The Two Americas

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
I am having a hard time believing you guys can't see future possibilities or distinctions between capitalism as it should be, capitalism as it is today, and the entire other end of the market spectrum.....am I missing something?

My problem with your general point, Cack, and I respect your intelligence and sincerity, is that the market (not the unbridled or "unfettered" market (though I would like to know where such an economic system exists because (a) I've never seen one and (b) I might like to move there)) is a better, long term distributor of wealth (and a working economic system), while maintaining some semblance of personal freedom, and has helped more poor people, than any and all of the central planners the world has seen. If you are talking about restraining crony capitalism, and collusion, and the government picking winners and losers, and too big to fail, and corporatism, then I agree with you.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Switzerland : Bastion of capitalism and democratic freedom. The country leverages everything they have into the most efficient and substantial of the Western European economies. They average a consistent growth every year since the middle ages. They plan, and they take care of their own.

Switzerland Fights Poverty By Paying Its Citizens

Sara Newman
November 13, 2013 | 8:11 p.m. PST

Basic income may be Switzerland's solution to international poverty issues, (Wikimedia commons)
Basic income may be Switzerland's solution to international poverty issues, (Wikimedia commons)

While President Obama recently announced his support for the Democratic proposal to elevate minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, Switzerland is considering providing all citizens with a monthly income—no work needed.

According to the New York Times, this fall activists gathered 125,000 signatures in support of a proposal to provide all citizens with a $2,800 monthly income—regardless of age, employment status, or marketability.

Artist Enno Schmidt helped develop the basic-income scheme, designed to eradicate poverty throughout the country while providing a safety net that would allow people to pursue their creativity and innovation.

As the co-founder of the Basic Income Initiative, Schmidt has become the figurehead of the proposal, giving interviews with international news sources to break down the radical proposal.

“Basic income means enough money to live without need,” Schmidt told The Real News Network. “It's simply to say, today we are rich enough and there are goods enough that we can say everybody needs an income to live. And why shall we--why have we to bound it to conditions?”

Even some conservatives support the proposal, excited that this program would rid of the complicated bureaucratic processes involved in the dispersal of benefits in other Western countries and encourages greater economic responsibility from citizens by making them manage the single lump sum.

Some people are so excited about this proposal to reduce poverty and homelessness, that experts have even considered how to adopt the proposal to work in the United States.

Poverty

In Switzerland, poverty means not having what others take for granted. The official poverty line in 2005 was 2,200 francs per month for a single person household, or 4,600 for a family with two children.

The number of low-income families in Canton Ticino is twice as great as in Canton Zurich.

A report issued in 2005 by the UN agency UNICEF on child poverty in 26 OECD countries found that 6.8% of children in Switzerland were affected. Families were defined as poor if they received less than half the median income for their country. In this respect only the Scandinavians had a lower rate. Switzerland tied with the Czech Republic. The rate in Australia was 14.7%, in Canada 14.9, in Great Britain 15.4, and the US 21.9%.

Working poor

Some people have jobs but nevertheless live below the poverty line. This group is categorised as the "working poor". The Federal Statistical Office reported that 4,2% of persons aged 20 to 59 fell into this category in 2005, down from 4,5% in 2004. The proportion of working poor in the population rose sharply in the mid-1990s, but since the turn of the century the overall trend has been downwards.

Welfare benefits

Welfare benefit is available for those who would otherwise fall below the minimum means of existence. According to the Federal Statistical Office 3.3% of the population drew such benefits in 2005. The report showed that beneficiaries were more likely to live in urban centres, where they accounted for five per cent of the population, than in rural areas, where the rate was only 1.4%.

The population groups who were over-represented in the figures included children in single-parent families or with many siblings, and young adults with no professional qualifications. Foreign residents, who often fall into both these categories, accounted for 43.8% of those drawing benefits.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
For one I am tired of promoting classist antisocial pathology as a norm, and promoting gangsters as heroes of capitalism.

The industrial revolution brought some people out of poverty in a way anyone would be hard-pressed to prove capitalism did.

And who gets welfare? The rich, without restriction. When the federal government relinquished the last of its GM stock last week, it was official. It gave a $ 10,000,000,000 hand out to the investor class, with no restrictions. For all of you who talk about risk/reward, to those of you who talk about the old pull yourself up by the bootstrap myth, this one is for you. This absolution of any risk by stupid, greedy investors, in a floundering company, that was being run into the ground by arrogant, officious management. This management was continuing to make the same bad product, hoping to make a profit by what? Increased employee productivity at a lower pay rate. Oh yeah, and raiding the corporate pension plan, (adequate short term sugar.)

Keep it up. You have no solution, not until you divorce yourself from the lies you have told yourself. (I presented the information about Switzerland in the previous post to show that I wasn't "against" capitalism, democracy, Mom's apple pie, the American Dream, ------- only stupidity. Oh, yeah, and arrogance (even my own), greed, and other unspecified unethical behavior.
 

