What the elites are trying to steal from us, and why

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 16:30


In a typically excellent piece last week, "When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules", economist Dean Baker made the point that so-called "free trade" rules are made in highly selective manner--to put downward pressure on the vast majority of Americans, while letting a small minority continue to reap monopolistic rents. This was not, perhaps the main point of his post--or maybe it was.  In any event, it was an integral part of his argument, a very useful entry point, and something that's far too often ignored:

The upward redistribution of the last three decades has nothing to do with the market and a belief in "market fundamentalism." This is about a process where the rich and powerful have rewritten the rules to make themselves richer and more powerful.

For example, they wrote trade rules that were designed to put downward pressure on the wages of the bulk of the U.S. workforce by placing manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in China and other developing countries. This had nothing to do with a belief in "free trade." They did not try to subject lawyers, doctors or other highly paid workers to the same sort of international competition. They only wanted international competition to put downward pressure on the wages of workers in the middle and bottom, not those at the top.

This elite has instituted a system of corporate governance that allows top executives to pilfer companies at the expense of their shareholders and its workers. Top executives are overseen only by a board of directors who owe their hugely overpaid sinecures to the executives they supervise. And of course the Wall Street barons themselves are given a license to gamble with the implicit promise that government picks up their tab when they lose.

Given that reality, Baker argues, the strategic imperative for action is clear:

No progressive movement will make any progress until we understand the battle we are fighting. Our income is a cost to the rich. They will look to cut it wherever they can, whether this is wages for private sector workers, pensions for public employees, or Social Security for retirees. That is their target.

We have to fight back using the same logic. Their income is our cost -- the multimillion dollar bonuses for the Wall Street wizards is a direct drain on the economy. So are the bloated paychecks of top executives and their lackey boards. Progressives must be prepared to use all the same tactics to bring down the income of the rich and powerful that they have used to reduce the income of everyone else.

The bolded section above is crucial.  It's the most focused explanation I think I've seen to explain the common thread of all the conservative economic attacks that are being mobilized against us--as well as the neoliberal "compromises" that are being implemented or readied to sell us out.  Keep that passage in front of you at all times, and you'll save yourself enormous amounts of grief.

Not least of all, it will help you recognize when someone's trying to distract you by pitting you against some other poor soul who's in exactly the same sort lose/lose negative sum situation that you are.  Pitting one generation against another?  Workers and/or taxpayers from one state against another?  Employed against unemployed?  Insured against uninsured?  Oil rig workers against fishermen? (Especially when both are one and the same workers!)  All these and more just different forms of the same class war game, the oldest one in the book: Let's you and him fight.

What they're after right now on the global scale is a massive roll-back of social insurance, wages, and middle-class wealth. In short: They want to wipe out the middle class that has taken several centuries to create, and return us to the pre-modern world that is divided almost entirely between rich and poor, with a small middle class that consists almost entirely of hangers on servicing the rich as glorified servants.

Is that a world you want your children and grandchildren to live in?  And that's if global warming and other large-scale systemic failures don't make it catastrophically worse.

That is the future they have in mind for us.  That is what we're fighting against.

Paul Rosenberg :: What the elites are trying to steal from us, and why

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A year or so ago (4.00 / 16)
A year or so ago that article would have seem way to radical for me.  Now it just seems like a simple statement of fact.

I don't think I'm the only one going through this change in understanding.


I hear some of us are getting less radical (4.00 / 1)
also welcome to reality, Mark

[ Parent ]
I have written many times (4.00 / 8)
before: people do not understand what globalization means, and the challenge it represents to the gains of the last 70 years.  We are seeing exploding productivity and stagnant wages across the industrialized world.

I think the free trade types are true believers - and the free traders extend all the way to Krugman and Stiglitz.  Few principles are as widely accepted in economics as comparative advantage.  I once made a serious attempt to argue the point in Grad school, and was told by a left leaning professor I shouldn't waste the class's time.

About a month ago I posted something from the founder of Intel, Andy Grove, who basically wrote that we needed to completely re-think our understanding of the implications of free trade.  In it he suggested 10 jobs are created overseas for every job created in the US by a US Company.  That 10 to 1 rule explains why Apple, which has been enourmously successful, was found to have been using Child labor in China, and has 250,000 contractors in Southern China alone but only 25,000 employees in the US.  Despite exploding revenue, Apple headcount in the US has remained largely stable.

This is also why IBM has stopped reporting data on US Headcount - it is widely believed IBM - the World's largest technology employer - now has more Indian employees than US employees.

The scale of the change that is coming is going to shock people.


[ Parent ]
I've made that same journey and have that same thought. (0.00 / 0)
The only thing that gives me real hope is that if I- i.e., just some guy- can wake up and recognize what's really happening, many other people can too.

[ Parent ]
I agree, but see it the other way 'round (0.00 / 0)
I wonder why more people don't wake up. More precisely, I wonder who might be trying to put us all back to sleep and why they are so successful.

