Economics Week: Understanding the Problems

by: Mimikatz

Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:57


Daniel De Groot had a post yesterday suggesting more focus on economics issues.  Coincidently, or maybe not, this is "economics week" for both the Obama and McCain camps.

Understanding where we are and how we got there is essential to the formulation of smart and effective solutions.  The New York Times' Steven Greenhouse has recently written "The Big Squeeze:  Tough Times for the American Worker," a book that distills much of what is wrong with our economic situation today.  He discusses it at TPM Cafe, setting out what to me is the crux of what is wrong with today's economy:

In recent years, the statistics regarding income disparity in America have been startling. After-tax annual income for the bottom fifth of American households inched up just 6 percent from 1979 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During that time, income for the middle fifth of households grew by a modest 21 percent, with much of that gain caused by women in many households working more hours. Over that same period, income for the top fifth of households jumped by an impressive 80 percent, while income for the top 1 percent more than tripled, soaring by 228 percent.

The highest-earning fifth of households received 51.6 percent of the nation's after-tax income in 2005, meaning that the income of the top fifth exceeded that of the bottom four-fifths. As for the top 1 percent of households, they received more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A study that Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez did based on federal tax returns found that the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, received nearly 22 percent of all reported income in 2005, up from 9 percent in 1980. That income shift helped create the greatest level of inequality since the Roaring Twenties.

As someone who grew up in the 1940s and 1950s, when the average CEO earned only 40 times the salary of his average worker, instead of over 300 times as it is today, this stalling of the economic escalator is one of the most dismaying aspects of modern America.  Quoting Greenhouse again,

Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary, found that were it not for this increased inequality the bottom 80 percent of Americans would be doing considerably better. If the distribution of income today were the same as in 1979, Summers said, assuming the same level of economic growth since then, income of the bottom 80 percent of Americans would be about $670 billion more a year--or about $8,000 per family. For many households in the bottom half, this would mean a welcome 20 to 30 percent increase in income, perhaps the boost needed to avoid foreclosure.

The return to the class stratification of the Gilded Age is as much a betrayal of the American ideal of opportunity as George W. Bush's security state and executive overreach are a betrayal of the Founders' vision of a government of laws, checks and balances.  It has not always been this way and it need not be in the future.  How we got here is largely a combination of deregulation moves that allowed those with money to make ever more money through manipulated markets and subsidies while preaching the glories of the free market, and tax policies which allowed them to keep ever more of what they made.  The history and politics are very ably set forth at length in this post by DHinMI yesterday at Daily Kos contrasting the New Deal/Great Society years with the Reagan/Bush years.

Rising income inequality is every bit as unsustainable as our excessive energy usage.  It risks economic havoc as consumers are unable to continue buying goods and services, it risks political instability and it is morally wrong as an abuse of power and position by the strong and a betrayal of our ideals as a nation.  We need to reverse the policies that got us here and try new solutions.  Part of what makes us Democrats is a profound belief in the virtues of expanded opportunity and broad prosperity.  Let us measure the proposals of the candidates against these principles.

Mimikatz :: Economics Week: Understanding the Problems

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
John McCain's solution (4.00 / 2)
So far he is promising a balanced budget, with the savings from our victory in Iraq to go towards paying down the deficit.  This is worse than the "voodoo economics" of the Reagan campaign (to quote Geroge H.W. Bush.)  It is  fantasy, delusion and deception taken to new heights.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

While McCain is horrid on this issue ... (4.00 / 2)
what are we to do about people like Schumer and Baucus?  Democrats aren't much better on this issue, though they should be.  

[ Parent ]
Schumer represents New York (4.00 / 4)
Wall Street and big money.  Baucus is just really conservative, and in thrall to moneyed interests.

What it will take is leadership from the President and from pregressives in Congress and pressure from the people.  On health care the pressure is building, plus many businesses are ready to consider something besides employer-based health care.  Obama's tax policies are a good start.