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
If we give everyone in the US $2800/month, it would cost over $10 trillion a year. Would that be in addition to, or in place of, the other benefits paid? Just for comparison, and you probably knew this, actual US expenditures in 2013 were $3.45 trillion.
 

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
For one I am tired of promoting classist antisocial pathology as a norm, and promoting gangsters as heroes of capitalism.

The industrial revolution brought some people out of poverty in a way anyone would be hard-pressed to prove capitalism did.

And who gets welfare? The rich, without restriction. When the federal government relinquished the last of its GM stock last week, it was official. It gave a $ 10,000,000,000 hand out to the investor class, with no restrictions. For all of you who talk about risk/reward, to those of you who talk about the old pull yourself up by the bootstrap myth, this one is for you. This absolution of any risk by stupid, greedy investors, in a floundering company, that was being run into the ground by arrogant, officious management. This management was continuing to make the same bad product, hoping to make a profit by what? Increased employee productivity at a lower pay rate. Oh yeah, and raiding the corporate pension plan, (adequate short term sugar.)

Keep it up. You have no solution, not until you divorce yourself from the lies you have told yourself. (I presented the information about Switzerland in the previous post to show that I wasn't "against" capitalism, democracy, Mom's apple pie, the American Dream, ------- only stupidity. Oh, yeah, and arrogance (even my own), greed, and other unspecified unethical behavior.

I agree with all this, at least.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - was that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity who said that? Maybe it was that nut Ron Paul? No way that was

This article may be premium content, essentially Barron's went off on how Africa is worse off today than it was 200 years ago thanks to all of the "help" civilized folks have thrust upon the continent. Same thing here, the more people on the dole, the worse their dependency grows.

Renowned Writer Paul Theroux Critiques Philanthropy in Africa - Barrons.com
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Do you have any idea how investments actually work? The government SOLD $10 billion worth of GM stock that it took in return for bailout money. Real investor capital paid the government for those shares, they were not "given" to anyone.

Original stock owners were wiped out, as were a lot of bond investors who lost their legal place in line thanks to government intervention. What took place was an abomination of our financial system.

Not to mention, Uncle Ben put a total of $50 billion in GM and recouped about $40B. $10 billion loss. Had the normal bankruptcy process been followed the loss would have been $0 to tax payers, bond holders own the company and eat the loss associated with restructuring, but be way further ahead than being pinched out by the gubment. GM would still be making cars and going about their business.

Anyone who reports or retorts that everyone was going to lose their job is just completely ignorant of how these things work.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
My problem with your general point, Cack, and I respect your intelligence and sincerity, is that the market (not the unbridled or "unfettered" market (though I would like to know where such an economic system exists because (a) I've never seen one and (b) I might like to move there)) is a better, long term distributor of wealth (and a working economic system), while maintaining some semblance of personal freedom, and has helped more poor people, than any and all of the central planners the world has seen. If you are talking about restraining crony capitalism, and collusion, and the government picking winners and losers, and too big to fail, and corporatism, then I agree with you.

Appreciate the respect and likewise (reps). I guess IMO many people I talk to confuse the ideal of a free market (which we don't have, but including the textbook concepts of laissze faire and the invisible hand) with what we do have right now, which is crony capitalism and a government in collusion with and facilitating both public and corporate welfare, and proceed to use that as their understanding of what "capitalism" is. What I see on the large scale is:
  1. mass collusion between business and government/politicians on one side;
  2. mass collusion between the public and government on the other;
  3. shortsighted solutions to crisis after crisis by our politicians which essentially exacerbate the problems; and
  4. exclusivity of market access to the large companies while small business are stifled;
There has got to be a better scenario, but where is the incentive (profit) in figuring it out? I don't see where the ideal free market actually exists. It would be nice if the idealized level playing field and access existed. Not sure that is possible under this current system.
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
A long time ago Buster posted a video from a professor at Yale teaching a MBA course. This professor had a guest in the class and after interacting with the class about the principles of laissez faire capitalism, he introduced his guest to the class. The gentleman had been a financial exec at Enron. He left before the collapse, but not before trying to sound the alarms for what he saw happening. I believe he went on to start his own company. Anyway the professor asked him if all the execs in all the boardrooms he had been in believed in laissez faire policy, and the man stated well of course you learn about it in school and it is like this ideal that everyone claims to believe in and then once you get into business you do everything you can to if not destroy certainly subvert. The professor asked him what he would do if they had a healthy, competitive market, with easy and equal access to suppliers and consumers, with fair and competitive policies that allowed the market to actually dictate terms. (Something to this effect) Well, this guest said, I would run. He went on to say everyone knows all the textbook ideas about capitalism, but what everyone wants is influence and advantage. People don't want free markets they want to control markets. That is IMO where we are right now.

As Cack stated there is a difference between capitalism as it should be and capitalism as it is today. Attacking capitalism as it is today does not make one communist, anti-capitalism or any other label people like to throw around to shut down debate and suffocate the opportunity to open our minds and conceive that there ARE other options, that WE have power, and that eventually we have to take responsibility for the problems in our world and only we can correct them with healthy and sustainable solutions. Many of those profiting and many others suffering under the status quo desperately need to realize this.

Government RARELY makes things more advantageous for smaller business or poorer people. I mean, you need a permit to panhandle around here. Kids get lemonade stands shut down. You need to be a big business in order to fight the enormous tide of legislation, rules and regulations on the federal, state and local level. Even then, at any time you can be shut down by someone on any of those levels. Honest mistake? Oh well, you aren't going to be made whole, we are the government and we are here to help.

Who exactly pushes these regulations? I know if I was growing corn, a primary ingredient of ethanol in the US, I might want to mandate 10% in all gasoline and outlaw importation of more cost effective sugar cane ethanol. If I were a Medical Doctor, I might want to require PAs and NPs to work under a Medical Doctor rather than autonomously, no matter what level of care they are providing. Current banks want it to be hard for new ones to open up. My own industry keeps throwing up bigger barriers to entry and harder for small players to operate.

Crony Capitalism is abhorrent and I don't see much of anyone out there fighting it.

As far as investments, Jack Bogle has made everyone a passive investor. Activist investors are a rare breed but boy can they pack a wallop when they have the scale to turn a board back over to benefit shareholders. Mutual funds managers vote like sheep with the board and own huge chunks of shares in most companies. Constructive pressure from shareholders is nearly non-existent and board rooms become echo chambers filled with cronies.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Appreciate the respect and likewise (reps). I guess IMO many people I talk to confuse the ideal of a free market (which we don't have, but including the textbook concepts of laissze faire and the invisible hand) with what we do have right now, which is crony capitalism and a government in collusion with and facilitating both public and corporate welfare, and proceed to use that as their understanding of what "capitalism" is. What I see on the large scale is:
  1. mass collusion between business and government/politicians on one side;
  2. mass collusion between the public and government on the other;
  3. shortsighted solutions to crisis after crisis by our politicians which essentially exacerbate the problems; and
  4. exclusivity of market access to the large companies while small business are stifled;
There has got to be a better scenario, but where is the incentive (profit) in figuring it out? I don't see where the ideal free market actually exists. It would be nice if the idealized level playing field and access existed. Not sure that is possible under this current system.

Build a better and less expensive mouse trap and here is what will happen:

1) you are bought out by the top trap manufacturer and your patent is mothballed, protecting their market
2) the mousetrap industry lobbies for your design to be outlawed through the EPA, FDA, ATF and/or any other long list of government agencies that they might have a chance at getting you out of the market.
3) Industry lobbies government to place cost prohibitive requirements on your design and/or a long drawn out review process to ensure your product meets government standards
4) Industry will leverage the supply chain to get you crappy shelf space and placement if you ever make it to production

Looking at what lays in front of you, selling out starts to look pretty good.

Oh wait, CREE makes awesome lightbulbs. Obama speaks at their plants in Durham, NC all the time during the last election. Let's outlaw incandescent bulbs, just starting at 40w and 60w of course. People have to conserve energy and prevent California from going under water so we have "your" interests at heart. Even though they have an awesome tech, they can really jumpstart their success by outlawing the lowest cost alternative (and taking down $30 million of government "loans" recently to expand some facilities). But I'm sure all of that is unrelated.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Im always skeptical of anyone who sees classes everywhere. Like conspiracy theorists, they see organization and a world operating against too easily IMO.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Build a better and less expensive mouse trap and here is what will happen:

1) you are bought out by the top trap manufacturer and your patent is mothballed, protecting their market Market access
2) the mousetrap industry lobbies for your design to be outlawed through the EPA, FDA, ATF and/or any other long list of government agencies that they might have a chance at getting you out of the market. Private and government collusion
3) Industry lobbies government to place cost prohibitive requirements on your design and/or a long drawn out review process to ensure your product meets government standardsmarket access and private/government collusion
4) Industry will leverage the supply chain to get you crappy shelf space and placement if you ever make it to production more collusion and market access restrictions/access

Looking at what lays in front of you, selling out starts to look pretty good.

Oh wait, CREE makes awesome lightbulbs. Obama speaks at their plants in Durham, NC all the time during the last election. Let's outlaw incandescent bulbs, just starting at 40w and 60w of course. People have to conserve energy and prevent California from going under water so we have "your" interests at heart. Even though they have an awesome tech, they can really jumpstart their success by outlawing the lowest cost alternative (and taking down $30 million of government "loans" recently to expand some facilities) public, private, and government collusion and stifiling of small/emerging markets
So you agree? Seems like you just laid out one example of all of my points above. I don't really see a free market there at all.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Like I tell my wife (pretty much constantly), well that's a great problem you have identified, WTF are we going to do about it.