I know it sounds like conspiracy theory, but this diary does suggest that there are powerful forces "the elites" organized against the rest of us and they have resources, too.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
It's NOT Conspiracy Theory (0.00 / 0)
Nobody's doing this in dark secret rooms.  It's all right out in the open.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That is true (0.00 / 0)
but after more than a few years of trying to express these perspectives to friends and aquaintances that may not share my worldview, I have a gut-level response to try and inoculate myself against the "that's just conspiracy theory!" rejoinder.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
The Time Is Ripe (4.00 / 2)
For me to finally commit to writing my explanation of the difference between conspiracy theory and structural analysis.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
A conspiracy (4.00 / 5)
suggests an intentional effort to collude and hide.  As Paul says, there is nothing hidden, but I don't think there is any intention to collude, either.  It is the nature of the system we have that promotes the aggregation of resources/capital in the hands of a few, rather than have them be more evenly distributed.  It's capitalism as we practice it that produces these outcomes.  It is Paul's story of the railroads, Wired's story of the web, or the one that should be familiar to many is the story of Goldman Sachs (coupled with the rest of the big financial institutions).

From there, the story is human nature and human social interaction.  We do tend to gravitate to others like ourselves.  We make, at least, a tentative assumption of acceptance.  And, once integrated, group norms have a powerful influence.  These very powerful people, in command of tremendous resources and financial capital, are not unaware of their power, but probably also see nothing wrong with it.  Group norms would suggest that it's not only "normal," but preferable.  And, consistent with their human natures, they are competitive among themselves.  At some point it's less than a spreadsheet of net worth and more like a scoreboard.

The story is the system, less than the people who are in it.


[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
everyone can see it in their lives every day.

What is interesting is how little effect it has had on economists, and how completely out to lunch the political class is about the dimensions of the problem.  But then the first problem is very much effecting the second.


[ Parent ]
"We Are Cornered: There's No Way Out Without a Fight" (4.00 / 11)
At the risk of irritating some for repeating, here is a relevant column from Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report which I posted in a Quick Hit a little while ago.

http://blackagendareport.com/?...

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
"A corporate offensive is rolling down upon us, aimed at wholesale privatization of the public sector. If the Left has learned anything in the last year and a half, it should be that President Obama is Wall Street's guy, having "delivered the highest return on corporate campaign investment in the history of bourgeois democracy." In this struggle, the people will be left to their own devices."

"Wall Street's servants become more aggressive and demanding, and there is nothing in the Democratic Party, as presently constituted, to stop them."

There is no cavalry coming over the ridge to save the people from massed capital. Certainly not the Democrats, whose self-caged left wing now finds its marginalized encampments under lockdown by their own president's hostile patrols, while the GOP and its Tea Party irregulars howl from the circling darkness. That's what happens when progressives maneuver themselves onto the same side of the battlefield as Goldman Sachs, as they did with abandon in 2007-08, deliriously fighting their way into a cul-de-sac in which they are now surrounded.

The leftish brigades rallied to a commander who styled himself an incarnation of Abraham Lincoln, but turned out to be a General George McClellan, the Union's first commander of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan was great at rousing the troops and putting his army on parade, but constantly overestimated his Confederate adversaries and, in Lincoln's final estimation, refused to fight. The political roots of his reluctance to crush the Confederacy became clear after his dismissal when, in 1864, he challenged Lincoln on the Democratic "peace" party's ticket. McClellan never really wanted to win the war, or, at the very least, saw victory in a very different way than Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

It has long been clear that Barack Obama's idea of victory required decisively defeating the Left of his own party. Everyone to his left is to be neutralized, while those to his right rate an open hand and endless concessions, the scenario from the very start of his health care "negotiations" with the drug and insurance industries. Victory in the racial arena means an end to race agitation, a Black stand-down, which remains largely in place. Success in war, not pursuit of peace, is his goal, one that will surely elude him, but not for lack of trying."


It Just Shows How Obvious This Is (4.00 / 2)
I first posted this at 3 PM, EST, then pulled it back because Adama posted another diary just afterward, and I wanted his to break things up.  You posted that Quick Hit almost exactly at the same time that I first put this diary up.

Of course, both Glen and I have been thinking about this for some time. And, as Mark says, "Now it just seems like a simple statement of fact."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Earlier post (0.00 / 0)
I actually saw the earlier post, clicked on the Baker link, read that, came back to read what you wrote and... hey, gone!

[ Parent ]
We're VERY Sneaky Around Here... (0.00 / 0)
Heck, we even tell you what we've been up to.  What's up with that?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
FWIW (0.00 / 0)
You're more transparent and accountable than Obama.

[ Parent ]
It also shows just how much our thinking has changed. (4.00 / 10)
In a way, the Gibbs/Obama attack on the left was a very liberating event. I think we are freed from thinking about this administration as if there were anything in it for the progressive left or popular government.

[ Parent ]
of course there is the question (4.00 / 1)
of how much further to the right this center-right government will lurch, Fasten your seat belts. There is turbulence ahead.

[ Parent ]
Not there yet (0.00 / 0)
This, on the other hand, is still too radical for me.  I may take another year...

I still feel Obama believes he is keeping the corporate interested at bay (through bribes, deals and compromises) so he can implement his "liberal" agenda.

Perhaps it won't really take another year.  That paragraph above has a "you say tuh-mey-toh, I say tuh-mah-toh" quality to it.


[ Parent ]
I'm Pretty Much In Agreement With Ford (4.00 / 1)
But I don't have to be.  It's not so much about Obama's inner soul.  It's just about what he does.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I had just written the same thought (4.00 / 1)
then decided I had already said enough.

Keep in mind that Ford is one of the few voices we hear of how current conditions are impacting the underclass. Necessarily his tone is going to be harsher.


[ Parent ]
I'm actually glad you reposted this here (4.00 / 11)
since there's still no way to "rec" a quick hit.

Regarding different types of workers being pitted against one another:
What's most upsetting to me is the "war" between workers with decent wages and benefits against those without. More and more, people without the fair wages and benefits see those who have them as overly privileged. So instead of saying, "Hey! We want those good wages and benefits too!", they're saying,"Hey! How come they get those sweet wages and benefits when the rest of us don't? The rest of us don't get that, so why should they?"

There are, of course, multiple casualties for this attitude which has steadily gained steam in post-Reagan era, and which seems to get stronger every year. But regardless of what's to blame, it's clear that not only have people forgotten how to fight for something better, or that they even can fight for something better, worst of all they've forgotten that they even deserve something better -  and that "something" is a key part of what used to be seen as the basic social contract of this "great" country of ours.  


[ Parent ]
Privatization means hand money and power to the richest. (4.00 / 3)
Privatization means take power from the democratic government and give it to the ultra-wealthy. The only thing that appears to be a market transaction is the acquisition of the contract, and that usual happens because the contracting officer doing the negotiation has been paid off by the contractor.

The only efficiency that results is how efficiently the government money is handed to the super wealthy. The low income taxpayers shoulder the unnecessary costs of such a contract while the wealthy guys and the contracting officer get the benefits. That's the free market at work.  


[ Parent ]
The Money Never Disappears (4.00 / 6)
What strikes me is that there is a finite amount of money that flows through our economy that is spent at many different levels. By choking off the flow to wages, for example, the money becomes available for debt service to afford mergers (that usually include golden parachutes for some of the senior managers) which, in turn, yields higher prices/rents. Or yields extra money for outrageous CEO salaries hundreds of times greater than the lowest salary in their companies.

In short, saying there is no money often is a flat out lie. It simply some one has made a choice to put a dollar in one place instead of another.

What I have not thought much about is what would happen if WalMart had to pay $20/hour as a minimum wage and its suppliers did the same? Prices would go up certainly but would that be a disaster? Put another way, how hard would it be to wean ourselves off a low-cost society (which, actually, is yet another way to redirect money away from the majority of people who work by driving down wages of their suppliers and training people to only buy when they can pay less)?

The other interesting dynamic with our current system is the difference between a wealthy person "spending" $100 million and the government spending the same money. The wealthy person will spend the money by investing which leads to hedge funds and speculation and not many jobs. It's too much money to break into $250k units to get FDIC protection. The government, in contrast, spends the money immediately in many different ways that lead directly to consumption and follow on economic activity. This fact/dynamic about the economic impact of private vs government spending of massive amounts of money also is ignored.


Wal Mart (4.00 / 6)
Wal Mart has a company rule of spending 1% of sales on wages (in the stores).  Raising wages to $20 per hour would increase cost by 1% or a Very little more.  Costco pays a living wage and nobody notices the price difference because, in part, top execs are paid reasonable and not excessive incomes.

[ Parent ]
It Proves Paul's Thesis (4.00 / 4)
Interesting data on WalMart, especially considering the Walton heirs are some of the wealthiest people in the US. it's also the reason I refuse to shop WalMart but do shop Costco. It's that hippie thing about every dollar being a vote to reward or punish corporate behavior.

[ Parent ]
How does CostCo keep its prices so low? (0.00 / 0)
Off-shore production, perhaps?

The lesser of evils.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
You missing the larger picture (4.00 / 1)
the revenue that Walmart generates is largely the result of offshored production processes.  When you buy a product at Walmart, most of the cost is in the production, not the labor cost at the store.

The jobs being lost at Walmart are in the things you buy there.  


[ Parent ]
A What If (0.00 / 0)
My point in asking about WalMart, as one example, was to ask the question: what would happen if our economy switched from "job destruction" as its motive and instead did the opposite, create living wage jobs? While people might say "profit optimization" is the purpose of our economy, in fact you can't optimize profit if you cut the spending power of your customers. Which is what happens when you offshore jobs, depress wages, and destroy the middle class.

But what if incentives were set the other way? What if WalMart had a choice to either pay a living wage (say $20/hour) or pay triple whatever welfare money (e.g. Section 8, children's lunches) their employees got from the government? What if businesses were taxed more heavily for jobs offshored and nothing for jobs created here? Certainly prices would go up but so would incomes available to hundreds of millions of Americans. Really the only change I see is that the money spent on wages would come from CEO salaries, debt service for mergers, and other useless economic activity (useless relative to creating jobs).

I'm simply curious if the opposite of what we have is possible. I think it is. But I wondered what others thought. Sorry that was unclear.


[ Parent ]
Sadly all too true. (4.00 / 3)
"Our income is a cost to the rich. They will look to cut it wherever they can, whether this is wages for private sector workers, pensions for public employees, or Social Security for retirees. That is their target."

Friends all over the world are noting this theft of salaries.

When 235 people already own 3/4 of the world's total wealth, what need more???

The NYT article showing that the upward redistribution of income to the rich is what leads to terrible financial crises should forewarn everyone on this.

The new mantra of the Republicans is in sync with this: "cheap labor" is paramount.


Worse, it isn't actually true (4.00 / 3)
I think we've all seen this chart.  The rich actually do slightly better under Democrats administrations then under Republican ones.  (But it is close.)

Not that they would ever admit this.  It is all about being better than everyone else.


[ Parent ]
Statistic (0.00 / 0)
BTW, if I were to drive the economy by one, simple statistic, it would be average income growth.  Bill Gate's 3% growth would count exactly the same as mine and yours.

[ Parent ]
The rich will never admit this (4.00 / 3)
because they already have wealth. What they want is more power and social status.

Off them greater wealth to give up the demand for power and status and they'll laugh at you. Rick Scott in Florida and Carly Fiorino in California are not investing money for the investment return. They are chasing power, nothing else.  


[ Parent ]
Our friend Alan Simpson loves us! (4.00 / 3)
"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know. And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"

Go f*#k yourself, Alan.

h/t The Confluence


Simpson is Obama's man... (4.00 / 1)
...his co-chair to re-look at "Social Security".

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Oh, I know that. (0.00 / 0)
I am "hoping" that you don't think that means a damn thing.

Because what it really means is that Obama can do the same.


[ Parent ]
Well it does mean that we are screwed... (4.00 / 4)
...there is no major party that supports middle and working class people.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
I'll say this for Mr. Simpson (4.00 / 7)
Mr. Simpson is very, very familiar with babbling into the vapors.

It's not because Social Security faces a crisis that they are concerned.

It's not because they mistakenly believe Social Security faces a crisis that they are concerned.

It is because Social Security is the most effective and efficient anti-poverty social insurance policy in the history of this country that causes them concern. And by making slightly more possible the withdrawal of workers from the wage economy (e.g. retirement) while reducing desperation, albeit only slightly, for older Americans and their families, the system helps prop up workers of all ages. Must be stopped.

There is the incentive to tap the fund and obtain fees in private investing but I believe the most important incentive for the attack on Social Security is to inculcate a lack on confidence in government. If the very best is sure to fail, then give it up and go your own way: That's why they wage war on Social Security.

Cue "responsible" leaders like Obama: "Well, Al's always a bit loose with his words, and maybe he is a bit dramatic, but, look, there really is a problem..." and the whole spectrum slides inexorably in the wrong direction.

Judging by polling data from younger Americans the attack is working, albeit slowly, but it is working and every year, with every commission, every election, every article, every "crisis" report, every nightly news lead slowly draining confidence, they wait for the right moment to take the head shot.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
When we were growing up we were taught... (4.00 / 1)
...that the Soviets and the Communist Chinese were our enemies and indeed they were...what we were never taught however was that our greatest enemies were in the boardrooms of "our" own corporations right here in our own cities and states.  Fellow Americans, who talked, looked, and acted much like us.  In the end these corporate leaders were able enrich themselves and their descendants for generations to come while wrecking economic devastation upon this country much more than a Stalin or a Hitler ever did, or ever could.  We had traitors among us, and our greatest enemy was within.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


We were taught what the corporate masters wanted us taught. (4.00 / 1)
When we were growing up we were taught that the Soviets and the Communist Chinese were our enemies and indeed they were...what we were never taught however was that our greatest enemies were in the boardrooms of "our" own corporations right here in our own cities and states
Why were we taught that the Communists were our enemies?

Because they were the enemies of the members of the boardroom who were, in fact, our worst enemies. Because those wealthy and powerful individuals told us the Communists were our enemies.

The fact is that a centrally controlled economy doesn't work well because most of the decisions are made too far away from where they have to be implemented. Markets to make the allocation decisions need to be close to the productive institutions they control. But if you think the members of the board of directors of a large organization are influenced by market transactions I'll be happy do sell you a bridge I Alaska in a market transaction.  


[ Parent ]
I believe the communists were our enemies... (0.00 / 0)
...because in essence they were totalitarian and murderous regimes on a massive scale.  However when the question is about our own security and national wealth, the most threatening enemy was right here within our midsts.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Without a doubt (4.00 / 3)
the most prescient and insightful post I've read on the 'net in just about ever.

What Dean Baker is saying truly is "the most focused explanation I think I've seen to explain the common thread of all the conservative economic attacks that are being mobilized against us."

But equally important to understand is that this is not just about liberal/conservative ideology, as currently both ideologies subscribe to the "Wall Street rules."

This truly is a monumental struggle for equality and justice that can't be obfuscated by narratives emanating from DC and MSM narratives.

We on OpenLeft understand this and have to continue to explain to the world what's at stake.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...


"liberal/conservative ideology" (4.00 / 2)
What Baker describes is the core of conservatism. It most certainly is about "liberal/conservative ideology." Perhaps you are confusing liberalism with neo(i.e. fake)liberalism or wrongly equating all Democratic Party positions with liberalism.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Yes, you're right. (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for clarifying. I should have worded my comment as you've suggested.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!! (4.00 / 1)
What you said
They want to wipe out the middle class that has taken several centuries to create, and return us to the pre-modern world that is divided almost entirely between rich and poor, with a small middle class that consists almost entirely of hangers on servicing the rich as glorified servants.
is exactly right. The wealthiest and most powerful class has been in control of society since humans created cities.

A middle class society and democracy is anethema to the power the highest class has wielded, and they do not want to let go. What should we expect? The wealthiest class has dominated human society since towns first existed. That, by the way, is the definition of a class society. The wealthy and powerful fight to defend their catbird seat. That's the definition of class warfare.

Democracy and a middle class society is a massive threat to their position. They use their power to shape the ideas that control society, and one of those ideas is that the fair exchange between buyer and seller will automatically achieve the most rationale economic decision. But the deck is stacked in that transaction. The class in power builds power into the free market so that the powerful automatically receive the lion's share of the value created in economic transactions.

The key is that the powerful build power into the buyer/seller exchange. This is described in Eric Wolf' book Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. The essence of this is that the powerful individuals stack the deck in their own favor before they push the idea that a free market achieves the "optimal" economic decision. An example is the fact that the major development banks are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, both located in Washington D.C. and both pushing the free market ideology. If you believe that a successful national economy is developed behind a tariff barrier (as I do) you won't get international development aid. But if you do get international development aid, then the beneficiaries will be the MNC's, most of which are located in the United States.

Free markets stack the deck in favor of the rich. They create the super-rich and they create poverty and hunger. It's built into the structure of the markets.

The powerful wealthy class have been created by first the surplus food created by agriculture and second by the cities that resulted from that surplus. They've been with us since before the existence of Jericho. The rise of the middle class together with the idea of democracy is a major interference with their power, and most of them inherited their power and position. (Richard Mellon Scaife. David and Charles Koch. Eric Prince. and so on.) The Koch brothers have created the CATO Institute to protect their wealth. Prince has created Blackwater/XE. The Coors family in 1973 contributed $250,000 to create the Heritage Foundation. And so on. These people are conducting class warfare to protect their social position and personal power.

The very wealthy and powerful bought Ronald Reagan and they've bought the modern conservatives. They hate being considered a part of society rather than the owners of the society.

These are the elites who want to steal our society from us. They are the wealthy class and they feel they own us. They resent democracy and they want America to become like the Latin American nations - 90% desperate poor who, as individuals, can be bought for a pittance (no unions, of course. Illegal and send the cops in if union or similar organized activity occurs) and 10% wealthy who run everything.

Wipe out the middle class and return the wealthy to power. That's what we are seeing in the U.S. It's the essence of "conservatism."  


I always learn something here… (4.00 / 4)
...but believe it or not, sometimes from the comments more than the posts. As I read Paul's post (and make no mistake, I feel it's a great one), I was thinking, "Well, everyone around here kinda believes all this already, right?" But then, first comment out of the gate, Mark Matson not only astonishes me but racks up as many favorability ratings as I've seen on any comment.

Now I don't wanna sound like I'm picking on Mark M. But since the ideas at OpenLeft are what I'd generally perceive as minority opinions we'd like to see in the majority, what I think really needs to be explored is just how folks who feel as Mark does got from there to here. And consequently, since getting from here (OpenLeft, Black Agenda Report, etc.) to, say, acknowledgement on a corporate entity like ABC News This Week is gonna take a lot of work, we really need to get started. If that can be figured out, though, we might have a shot at making progressivism more persuasive.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams


Opinions didn't change, reality did (4.00 / 2)
The way I feel about it, my opinions never changed.  It was reality that changed around me.

The funny thing is, that is only partially really true.  Some things really did change.  But my perception of reality also changed.

Since no one is reading this thread anymore, I'll leave it at that.  It might make for a longer post someday.


[ Parent ]
I hope it does. (4.00 / 1)
I want to read that post.

[ Parent ]
Re-reading the post… (0.00 / 0)
...I think there's a logic problem in the following bit from Dean Baker's piece:

For example, [the rich and powerful] wrote trade rules that were designed to put downward pressure on the wages of the bulk of the U.S. workforce by placing manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in China and other developing countries. This had nothing to do with a belief in "free trade." They did not try to subject lawyers, doctors or other highly paid workers to the same sort of international competition. They only wanted international competition to put downward pressure on the wages of workers in the middle and bottom, not those at the top.

Now, it's true that the rich and powerful had no belief in free trade, but certain professions were not under siege from international competition because performance of those professions is so localized that competition isn't an issue. It's like that line I read here a couple of weeks ago from Matthew B. Crawford's book Shop Class As Soulcraft:

...while manufacturing jobs have certainly left our shores to a disturbing degree, the manual trades have not. If you need a deck built, or your car fixed, the Chinese are no help. Because they are in China.

Just $.02...

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams


Two Things (4.00 / 1)
(1) Professions are protected--most notably by preventing foreign-trained professionals from practicing here.  This is quite evident here in California, where many Asian immigrants with professional backgrounds are small business owners, because their degrees are not recognized.  They send their children to college to regain the professional status that the parents have sacrificed for their children's sake.  Doctors, lawyers and the like enjoy this sort of protection.  Software engineers, not so much.