One of the other worst things that happened in the Reagan years (so many to choose from!) is the glorification of greed.  In the '50s and '60s and even the '70s, despite the increased hedonism, there was a distaste for really conspicuous consumption and some sense of restraint on the part of the rich.  In the '80s this all turned around at a cultural level with the outright glorification of greed and the celebrity CEO and corporate raiders, exploding salaries to the top people in every field at the expense of everyone else, exaltation of consumerism as a reaction, perhaps, to the "small is beautiful" ethic and environmentalism of the '70s and just a general increase in selfishness of every kind. The right likes to talk about the hedonism and "me-firstism" of the counterculture, but the hedonism, selfishness and loss of restraint by business and the rich generally are far worse in my book and have basically destroyed the social contract in this country.  Sure there are examples of great philanthropy by people like Bill Gates, but there are also the Mars and Walton families and their crusade to end the estate tax and the idea that anything goes no matter how crude or corrupt if it makes money.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
The republicans have succeeded (4.00 / 2)
In dismantling much of the American middle class, and transfering that wealth to the upper class, while the dems have been asleep or even enabling the thievery.

On another note, I wouldn't give Bill Gates too much credit for philanthropy, considering that those monies came from selling us overpriced, buggy software through a virtually unreegulated monopoly. Remember, one the first things the Dubya did in 2001 was dissmissing the government's antitrust case against Microsoft.


[ Parent ]
I know Schumer represents NY .. (0.00 / 0)
.. but tell me .. are the Wall Streeters going to spend less on Bentley's .. and other goodies because they pay 35% instead of 28% in taxes?  We aren't talking about Depression era(or even Ike era) level of taxation

[ Parent ]
Not really--it's largely status (4.00 / 1)
That's kind of what I was trying to get at in talking about the changes in the reagan years.  At this point in time people seem to place such a high value on money above all else, and use it as the sole measure of a person's worth.  So CEOs and hedge fund managers don't really need all the money, it is just a way to prove to their peers that they are the top dog.  It is just a status thing.  That's why they don;t mind everyone knowing how much they make, when formerly that was considered vulgar.

And of course it isn't so much going "from 28% to 35%." Most income at the level of the top 1% isn't taxed at ordinary income rates anyway.  It is going from 15% (the rate on dividends and long-term capital gains, including a manager's "carried interest" in a fund) to 39%, which was the top rate for ordinary income under Clinton.   Still, how many millions do they need, as compared with the bottom 40% of the population, who has the same aggregate wealth spreas over tens of millions of people as the top 1%?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Except the forces in control of Democratic (4.00 / 3)
economic policy making are primarily Rubinites rather than those who want to address the systemic issues that are squeezing Americans. "In Free Market We Trust" is the mantra. I read a lot of lip service, but are any realy changes in the words that will substantively matter? There are several areas of which risk allocation (that's how I tend to describe this) are so skewed in this country that it provides a great pressure on the middle class. Those that come to mind are the double the rate of inflation increase in cost of education and healthcare.  There is also the destruction of pension plans and other private sector safety net issues. There is also unseen by many the decreasing ability of investors to protect their interest in the stock market through derivative suits. And, as for tax, that's just the most clear example of perverse incentives. Much of the economic squeeze is done , as I said, as the shifting of risks- what this means is that rather than having losers straight out, one plays the percentages of what are going to be losers and winners against the middle class so that there are going to be more middle class losers versus the corporate interests.  

Agreed (4.00 / 2)
Destruction of pensions, failure to expand education to keep up with population growth, and bad tax policy and more bad tax policy, and deregulation that depends on "disclosure" rather than prohibitions on bad conduct.

Rebuilding the safety net is key, including health care, expanding college opportunity, and reforming tax policy.  i don;t think pweople fully understand how much damage perverse tax polciies have done.  Virtually all of the Bush tax cuts will sunset in 2010, though.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I forgot one other area (4.00 / 3)
along with the mortgage market, there is also the shifting of risks with regard to how to handle the losers in the system. ie, the banktruptcy bill and the way the mortgage crisis has been handled are two keen examples. In any market economy, there are always going to be winners and losers. the reason why we have bankruptcy laws is to address the allocation of resources regarding the losers. because the laws have been changed- that allocation is now perverse. people are dwelling not on how to build the next business, but worrying about how to continually pay off and in most case service existing debts.