Until we get more libertarian minded politicians actively REMOVING legislation rather than writing more of it this problem will persist. I don't see it turning in my lifetime frankly and it does not bode well for our society.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Like I tell my wife (pretty much constantly), well that's a great problem you have identified, WTF are we going to do about it.

Until we get more libertarian minded politicians actively REMOVING legislation rather than writing more of it this problem will persist. I don't see it turning in my lifetime frankly and it does not bode well for our society.

Bingo.

Careful with the L word though, that is a practically a curse word nowadays.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Like I tell my wife (pretty much constantly), well that's a great problem you have identified, WTF are we going to do about it.

Until we get more libertarian minded politicians actively REMOVING legislation rather than writing more of it this problem will persist. I don't see it turning in my lifetime frankly and it does not bode well for our society.

LOL. I am glad we agree on the nature of the problem Although without regulations our current system is going through crisis after crisis where as between 1940s and 1980s we had relatively stable and positive growth so I don't think all regulations are bad, but there needs to be changes in the public and private sectors.

.
Might be time to open up the New Continental Congress thread.:uhoh:
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
Rep. Bobby Rush’s Englewood tech center dream dead, where did $1 million go? - Chicago Sun-Times

And here's another great example of crony-capitalism and Feds picking winners and losers.

For those not familiar with Chicago, Englewood could be the worst slum in the city, and they have good competition.

This fool, Bobby Rush, recently introduced a bill to to provide $100 million to create more trauma centers. The south side of Chicago is in "dire" need to get a trauma center. Money well spent.
 

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
Like I tell my wife (pretty much constantly), well that's a great problem you have identified, WTF are we going to do about it.

Until we get more libertarian minded politicians actively REMOVING legislation rather than writing more of it this problem will persist. I don't see it turning in my lifetime frankly and it does not bode well for our society.

We have a guy that works for us that is from Canada. All throughout the financial crisis he was very quick to point out that Canadian banks were growing and actually getting stronger. That they didn't offer the sub prime product, T.D. Waterhouse was buying up American debt, trying to help us out, etc...,etc..

I have no idea if all of this is true, my question for him was "Well, what is the reason for this? Is it because Canadian bankers are smarter than American bankers? Even this guy wasn't ready to go that far. I told him I don't think so, a good portion of them probably went to American Schools. What was the difference? He had to admit it is the regulations that were placed on the banks and the effective policing of the banks that kept them more financially stable. The fallacy that all regulations are bad, has been effectively marketed by those entities that would like to operate unfettered.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
We have a guy that works for us that is from Canada. All throughout the financial crisis he was very quick to point out that Canadian banks were growing and actually getting stronger. That they didn't offer the sub prime product, T.D. Waterhouse was buying up American debt, trying to help us out, etc...,etc..

I have no idea if all of this is true, my question for him was "Well, what is the reason for this? Is it because Canadian bankers are smarter than American bankers? Even this guy wasn't ready to go that far. I told him I don't think so, a good portion of them probably went to American Schools. What was the difference? He had to admit it is the regulations that were placed on the banks and the effective policing of the banks that kept them more financially stable. The fallacy that all regulations are bad, has been effectively marketed by those entities that would like to operate unfettered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Maybe their politicians are more intelligent.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Maybe their politicians are more intelligent.

k-bigpic3-300x194.jpg

Maybe not?
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Do you have any idea how investments actually work? The government SOLD $10 billion worth of GM stock that it took in return for bailout money. Real investor capital paid the government for those shares, they were not "given" to anyone.

Original stock owners were wiped out, as were a lot of bond investors who lost their legal place in line thanks to government intervention. What took place was an abomination of our financial system.

Not to mention, Uncle Ben put a total of $50 billion in GM and recouped about $40B. $10 billion loss. Had the normal bankruptcy process been followed the loss would have been $0 to tax payers, bond holders own the company and eat the loss associated with restructuring, but be way further ahead than being pinched out by the gubment. GM would still be making cars and going about their business.
Anyone who reports or retorts that everyone was going to lose their job is just completely ignorant of how these things work.

Exactly! Idiot investors got 10B in taxpayer money instead of having to be responsible for their own loss. This is welfare, not for daily sustenance, but for insurance against banking losses of the investors. 10B here, 10B there, and pretty soon you are talking real money!
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Guys,

Instead of bringing up anecdotal events, unrelated to anything, bring up major events representative of what is going on.

Don't blast Canada's much stronger economic direction which has lifted a much smaller engine as a more stable and productive machine, by pointing out that they have one idiot drug addict in a public position. Sure it is easy to make fun of him, many will laugh especially the slow minded and churlish among us. But that contributes nothing to the argument.

I strongly believe today's libertarian effort is a P.R. campaign by the wealthy to save themselves some money by making less seem like more to the simple minded. The logic flaw in most libertarian logic can be seen in the following; China, Japan, Europe, Russia, MiddleEastOilArabia are our biggest economic competitors, who among them is using the model of a smaller government to achieve their goals? When ever, except possibly, a monarchy. That is your best attempt at a libertarian form of government!

So if the comfort, security, and rights of the few are the most important -- let it rip!

Other than that I find a discussion like this funny! What are your goals? Are you bringing all peoples forward. Or are you just defining and recognizing a few narrow values? And using that as a moralistic justification for your less than humanitarian beliefs. (The original crack eggs to make an omelet argument.)

Once you have decided that, how long of a plan are you going to design to meet your objectives. I would argue that the ruination of this country will come with more short term gratification, bending all fixes to a fate of too little, for not long enough.

If you are going to achieve a result, you have to plan for the long run. This pseudo-capitalism that we have bends that. It is all short term profit. Get off to the bigger, better deal. There is no room to improve things so you have capital to invest, instead of manufactured debt (ceilings). That is why we cannot see investing in everybody's well being. By the way, we do not have to invest 10 T. The standard doesn't have to be raised as high as the Swiss example. A few brilliant minds could do it for less that what we are currently spending on ineffectual programs.

Case in point : changing the divorce industry in America, could make a significant change in the number of Americans living beneath the poverty level. We would just have to find something for all those lawyers, advocates, and clerics to do. Wait, aren't those courts part of what libertarians want to save money by cutting? I mean aren't they operated on taxpayer dollars? So not only would victims of divorce courts be saved, the children, but tax dollars would be saved, too!
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
Guys,

Instead of bringing up anecdotal events, unrelated to anything, bring up major events representative of what is going on.

Don't blast Canada's much stronger economic direction which has lifted a much smaller engine as a more stable and productive machine, by pointing out that they have one idiot drug addict in a public position. Sure it is easy to make fun of him, many will laugh especially the slow minded and churlish among us. But that contributes nothing to the argument.

I strongly believe today's libertarian effort is a P.R. campaign by the wealthy to save themselves some money by making less seem like more to the simple minded. The logic flaw in most libertarian logic can be seen in the following; China, Japan, Europe, Russia, MiddleEastOilArabia are our biggest economic competitors, who among them is using the model of a smaller government to achieve their goals? When ever, except possibly, a monarchy. That is your best attempt at a libertarian form of government!

So if the comfort, security, and rights of the few are the most important -- let it rip!

Other than that I find a discussion like this funny! What are your goals? Are you bringing all peoples forward. Or are you just defining and recognizing a few narrow values? And using that as a moralistic justification for your less than humanitarian beliefs. (The original crack eggs to make an omelet argument.)

Once you have decided that, how long of a plan are you going to design to meet your objectives. I would argue that the ruination of this country will come with more short term gratification, bending all fixes to a fate of too little, for not long enough.

If you are going to achieve a result, you have to plan for the long run. This pseudo-capitalism that we have bends that. It is all short term profit. Get off to the bigger, better deal. There is no room to improve things so you have capital to invest, instead of manufactured debt (ceilings). That is why we cannot see investing in everybody's well being. By the way, we do not have to invest 10 T. The standard doesn't have to be raised as high as the Swiss example. A few brilliant minds could do it for less that what we are currently spending on ineffectual programs.

Case in point : changing the divorce industry in America, could make a significant change in the number of Americans living beneath the poverty level. We would just have to find something for all those lawyers, advocates, and clerics to do. Wait, aren't those courts part of what libertarians want to save money by cutting? I mean aren't they operated on taxpayer dollars? So not only would victims of divorce courts be saved, the children, but tax dollars would be saved, too!

Cack didn't point out Rob Ford to bash Canada. He did it b/c I posted a video of Barney Frank and said that Canada's politicians may be more intelligent than ours. I thought his response was funny - excuse me, I'm a bit slow minded. Thanks for showing me how to post, though.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Cack didn't point out Rob Ford to bash Canada. He did it b/c I posted a video of Barney Frank and said that Canada's politicians may be more intelligent than ours. I thought his response was funny - excuse me, I'm a bit slow minded. Thanks for showing me how to post, though.

I either took a left turn or you read too much into my comment, or both. I was creating a point as I rolled. Trying to keep from talking about Aunt May's crazy neighbor Fred, saw the Toronto Hoover pop up and didn't take the time to see that it was a couple of buds having fun aside from the thread. I should have taken the time to read it and realize I shouldn't have used it as an example to talk about one to obscure the many. Especially, when, as you say, it wasn't about that, exactly. Cack knows where I come from. I hope someday you will too. Otherwise, if you did you wouldn't have needed to make the "thanking" comment at the end of your post. Sorry.

You are still alright with me!

(Just tell me that I am a hat on a head when I am hanging like that!)
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
To follow up on my faux pas, with something of merit, far better said than I could have done :

Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers has received 35 Emmy awards, nine Peabody Awards, the National Academy of Television’s Lifetime Achievement Award, and an honorary doctor of fine arts from the American Film Institute over his 40 years in broadcast journalism. He is currently host of the weekly public television series Moyers & Company and president of the Schumann Media Center.

December 13th, 2013 1:23 PM
The Great American Class War: Plutocracy Versus Democracy

By Bill Moyers

I met Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1987 when I was creating a series for public television called In Search of the Constitution, celebrating the bicentennial of our founding document. By then, he had served on the court longer than any of his colleagues and had written close to 500 majority opinions, many of them addressing fundamental questions of equality, voting rights, school segregation, and -- in New York Times v. Sullivan in particular -- the defense of a free press.

Those decisions brought a storm of protest from across the country. He claimed that he never took personally the resentment and anger directed at him. He did, however, subsequently reveal that his own mother told him she had always liked his opinions when he was on the New Jersey court, but wondered now that he was on the Supreme Court, “Why can’t you do it the same way?” His answer: “We have to discharge our responsibility to enforce the rights in favor of minorities, whatever the majority reaction may be.”

Although a liberal, he worried about the looming size of government. When he mentioned that modern science might be creating “a Frankenstein,” I asked, “How so?” He looked around his chambers and replied, “The very conversation we’re now having can be overheard. Science has done things that, as I understand it, makes it possible through these drapes and those windows to get something in here that takes down what we’re talking about.”

That was long before the era of cyberspace and the maximum surveillance state that grows topsy-turvy with every administration. How I wish he were here now -- and still on the Court!

My interview with him was one of 12 episodes in that series on the Constitution. Another concerned a case he had heard back in 1967. It involved a teacher named Harry Keyishian who had been fired because he would not sign a New York State loyalty oath. Justice Brennan ruled that the loyalty oath and other anti-subversive state statutes of that era violated First Amendment protections of academic freedom.

I tracked Keyishian down and interviewed him. Justice Brennan watched that program and was fascinated to see the actual person behind the name on his decision. The journalist Nat Hentoff, who followed Brennan’s work closely, wrote, “He may have seen hardly any of the litigants before him, but he searched for a sense of them in the cases that reached him.” Watching the interview with Keyishian, he said, “It was the first time I had seen him. Until then, I had no idea that he and the other teachers would have lost everything if the case had gone the other way.”

Toward the end of his tenure, when he was writing an increasing number of dissents on the Rehnquist Court, Brennan was asked if he was getting discouraged. He smiled and said, “Look, pal, we’ve always known -- the Framers knew -- that liberty is a fragile thing. You can’t give up.” And he didn’t.

The Donor Class and Streams of Dark Money

The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate. “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”

We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have the Roberts Court that consistently privileges the donor class.

We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have a Senate in which, as a study by the political scientist Larry Bartels reveals, “Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes.”

We don’t have emperors yet, but we have a House of Representatives controlled by the far right that is now nourished by streams of “dark money” unleashed thanks to the gift bestowed on the rich by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

We don’t have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed at the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor; while the other party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers only token resistance to the forces that have demoralized everyday Americans.

Writing in the Guardian recently, the social critic George Monbiot commented,

“So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics... When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians [of the main parties] stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?”

Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Because record numbers of Americans are in poverty. Why are people falling through the cracks? Because there are cracks to fall through. It is simply astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits, spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves its own interests, and demands that our political class push for further austerity. Meanwhile, roughly 46 million Americans live at or below the poverty line and, with the exception of Romania, no developed country has a higher percent of kids in poverty than we do. Yet a study by scholars at Northwestern University and Vanderbilt finds little support among the wealthiest Americans for policy reforms to reduce income inequality.

Class Prerogatives

Listen! That sound you hear is the shredding of the social contract.

Ten years ago the Economist magazine -- no friend of Marxism -- warned: “The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.” And as a recent headline in the Columbia Journalism Review put it: “The line between democracy and a darker social order is thinner than you think.”

We are this close -- this close! -- to losing our democracy to the mercenary class. So close it’s as if we’re leaning way over the rim of the Grand Canyon waiting for a swift kick in the pants.