(2) The manual trades are somewhat protected.  But since other jobs with similar kinds of skills--manufacturing, that is--are in competition with China, there is a general depression of wages that spills over into the manual trades as well.   It's a more modest impact, to be sure.  But it is very clearly felt, and is part of the reason that wages have been pretty much flat for more than a generation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Not sure… (0.00 / 0)
...but I think with (1) re-certification is possible, though financial concerns often make it prohibitive. So yes, there is protection, but not necessarily from outsourcing, which is what I felt Baker's quote was addressing.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Multi-national corporations attack manual trade labor wages... (0.00 / 0)
...and manual labor wages in general by supporting mass immigration laws or having the laws that exist ignored.  It has been a tactic for at least 150 years.  If you notice the immigration issue is one of the few issues where you have large multi-national corporations allied with the more leftist groups.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR


[ Parent ]
Multi-national Immigration (0.00 / 0)
Immigration has nothing to do with multi-national corporations.  It is the multi-nationals that care the least about cheap labor in this country, because they have access to cheap labor in other countries.

[ Parent ]
"Their income is our cost" is NOT a very powerful meme (4.00 / 1)
I dare anybody to try it out, on a selection of their friends, family, and acquaintances. If might be a big deal for lefties, but I doubt most people will get excited about it.

What most people can relate to, much more easily, is the impossibility of competing against a foreigner who makes 5 cents on the dollar that you do, other factors being equal. If people don't get this right off the bat, you can pose the following question to them: What if your company's main competitor outsources 80% of their jobs, cutting their payroll costs by 75%, and thus their costs to other businesses by 40%? How long until your employer has to do the same, in order to survive?

I haven't tested these contrasting memes, myself, but I just don't hear many people complaining about rich people being rich. What they do get worked up about is not having job security, or having been forced to take a large paycut, or having extra worked piled on them for no increase in pay.

Anyway, it's theoretically possible to limit CEO salaries to $100,000/year, and there would still be massive pressure to outsource jobs. That's because  corporations are required to put profits, first. With the "rules" as they are, what options to corporations have but to outsource, even if you tweaked the rules by limiting executive compensation? And seriously, what are the chances of corporations not paying some sort of bonus - even if it's only $20,000/year - to management if they cut their payroll costs by 75%? If you limit salary to 100K, then a 20K bonus looks much more tempting than it would to a guy who makes $10 million/year.

I don't think this Baker guy has much common sense about how to properly propagandize the impossible situation that American workers have been put in by the elite class. From where I sit, crying about CEO salaries and bonuses is a distraction.

Either the US government is willing to protect American jobs, or it's not. Trying to force the government to look out for the general welfare (of its citizens, not just its CEO's), in this regard, is not going to be well served by focusing on CEO compensation and such. Much smarter is to focus on the financial ruination of ordinary Americans, and the miserable prospects for their children, if the game continues to be played the way that it has.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


And indeed (0.00 / 0)
If we still had 1960 tax rates, would we even care all that much about how much these people get paid? I'm happy to settle for them getting paid as much as they want, with a healthy chunk of that then being extracted for public purposes.

[ Parent ]
Resentment, offshoring (4.00 / 3)
Two things.

1) I think we could very much stroke the flames of resentment against CEOs and Wall Street.  They've been very good at fighting back, warning of "class warfare" and so on, but that resentment is there and real.

Also, every survey I've seen that has asked the question agrees we should raise taxes on the rich.  It is very popular already.

2) You are probably right about "foreigner who makes 5 cents on the dollar," but that doesn't work for me.  I still can't get myself to think people in this country are more worthy of a good life than people in, say, China.  Even when my own job seemed threatened (I had a project literally moved to China) I couldn't think that way.  People are people and deserve a good life.

For me, the issue is how large, multinational corporations are playing us against each other.  The anger should be directed there.  I have no interest in directing anger towards foreigners, which is an easy trap to get into.


[ Parent ]
I find your way of thinking to be odd (0.00 / 0)
I don't begrudge CEO's their salary, and I don't begrudge China developing a middle class.

What I begrudge is the disloyalty of America's elite in just throwing American workers into the trashbin because they can line their own pockets by doing so. Certainly, helping China develop a middle class is the least of their concerns.

China is perfectly capable of developing without having any American jobs shipped there. Would they develop as fast? No, of course not.

In any event, I challenge you to ask your friends, family, and acquaintances whether or not the American government should be more concerned about American workers than Chinese workers, American CEO's, or some fairy tale BS about "free trade". It's not a matter of being "deserving", in some sort of philosophical sense, but rather a matter of loyalty.

BTW, if you're so concerned about not being any more "deserving" of a job than a Chinese worker, would you sign on to inviting your government to ship your job overseas, and you yourself thereafter living off your savings plus your spanking new job at Wal-mart (or else go on the dole)? Or does your concern about Chinese workers only last as long as you are happily employed, presumably at a job for which you prepared by investing years of your life and perhaps large student loans?


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
American Elite (4.00 / 1)
What I begrudge is the disloyalty of America's elite in just throwing American workers into the trashbin because they can line their own pockets by doing so.

I don't begrudge CEO's their salary

You do realize that the CEO is the American Elite, right?  They are the ones lining their own pockets by "throwing American workers into the trashbin", right?  They are the ones who've generated a culture where all upper management must be paid obscenely high salaries to "compete".  And where do they get that money??

I have no problem with the idea of foreign corporations competing with US corporations.  Low wage countries can't innovate the way we can, but they can take over commodities.  We stay ahead with our high salary, high innovation products and they catch up producing cheap commodities, the stuff we produced several years before when it was new and exciting.

Eventually they catch up completely, but that is ok.  Because at that point they've produce just as many well paid consumers.