Terrific (and somewhat short at 240 pages) is Kevin Phillips' new book (0.00 / 0)
'Bad Money  Reckless Finance, Failed Politics,and The Global Crisis of American Capitalism'

succinct,concise, and pithyit addresses all the concerns addressed in the diary.

With the frontpage post over at Salon.com about the books Obama has read, it would really be beyond helpful to know what economic books is on Obama's 'Great books list'


Obama and economics (0.00 / 0)
Some conservatives seem to think that because he lived in Chicago and taught it the University of Chicago he has imibibed Chicago-style economic conservatism.  I highly doubt it.  I think he is pragmatic, but his own background and time spent in Illinois with ordinary people make him pretty sympathetic to the majority over the rich. After all, as Michelle once said, they only finsihed paying off their student loans a few years ago.  In this he is I expect unique among candidates--the rest went to college before it got so expensive and in Bush's case had plenty of family money.  This quote from Salon is probably pretty accurate:
Obama the reader and writer has already shown an affinity for pragmatism, whether it's the Cabinet-level maneuverings of Lincoln or the "Let's make a deal" activism of Alinsky or the "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" geopolitical realism of Niebuhr. Even in "The Audacity of Hope," a campaign bio (and therefore largely free of grist), he states:

"I think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised ... I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP."

But the proof is in the policies he proposes.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
And what is he pointing to here? (0.00 / 0)
"I think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised ...

Who is he calling smug or detached?


[ Parent ]
I remain unconvinced (4.00 / 1)
Obama's central economic advisor is a right of center economist and his other main advisor as I remember is likewise a right of center Rubinite. Pragmatic to them means moving as we are moving rather than rethinking for example - the SEC laws to protect investors, trade agreements to prevent unfair competitive advantages based on differentials in US environmental, labor and other laws compared to other countries, and a myriad of other issues.  

[ Parent ]
What is it .. (0.00 / 0)
with these Nixon guys finding religion?  Phillips and Dean anyway.  It's not a knock on them.  I am just curious what turned them off to the Republicans these days.

[ Parent ]
Very instructive article (4.00 / 1)
here.  It is different for different people.  For Phillips, who really sympathized with Nixon's appeal to the lower middle class, the "Orthogonians" in Rick Perlstein's book, it was the Bushes' skewing everything toward the rich.  He hates that about the post-Nixon GOP.  For some others it is distaste at Nixonian/Rovian tactics.  John Dean seems to be in this category.  Some are really small-government conservatives or libertarians and feel betrayed by Bush's growing of the federal gov't and the emphasis on war, which Milton Friedman called "the friend of the state."  Bruce Bartlett is one, and Dean may fit here as well.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Funny thing is .. (0.00 / 0)
Ray-gun wasn't small government at all .. despite their claims to the contrary

[ Parent ]
After reading that article .. (0.00 / 0)
it seems to me that Milty's son, in particular don't understand what the Democrats are(or at least should be) about.  Friedman talks about free markets .. what he doesn't say .. but should know better(if he cared) is that Democrats want some regulations .. not a lot .. but some .. and have them enforced .. otherwise .. unfettered free markets gets us the credit/housing mess we have now .. but I guess Friedman doesn't want to .. or care to understand that

[ Parent ]
The 2 you mention are also good writers and I can't think of any other Republican (0.00 / 0)
except for Pat Buchanan who also gravitates toward that creative outlet; Buchanan is also willing to challenge what constitutes 'conventional Republican thinking' on certain subjects.

If there is any similarity between them that was what I came up with....the topics that they write about shows more than a cursory attention to history which shows that they are well read individuals, that certainly isn't something that one normally sees when a Republican writes anything.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox