reflection on whether those systems are the best ones for our society.

The way to be not "scary" is to develop and advocate policy proposals for which it it is abundantly clear to the vast majority of Americans that they and their loved ones will personally benefit.

I seem to remember as a younger person that the terms "distrubution", "redistribution", etc. were thrown around constantly without anyone but the far right flying off into into a tizzy. And the American people accepted for decades extremely high tax rates on the very wealthy, without any mature person being under any illusions that the purpose of these tax rates was to redistribute the wealth of the wealthy down the economic ladder to everyone else. Also, the metaphor of the national "pie" was commonplace, along with discussions of how it should be cut. So yes, we have some communications work to do to get back to that formerly prevailing philosophical outlook, and to undo some of the neoliberal laissez faire fanaticism of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution.

But I believe self-interest and common sense can ultimately prevail over ideology and paranoid resistance. To the extent that many Americans are stubbornly fixed against redistributive policies, the chief reason is that the right has successfully convinced a majority that government regulatory and fiscal policies represent a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the poor . What progressives have to do is articulate a new set of redistributive policies that will clearly make 80% to 90% of the country net winners, and then build a coalition around that new deal.

"I'll be the one looking

brewmn — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:49:09 +0000

In reply to Ridiculous? As in open to

"I'll be the one looking ridiculous, encouraging others to stand up in defense of themselves against the ultimate benefactors of your victories."

Yeah, but that's not what you're doing here. This why you're ridiculous: you seem equate insulting a bunch of people who share most of your political goals with "encouraging others to stand up in defense of themselves." You don't have a clue as to who your real political enemies are, but are instead more concerned with preening your noble outlook in front of a bunch of people who are every bit as committed to progressive change as you.

I'm reminded that even this

artappraiser — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:05:43 +0000

In reply to I don't get it. What's

I'm reminded that even this fervent-to-the-point-of-a-religion socialist "got it":

The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

--Upton Sinclair Letter to Norman Thomas (1951-09-25 )

Are you sure too much echo chamber reading hasn't gotten to your normal good sense, Dan? There's a big difference between saying things like "the rich should be paying their fair share" and implying that the government is the same exact thing as people and in that it is in the position of controlling and allocating all income produced. You yourself are implying that in this very comment that there's this "we" that owns everything and could be passing it out more fairly. You are simply living in the wrong country if you expect a lot of people to join you in not having a bad reaction to such talk, it isn't going to happen. Americans like the idea of personal ownership of property. Read the first link I gave again, from "I like Ike." What such language signifies to many Americans like him: run away from anyone who talks like this as fast as possible, and do not vote for anyone this person supports, as they are scary, they want to take everyone's stuff away and force them to do what they think is right.

I was too flippant here. They

Richard Day — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:17:00 +0000

In reply to DD, You've got me a bit

I was too flippant here. They were discussing Chrysler specifically.

They simply stressed over and over again that the secured creditors were getting less than a third of their monies back and the employees were receiving 55 % of their benefits.

Now it was not that simple. Individuals might go into bankruptcy and even though their debt with Mastercard was wiped clean; they sign new agreements with MC later to get the use of the card back.

So some secured creditors ended up getting all their money back because Chrysler resigned with them. And I assume that some portion of the pension funds hold stock in the company; so that complicates the matter even further.

I can see I must spend some more time looking at this mess.

Big banks and big auto companies were bailed out. That is a loaded and general phrase but that is what happened.

The lawyers I listened to were intimating that it might have been better for all these institutions to go into bankruptcy so that the rule of law governed one and all.

This is a mask the conservatives wear while their real message is: fuck the worker.

As to the government's ability and tendency to buttress one company over another or one industry over another you only have to look at our defense industry.

In Texas it appears that those that contribute to Perry's campaign chest get monies over those who choose not to do so.

MSM tells us--except Fox of course--that the auto bail outs were more of a success. Workers kept their jobs and the government was repaid.