But that nice scenario I described isn't what is actually happening.  Instead, a single corporation has folks innovating on this side but manufacturing in low income countries.  That is a completely different scenario with radically different consequences.


[ Parent ]
Not identically (0.00 / 0)
But generally, yes, I would consider CEO's of major, American-originated, multi-national companies to be part of the American elite.

Also, I think you're mistaken if you identify throwing American workers into the trashbin with enormous salaries. Yes, of course, doing so makes paying them even more money, possible. However, a CEO of a company that doesn't trash any American workers but runs it very well, say by innovating and making clever market moves, could still (theoretically) make his shareholders a huge pile of dough. And thus, be worth a huge salary.

I don't think you answered my question, about whether you, personally, are willing to sacrifice your job for the sake of a Chinese worker. I'd like an answer, please.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Stupid question (4.00 / 3)
I'm not willing to sacrifice my job for an American worker or a robot or downsizing or whatever.  I'd be upset if I lost my job for any reason.

But you are promoting rhetoric that blames the Chinese workers.  You may not think that is what you are doing, but you are.  That's wrong.


[ Parent ]
No, I'm blaming the elite American class (0.00 / 0)
They are, after all, the geniuses who make the rules.

I've said that Americans can't compete with workers who make 5 cents on the dollar to what they make, other factors being equal. Where is the "blame" in this? With the people making 5 cents to the dollar, who also need to feed their families?

The "blame" lies with the elites, many of whom are Americans but show no loyalty to the average American.

I frankly thought this was abundantly clear from what I've written. What else can you possibly conclude from

Either the US government is willing to protect American jobs, or it's not.

?

That Chinese workers "stole" our jobs, while the US government wasn't looking? That those evil Chinese dudes "stole" our jobs, in spite of the valiant efforts of CEO's who are American citizens, to keep those jobs in the US? (Probably some did try to keep jobs in the US, but couldn't because of the way the system works. But in the main, I assume that they knew exactly what they were doing, and were "on board" with it.)

If anything, the US government is aiding and abetting the destruction of the American middle class.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
You have just defined (4.00 / 1)
a very problem the left has with this subject:

You are probably right about "foreigner who makes 5 cents on the dollar," but that doesn't work for me.  I still can't get myself to think people in this country are more worthy of a good life than people in, say, China.  Even when my own job seemed threatened (I had a project literally moved to China) I couldn't think that way.  People are people and deserve a good life.

Defending a middle class income in the US can only be accomplished by becoming more nationalistic in our economic policy.  Either you try to protect these jobs or you don't.



[ Parent ]
I See Nothing Wrong With Protectionism Per Se (4.00 / 1)
Since when it is wrong to protect yourself, your family, your community?

But nationalism, jingoism and racism are something else again.  There's even empirical research showing that the more nationalstic workers are the less prone they are to support class solidarity, for example.  So this is not just an arm-chair distinction of my own invention.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
So, "Xenophobia, Not Class War" THAT's Your Battle Cry??? (4.00 / 1)
Very interesting.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Xenophobia? Looks like another off the wall Rosenberg comment (0.00 / 0)
I've worked in China, and neither fear the Chinese people, nor dislike them. In fact, I rather liked them, in the main, at least those that I got to know. I find that they tend to be friendlier (in a reserved way) and more polite than Americans.

The "higher status" Chinese managers were fish of a different kettle*, and one thing we more egalitarian Americans didn't like was how they tended to treat the average Chinese employees. E.g., we did a lot of traveling by train, overnight, and our boss (who was Chinese) insisted that the local Chinese workers had to travel in the lowest class compartments. The more middling compartments, that we Americans got to use, were not comfortable, but at least you could lay down.

Your fairy tale comment reminds me of your rants about Tea Bagger racism. I think you're easily blinded by your hatred, quite frankly. BTW, when are you going to retract your BS about the "upper middle class" tea baggers? Or, do you still intend to promote that nonsense?

* Though they were not a monolithic class, of course, and most were at least OK. Also, I really liked the client's head IT guy, and nobody had anything bad to say about him.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Do you want to protect (4.00 / 1)
US incomes or not?

Because you can't do it in a globalized economy without taking significant steps to protect the American worker.

What I find interesting is that what was expressed was a very populist sentement.  And you are very uncomfortable with it.


[ Parent ]
Chinese Workers Didn't Steal Our Jobs (4.00 / 1)
American CEOs STOLE them, and gave them to Chinese workers at a fraction of the pay.

One narrative is FALSE, and pits workers of different nationalities against one another.

The other narrative is TRUE, and pits workers of all nationalities against the CEOs who exploit them.

I'm not uncomfortable with populism.  I'm uncomfortable with RACISM and LIES.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Why it took me so long to get it (0.00 / 0)
Metamars and fladem are doing a great job of answering the question of why it took me so long to get this.  I'm still as much against their narrative as I ever was.  It took a while to see the truth through all the distractions.

I've begun to be comfortable with the union of liberalism and populism.  I still believe the bulk of populism is bad and it is wishful thinking (though good meme warfare) to call some of it real and some of it false.


[ Parent ]
Would you please show us where either fladem or myself (0.00 / 0)
said that Chinese (or other foreigners) "stole" jobs from us? As a sanity check, I searched for the word "steal" and "stole", and only found you, Rosenberg and Rick B using the term, except when I was quoting you.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
How about (0.00 / 0)
are willing to sacrifice your job for the sake of a Chinese worker.