When Justice Brennan and I talked privately in his chambers before that interview almost 20 years ago, I asked him how he had come to his liberal sentiments. “It was my neighborhood,” he said. Born to Irish immigrants in 1906, as the harsh indignities of the Gilded Age brought hardship and deprivation to his kinfolk and neighbors, he saw “all kinds of suffering -- people had to struggle.” He never forgot those people or their struggles, and he believed it to be our collective responsibility to create a country where they would have a fair chance to a decent life. “If you doubt it,” he said, “read the Preamble [to the Constitution].”

He then asked me how I had come to my philosophy about government (knowing that I had been in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations). I don’t remember my exact words, but I reminded him that I had been born in the midst of the Great Depression to parents, one of whom had to drop out of school in the fourth grade, the other in the eighth, because they were needed in the fields to pick cotton to help support their families.

Franklin Roosevelt, I recalled, had been president during the first 11 years of my life. My father had listened to his radio “fireside chats” as if they were gospel; my brother went to college on the G.I. Bill; and I had been the beneficiary of public schools, public libraries, public parks, public roads, and two public universities. How could I not think that what had been so good for me would be good for others, too?

That was the essence of what I told Justice Brennan. Now, I wish that I could talk to him again, because I failed to mention perhaps the most important lesson about democracy I ever learned.

On my 16th birthday in 1950, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town where I grew up. It was a racially divided town -- about 20,000 people, half of them white, half of them black -- a place where you could grow up well-loved, well-taught, and well-churched, and still be unaware of the lives of others merely blocks away. It was nonetheless a good place to be a cub reporter: small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something new every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the old-timers in the newsroom were on vacation or out sick, and I got assigned to report on what came to be known as the “Housewives’ Rebellion.” Fifteen women in town (all white) decided not to pay the Social Security withholding tax for their domestic workers (all black).

They argued that Social Security was unconstitutional, that imposing it was taxation without representation, and that -- here’s my favorite part -- “requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage.” They hired themselves a lawyer -- none other than Martin Dies, Jr., the former congressman best known, or worst known, for his work as head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the witch-hunting days of the 1930s and 1940s. They went to court -- and lost. Social Security was constitutional, after all. They held their noses and paid the tax.

The stories I helped report were picked up by the Associated Press and circulated nationwide. One day, the managing editor, Spencer Jones, called me over and pointed to the AP ticker beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing the reporters on our paper for the reporting we had done on the “rebellion.” I spotted my name and was hooked. In one way or another, after a detour through seminary and then into politics and government, I’ve been covering the class war ever since.

Those women in Marshall, Texas, were among its advance guard. Not bad people, they were regulars at church, their children were my classmates, many of them were active in community affairs, and their husbands were pillars of the business and professional class in town. They were respectable and upstanding citizens all, so it took me a while to figure out what had brought on that spasm of reactionary defiance. It came to me one day, much later: they simply couldn’t see beyond their own prerogatives.

Fiercely loyal to their families, to their clubs, charities, and congregations -- fiercely loyal, in other words, to their own kind -- they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like themselves. The black women who washed and ironed their laundry, cooked their families’ meals, cleaned their bathrooms, wiped their children’s bottoms, and made their husbands’ beds, these women, too, would grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show for their years of labor but the creases on their brows and the knots on their knuckles. There would be nothing for them to live on but the modest return on their toil secured by the collaborative guarantee of a safety net.

The Unfinished Work of America

In one way or another, this is the oldest story in America: the struggle to determine whether “we, the people” is a moral compact embedded in a political contract or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.

I should make it clear that I don’t harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for Lyndon Johnson. Nor do I romanticize “the people.” You should read my mail and posts on right-wing websites. I understand the politician in Texas who said of the state legislature, “If you think these guys are bad, you should see their constituents.”

But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens (something otherwise known as social justice) and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That can be the difference between democracy and plutocracy.

Toward the end of Justice Brennan’s tenure on the Supreme Court, he made a speech that went to the heart of the matter. He said:

“We do not yet have justice, equal and practical, for the poor, for the members of minority groups, for the criminally accused, for the displaced persons of the technological revolution, for alienated youth, for the urban masses... Ugly inequities continue to mar the face of the nation. We are surely nearer the beginning than the end of the struggle.”

And so we are. One hundred and fifty years ago, Abraham Lincoln stood on the blood-soaked battlefield of Gettysburg and called Americans to “the great task remaining.” That “unfinished work,” as he named it, remained the same then as it was when America’s founding generation began it. And it remains the same today: to breathe new life into the promise of the Declaration of Independence and to assure that the Union so many have sacrificed to save is a union worth saving.

Bill Moyers has received 35 Emmy awards, nine Peabody Awards, the National Academy of Television’s Lifetime Achievement Award, and an honorary doctor of fine arts from the American Film Institute over his 40 years in broadcast journalism. He is currently host of the weekly public television series Moyers & Company and president of the Schumann Media Center, a non-profit organization which supports independent journalism. He delivered these remarks (slightly adapted here) at the annual Legacy Awards dinner of the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan public policy institute in New York City that focuses on voting rights, money in politics, equal justice, and other seminal issues of democracy.
 
Last edited:

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
The media like to create the fiction that one side is winning in all this. We hear so much about the extreme right wing House or the most liberal president in recent memory. But no one on the far right or far left, or even the near right or near left are celebrating. Basically, most everyone is unhappy. The liberals are terrified of Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin while the conservatives are up in arms over President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, the centrists, the muddled middle are wondering where their reasonable, ready-to-compromise, down-the-middle hero is.

No one is satisfied, no one feels like progress is being made. Most everyone feels that they are being lied to, sold out, cheated. So who the hell is winning?
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
The media like to create the fiction that one side is winning in all this. We hear so much about the extreme right wing House or the most liberal president in recent memory. But no one on the far right or far left, or even the near right or near left are celebrating. Basically, most everyone is unhappy. The liberals are terrified of Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin while the conservatives are up in arms over President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, the centrists, the muddled middle are wondering where their reasonable, ready-to-compromise, down-the-middle hero is.

No one is satisfied, no one feels like progress is being made. Most everyone feels that they are being lied to, sold out, cheated. So who the hell is winning?

The people that paid for all of this. Read the Bill Moyers article.

Or for more of the Irish perspective, as my father said, "It is like the magician, he gets you to watch one hand, while the other is doing all the work!"

The only problem with libertarianism is it does less to save us from the magician than what we have.

See there was a problem in this country. As a result of the avarice that led to the Great Depression, laws of financial responsibility were passed. Under the Reagan, Clinton and Bush I & II Administrations, with Congressional Legislation, and Presidential Executive Order these laws were gutted or removed. Hell even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act.

A perfect point is RDU's counter point about GM : Investors were given a 10B payout. Even though it wasn't paid directly to them, it helped in terms of stabilizing overall stock value, liability beyond stock ownership for preferred and special stocks and the recoup of more than a few cents on the dollar, (bankruptcy); The federal government in control could have mandated development of anything from busses to bullet trains, forwarding the technology and market for mass transit. In turn, mass transit would help the poor first, and eventually help all of us by reducing things from economic waste for the bidding wars with China for oil, and a significant lost expenditures for military, because less need for oil makes us so much more secure.

Fast and advanced train systems are just not for moving people. Want to afford a chicken Caesar salad in the next ten years? Put money into rapid transit freight trains now. It is your cheapest solution!
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
The people that paid for all of this. Read the Bill Moyers article.

Or for more of the Irish perspective, as my father said, "It is like the magician, he gets you to watch one hand, while the other is doing all the work!"

The only problem with libertarianism is it does less to save us from the magician than what we have.

See there was a problem in this country. As a result of the avarice that led to the Great Depression, laws of financial responsibility were passed. Under the Reagan, Clinton and Bush I & II Administrations, with Congressional Legislation, and Presidential Executive Order these laws were gutted or removed. Hell even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act.

A perfect point is RDU's counter point about GM : Investors were given a 10B payout. Even though it wasn't paid directly to them, it helped in terms of stabilizing overall stock value, liability beyond stock ownership for preferred and special stocks and the recoup of more than a few cents on the dollar, (bankruptcy); The federal government in control could have mandated development of anything from busses to bullet trains, forwarding the technology and market for mass transit. In turn, mass transit would help the poor first, and eventually help all of us by reducing things from economic waste for the bidding wars with China for oil, and a significant lost expenditures for military, because less need for oil makes us so much more secure.

Fast and advanced train systems are just not for moving people. Want to afford a chicken Caesar salad in the next ten years? Put money into rapid transit freight trains now. It is your cheapest solution!

I read the Moyers article. There are good points, even if it leans a little too much on relating anecdotes to buttress the standard issue leftist, baby boomer, member-of-the-intelligentsia-but still-a-populist world view that people like Moyers have.

The way that politicians and titans of industry can get away with all of this is that they are, at least in some ways, doing things that benefit the regular folks. Politicians and industrialists make a sweetheart deal, but look! Hundreds of local jobs created! Pay no attention to the reckless tax breaks, bloated expense, and juicy union contracts that are part of the deal. They throw some crumbs our way, and we are supposed to be grateful. And those who protest that having the opportunity to make your own bread is better than taking the crumbs get labeled as greedy, racist, and selfish. As others have noted, the system is stacked against the little guy who wants to make his own bread. He has to jump through too many hoops and red tape, spend way too much money on redundant compliance, hire people that he doesn't want or need or can't afford.

I don't like the idea of GM being forced to work on mass transit anymore then I liked the bailout that they got to keep them out of bankruptcy. GM couldn't keep its head above water building cars; now they're supposed to move into a whole new sector of the transportation industry? No thanks.
 
Top