"For the sake of a Chinese worker"??  See who you are weighing my benefit against?  See who you blamed?

I understand entirely you don't get you are doing this.  You think you are choosing your words carefully to avoid it.  But the attitude shines through.  Every now and again, so do the specific words.


[ Parent ]
Ah-h-h-h (0.00 / 0)
That was directly in response to your statement:

I still can't get myself to think people in this country are more worthy of a good life than people in, say, China.  Even when my own job seemed threatened (I had a project literally moved to China) I couldn't think that way.  People are people and deserve a good life.

You weren't blaming the Chinese, and neither was I. But you seemed more OK with jobs being outsourced, in the happy thought that at least the Chinese workers would benefit. From what I have written, it should also be abundantly clear that I agree that a Chinese dude would benefit.

Hence my question about whether you were OK with losing ("sacrificing") your job, even given that there is a non-elite beneficiary.

In any event, getting back to what I find to be your odd way of looking at things, consider your words:

"For the sake of a Chinese worker"??  See who you are weighing my benefit against?  See who you blamed?

You're damned straight that I am positing a win-lose situation. However, I find it odd, indeed, that you would equate this with "blame". (Never mind that fact that I've correctly placed blame where it belongs.)

If you go to a casino, and play the roulette table, and somebody else wins, if I point out that your loss is their gain (or, equivalently, that their gain is your loss), am I "blaming" the winner of the roulette game?

Odd, indeed, that you would choose such a characterization. It really makes no sense, to me, and I really think most objective readers of this diary and comments would agree with me.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
roulette (0.00 / 0)
Did your subconscious kick in?  You couldn't have picked a worse analogy.

In roulette you are betting against the house, who has made sure the odds are in its favor.  Other players don't have anything to do with it.  So if you point out that my loss is their gain, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the game and redirecting my attention to someone not relevant.

Come to think of it, this is a great analogy.  You made the same, fundamental error twice.


[ Parent ]
Great way to focus on the essential points of the analogy (0.00 / 0)
If you play a card game, where you're only betting against the other players, if one wins, and you lose, your loss is their gain. Pointing this out has nothing to do with assigning blame.

If you like, can make up your own win/loss <> "blame" scenarios. By the hundreds, if not thousands. Correct?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I could not agree with (0.00 / 0)
you more.  

[ Parent ]
I tend to agree, to some degree. (0.00 / 0)
Although I'm not sure I like how you frame this.  I agree absolutely that CEO pay is a distraction from the real suffering going on, and that concentrating on that as the "big" meme is self-defeating; you don't convince someone that you sympathize with their plight by talking about the inequities of someone else's.  All politics is personal, to paraphrase Tip O'Neil.  More focus needs to be placed on the ways in which ordinary people have lost negotiating power in the market place, and how that has led to decades of decline -- also not a sexy "meme."  

But I think it is susceptible to a simpler, more memorable explication.  "Main Street, not Wall Street" has been pretty effective at rallying people across the political spectrum.  

Off the top of my head, I think that something that appeals to people's patriotism wouldn't be a bad place to start.  Again, don't concentrate on the "outsourcing" issue, because then get into these abstract, distracting philosophical and macroeconomic theories.  

I'd keep it focused on the real problem and the real solution, maybe something like:

"The richest people in America, who made their Billions in America, are sitting on literally Trillions of dollars, right now, that they refuse to invest in America's future.  This is not the time to let that much capital sit idly by, while there are so many crucial industries in need of capital investment.  If they won't invest in the America that created their wealth, well, we will."  

We guaranteed trillions of dollars in bank CDS's, toxic assets, TARP, etc.  It's easy to make the argument that these billionaires have a responsibility to return those monies into the market; that was the whole purpose of re-capitalizing the banks in the first place (allegedly, though I suspect many of us know otherwise).  But they are not doing it.  After all America has done for them, they won't invest at the time we need it most.  It's unpatriotic, UnAmerican, and they shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of taxpayers by accepting their help, and refusing to help out in return.  I daresay, I think most people are angry because that is precisely how things are perceived as is.  


[ Parent ]
I like "Main Street, not Wall Street" (0.00 / 0)
However, I'm afraid it doesn't cut deep enough. For many Americans, I think they just look at it as some sort of call to divert tax revenues to government make-work jobs, or else shore up state revenues, in the happy belief that the economy will someday turn with the 'inevitable' ups and downs of the business cycle, so that federal bailouts can stop.

However, I personally tend to view current discussions of economics as Orwellian. The middle class is getting beaten into the ground, and I have a Ben Franklin-ish attitude towards the middle class - I think it (and not, say, neo Robber Barons) are a source of strength for the country, and intricately bound up with what it means to be "free".

Just like we should have been talking about knocking our health care costs down to European levels, during the recent healthcare debates, we should be talking about restoring the American middle class (though with less of an emphasis on consumption, due to environmental concerns, which should already have become of major importance*).

Democrats and Republicans don't want to have an honest discussion about that, either....

* Indeed, this is actually a good aspect of the extermination of the American middle class. You're not going to buy a new car every 3 years if you're not even sure that you'll be able to feed your family over the coming year.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Was going to leave a comment, but it was too long. (0.00 / 0)
So, I published it as a diary instead.  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox