Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Making presidential decisions, making change and repairing diesel engines have some things in common with bridge:

 

The squeeze is a machine, and the only way you can learn to operate a machine is by operating it. -- Clyde Love

 

Unless you know what's going on, it's very hard to figure out what to do. -- Bob Hamman

I misremembered that Love quote and had to look it up. I thought he'd said something like "the only way to really understand how a machine works is to build one" which makes sense too, esp. if you think of "operating" and "building" as somewhat interchangeable with "exploring", "modeling", "practicing" and "playing around with".

[Winstonm]

 

The quality of teachers is a serious concern. Too many of our teachers are unable to do anything but regurgitate memorized information that might as well be Greek to them. The worst of them equate learning with memorizing mumbo jumbo. They are going to have trouble preparing their students to think for themselves, and they are also concentrated in the poorest schools. We can't replace them because there is no one better to replace them with.

 

 

I quibble with the idea that "teachers are the problem" when teachers, both when they were students and later, as teachers, are handicapped by the curriculum with which they must deal. How does one teach critical thinking when one must not corrupt the kids' established belief systems?

[barmar]

I am angry because these schools are not drilling students in reading, writing and arithmetic.

I grant you can drill in many ways, that is ok...but I did not see in my local article any drilling.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not happening. It may just not worth mentioning in an article, because there's nothing remarkable about it. The article was probably about what the school was trying to do in addition to the basic three R's.

 

For instance, you hear a lot about STEM these days, but AFAIK these are expected to be in addition to the 3 Rs, not instead.

[hrothgar]

Fox News is claiming that Biden is going to enter the race? This seems ridiculous. I find it really hard to believe that Biden is this delusional.

 

Other than dead relatives, I find it difficult to understand what he is planning to campaign on...

[blackshoe]

I quibble with the idea that "teachers are the problem" when teachers, both when they were students and later, as teachers, are handicapped by the curriculum with which they must deal. How does one teach critical thinking when one must not corrupt the kids' established belief systems?

Seems to me it's often the parents' established belief systems that teachers have to worry about, not the kids'.

[y66]

Guest post from Paul Krugman: Something Not Rotten in Denmark:

 

No doubt surprising many of the people watching the Democratic presidential debate, Bernie Sanders cited Denmark as a role model for how to help working people. Hillary Clinton demurred slightly, declaring that “we are not Denmark,” but agreed that Denmark is an inspiring example.

 

Such an exchange would have been inconceivable among Republicans, who don’t seem able to talk about European welfare states without adding the word “collapsing.” Basically, on Planet G.O.P. all of Europe is just a bigger version of Greece. But how great are the Danes, really?

 

The answer is that the Danes get a lot of things right, and in so doing refute just about everything U.S. conservatives say about economics. And we can also learn a lot from the things Denmark has gotten wrong.

 

Denmark maintains a welfare state — a set of government programs designed to provide economic security — that is beyond the wildest dreams of American liberals. Denmark provides universal health care; college education is free, and students receive a stipend; day care is heavily subsidized. Overall, working-age families receive more than three times as much aid, as a share of G.D.P., as their U.S. counterparts.

 

To pay for these programs, Denmark collects a lot of taxes. The top income tax rate is 60.3 percent; there’s also a 25 percent national sales tax. Overall, Denmark’s tax take is almost half of national income, compared with 25 percent in the United States.

 

Describe these policies to any American conservative, and he would predict ruin. Surely those generous benefits must destroy the incentive to work, while those high taxes drive job creators into hiding or exile.

 

Strange to say, however, Denmark doesn’t look like a set from “Mad Max.” On the contrary, it’s a prosperous nation that does quite well on job creation. In fact, adults in their prime working years are substantially more likely to be employed in Denmark than they are in America. Labor productivity in Denmark is roughly the same as it is here, although G.D.P. per capita is lower, mainly because the Danes take a lot more vacation.

 

Nor are the Danes melancholy: Denmark ranks at or near the top on international comparisons of “life satisfaction.”

 

It’s hard to imagine a better refutation of anti-tax, anti-government economic doctrine, which insists that a system like Denmark’s would be completely unworkable.

 

But would Denmark’s model be impossible to reproduce in other countries? Consider France, another country that is much bigger and more diverse than Denmark, but also maintains a highly generous welfare state paid for with high taxes. You might not know this from the extremely bad press France gets, but the French, too, roughly match U.S. productivity, and are more likely than Americans to be employed during their prime working years. Taxes and benefits just aren’t the job killers right-wing legend asserts.

 

Going back to Denmark, is everything copacetic in Copenhagen? Actually, no. Denmark is very rich, but its economy has taken a hit in recent years, because its recovery from the global financial crisis has been slow and incomplete. In fact, Denmark’s 5.5 percent decline in real G.D.P. per capita since 2007 is comparable to the declines in debt-crisis countries like Portugal or Spain, even though Denmark has never lost the confidence of investors.

 

What explains this poor recent performance? The answer, mainly, is bad monetary and fiscal policy. Denmark hasn’t adopted the euro, but it manages its currency as if it had, which means that it has shared the consequences of monetary mistakes like the European Central Bank’s 2011 interest rate hike. And while the country has faced no market pressure to slash spending — Denmark can borrow long-term at an interest rate of only 0.84 percent — it has adopted fiscal austerity anyway.

 

The result is a sharp contrast with neighboring Sweden, which doesn’t shadow the euro (although it has made some mistakes on its own), hasn’t done much austerity, and has seen real G.D.P. per capita rise while Denmark’s falls.

 

But Denmark’s monetary and fiscal errors don’t say anything about the sustainability of a strong welfare state. In fact, people who denounce things like universal health coverage and subsidized child care tend also to be people who demand higher interest rates and spending cuts in a depressed economy. (Remember all the talk about “debasing” the dollar?) That is, U.S. conservatives actually approve of some Danish policies — but only the ones that have proved to be badly misguided.

 

So yes, we can learn a lot from Denmark, both its successes and its failures. And let me say that it was both a pleasure and a relief to hear people who might become president talk seriously about how we can learn from the experience of other countries, as opposed to just chanting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

[y66]

Justin Trudeau's turn to face the weight of expectations. Like Obama, Trudeau has been promising the kind of ineffable change that is so hard to deliver.

 

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/20/nytnow/20nytnow-canada02/20nytnow-canada02-master675-v2.jpg

Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party, celebrated his party's victory with his wife, Sophie Grégoire, in Montreal on Monday. Jim Young/Reuters

 

Stephen Harper is a goner, and humiliated, too, to the near-erotic ecstasy of Canada's chattering classes, who loathed him with such intensity it's hard to think of a comparison in modern politics.

 

Well, maybe Dick Cheney, George W. Bush's Darth Vader.

 

Suddenly, in Justin Trudeau we have a prime minister-designate who's banging on about hope and trust and inclusiveness and believing in yourself and being better and listening to everyone and diversity and all sorts of other happy thoughts. He even threw in tolerance for hijabs...

 

Over the last several weeks, there's been a lot of eager, nostalgic liberal talk about returning Canada to a nation of peacekeepers and neutral conciliators and environmentally concerned moderates. You know, the friendly world where travelers with little maple leaf flags on their backpacks drew instant affection and respect in even the nastiest foreign land.

 

The fellow who did win last night sort of promised all those things, at least in the subtext of his campaign speeches.

 

Real change was one of his slogans. That, and hope, and national reconciliation and uniting behind the common dreams of all Canadians.

 

Sound familiar?

 

There was another night, back in 2008, when American liberals were weeping with happiness, too.

 

Suddenly, their warmonger president was gone and America had a new leader, an inspiring master of gauzy rhetoric: "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" he would shout to delirious crowds.

 

No one knew what that meant, but it sounded great...

 

Change in tone

 

Our new prime minister might say he's going to sit down and negotiate with Canada's premiers "with deep respect," but wait until he gets a load of what's involved with that. His father knew.

 

What Trudeau can do, of course, is change the tone. That costs nothing, and a lot of Canadians want it to happen.

 

He can make Canada's positions abroad more nuanced, less absolutist and replace Canada's swagger at the UN with some actual diplomacy.

 

He can walk back the talk about how terrorists threaten us daily in our very homes, and perhaps speak honestly about the effectiveness of our combat mission in Iraq and Syria.

 

He may end up joining the rest of the Western world in supporting the nuclear deal with Iran, and perhaps even recognize that there are two sides to the question of Israel and the Palestinians.

 

But sweeping reversals of Stephen Harper's legacy? It's been almost a decade, and Harper changed the status quo. Even Trudeau himself seems to understand that.

 

Here's another Trudeau quote, uttered after Stephen Harper was closeted by security officers during the gunman's attack on Parliament Hill last year. He might want to keep the gist of it in mind:

 

"I think it's hard to know how one deals in situations of confrontation until you're actually in there, so I'm not going to speculate on what I would do."

[billw55]

Fox News is claiming that Biden is going to enter the race? This seems ridiculous. I find it really hard to believe that Biden is this delusional.

 

Other than dead relatives, I find it difficult to understand what he is planning to campaign on...

As opposed to living relatives?

[Al_U_Card]

Justin Trudeau's turn to face the weight of expectations. Like Obama, Trudeau has been promising the kind of ineffable change that is so hard to deliver.

 

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/20/nytnow/20nytnow-canada02/20nytnow-canada02-master675-v2.jpg

Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party, celebrated his party's victory with his wife, Sophie Grégoire, in Montreal on Monday. Jim Young/Reuters

Plus ça change...

[kenberg]

My error, ignore this.

 

 

The Krugman article is of interest. I have several thoughts.

 

I don't recall what Sanders said about Denmark. I remember that he mentioned Dnmark, but beyond that I draw a blank.

 

I'm all for learning from the experience of others, to the extent that I can manage it. Thinking about Amercan policies and experience is tough enough, if I have to study Danish society to form an opinion about what the US should do, I will need help.

 

I would oppose raising my own income tax rate to 60%. Imagine a national referendum on whether everyone's income will be taxed at the rate of 60%. What are the chances of passage? Would any contributor to this thread vote for it? If retired mathematicians are exempt I might reconsider my vote.

 

If we agree that a 60% tax on the income of everyone will not be our policy, then any discussion of adopting the Danish model has to take that fact into account. If the Danish model won't work without a 60% income tax rate, then there is no point in discussing the wisdom of the Danish model.

 

Now looking carefully at what Krugman says, I am not sure who that 60% rate applies to. The kid who earns a few bucks mowing lawns for neighbors? This gets back to my earlier point that it is tough enough to discuss US policy, where I live and can observe, without trying to discuss Danish plicy where I don't live and have little familiarity. Mathematics being an international activity I have known a few Danes in my life but not so well that I have any feeling for how things are there.

 

I'm open to hearing about good programs from Denmark or from anywhere, but I do not foresee acceptance of a 60% tax rate in this country anytime soon.

 

Regarding Sanders, I am not even very familiar with Vermont. I am pretty sure I have been through it going from somewhere to somewhere, but I don't recall any details. A pretty state, I think.

[helene_t]

I am not sure who that 60% rate applies to. The kid who earns a few bucks mowing lawns for neighbors?

Nobody pays 60% of their income as income tax but if you have a high income you will get close to paying 60% marginally, i.e. if your tax due is f(x) where x is income, then df/dx(X) where X is your income will be close to 0.6. This will be the case if earn more than 311.000 kroner/year after deductions and you live in a high-tax municipilaty. For lower incomes the margina tax is typically 39%, and 45% for intermediate incomes. Very low incomes like that of your lawn-mowing kids are not taxed.

 

You will probably pay more tax in Denmark than in USA but then again you don't have any costs for health insurance and for sending your kids to college. You don't have to save as much for retirement as you will get some free pension (though not enough for a good living so saving a bit yourself is recommended). Same with insurance for disability and unemployment. Public transit and child care are subsidized.

 

Since the government spends little money on interests and defence, you could say that Danish people get most of their taxes back in the form of services so effectively they pay less in tax than in the USA.

 

You could also say that the government forces you to pay for some things that you might not pay for if given the choice. You can't chose not to have health insurance but at least you can chose not to have children and not to use trains and busses.

[Winstonm]

Seems to me it's often the parents' established belief systems that teachers have to worry about, not the kids'.

Yes. :)

[kenberg]

Nobody pays 60% of their income as income tax but if you have a high income you will get close to paying 60% marginally, i.e. if your tax due is f(x) where x is income, then df/dx(X) where X is your income will be close to 0.6. This will be the case if earn more than 311.000 kroner/year after deductions and you live in a high-tax municipilaty. For lower incomes the margina tax is typically 39%, and 45% for intermediate incomes. Very low incomes like that of your lawn-mowing kids are not taxed.

 

 

This is along the lines i would have expected. Krugman's formulation was very careless, I read his words as a 60% tax rate, period. It seemed weird, but not living there I didn't know. He might have said "a top tax rate of 605" or, even better, "a top marginal tax rate of 60%".

 

If American voters read Krugman and conclude that Sanders thinks a flat tax rate of 60% is something to admire, he can go back to the Green Mountains (in Vermont) and take a hike., His run for the presidency is over.

 

 

Anyway, this shows the difficulty of bringing up what is done in other nations. .Firstly I can't even recall what Sanders said about Denmark. Secondly I misunderstood what Krugman said about Denmark. It seemed unlikely that he meant what I took him to be saying, but I didn't know. I could look the first up, and you provide clarification for the second (thanks) but still, it's off-putting to be focusing on Denmark for a US election.

Thirdly, it's Denmark and it may or may not apply here.

[gwnn]

I don't want to sound like an anti-American bigot or an anti-democratic (small or large D) weirdo, but what % of people who actually vote for president regularly read Krugman? What % of those people will have their vote change from Sanders to Trump or Jeb based on this presumed flat tax questions? :P

[Trinidad]

Imagine a national referendum on whether everyone's income will be taxed at the rate of 60%. What are the chances of passage?

Nill.

 

As Helene has pointed out, the real tax rate is not 60%.

 

But it doesn't really matter what the exact percentage is: people in Western Europe pay an awful lot of income tax (and a lot of other taxes). It is so much that it is hard to imagine for the average American (and also for the not so average American). Why aren't these Europeans revolting against these enormous taxes? Where are the Wilhelm Tells?

 

The crucial difference is that the Europeans trust and rely on their governments to take care of the things that are in (almost) everybody's interest. And Americans don't.

 

Ask Europeans or Americans who they prefer to manage their retirement fund: The government or Lehman brothers. That is where you see the difference between Europe and the USA.

 

Rik

[PassedOut]

This is along the lines i would have expected. Krugman's formulation was very careless, I read his words as a 60% tax rate, period. It seemed weird, but not living there I didn't know. He might have said "a top tax rate of 60%" or, even better, "a top marginal tax rate of 60%".

Indeed, carelessness is not good. Here's what Krugman actually wrote:

 

To pay for these programs, Denmark collects a lot of taxes. The top income tax rate is 60.3 percent; there’s also a 25 percent national sales tax. Overall, Denmark’s tax take is almost half of national income, compared with 25 percent in the United States.

But, as Helene pointed out, the Danes receive a lot in return for those taxes that folks in the USA either pay for themselves or miss out on entirely. And the point is that there is no reason to fear that the economy will collapse because of higher taxes, provided that those taxes provide real benefits to the citizens.

[billw55]

The crucial difference is that the Europeans trust and rely on their governments to take care of the things that are in (almost) everybody's interest. And Americans don't.

Yes, I have also reached the conclusion that this is really the heart of the matter.

 

I live in USA. And while I would support tax increases for some programs I believe in, many government units (federal, state, and local) have often shown that they do not handle the money productively or responsibly. It is especially bad in my own state, Illinois, where the state government has been miserably incompetent, irresponsible, and corrupt for decades. And then they want tax increases to fund it all. So for me it is simple: first prove that you can handle and use our money responsibly. Then I will consider the new taxes you ask for. It amounts to treating them like children, which is really all they have earned.

[kenberg]

Indeed, carelessness is not good. Here's what Krugman actually wrote:

 

 

But, as Helene pointed out, the Danes receive a lot in return for those taxes that folks in the USA either pay for themselves or miss out on entirely. And the point is that there is no reason to fear that the economy will collapse because of higher taxes, provided that those taxes provide real benefits to the citizens.

 

You are right, my mis-read. I ust have been so stunned by the 60% I didn't see more.

 

 

As penence I will look up what Sanders actually said about Denmark.

[andrei]

Fox News is claiming that Biden is going to enter the race? This seems ridiculous. I find it really hard to believe that Biden is this delusional.

 

Other than dead relatives, I find it difficult to understand what he is planning to campaign on...

 

Weren't the last 7 years a success?

[y66]

I don't want to sound like an anti-American bigot or an anti-democratic (small or large D) weirdo, but what % of people who actually vote for president regularly read Krugman? What % of those people will have their vote change from Sanders to Trump or Jeb based on this presumed flat tax questions? :P

First question: Between 0 and 0.5 percent. But that doesn't matter as long as people on Sanders' staff and Clinton's staff do; they're probably closer to 100 percent. My mom was a capital D Democrat and heavily involved in local politics. She never read Krugman. She preferred Art Buchwald and Bob Levey.

[hrothgar]

Weren't the last 7 years a success?

 

I agree that the last 7 years were a success. Moreover, I believe that Biden was a good to great VP.

 

The US would have been much better off had we partitioned Iraq as Biden suggested.

Biden was far ahead of Obama and Clinton with respect to gay marriage.

 

However, these differences are at the margins. Biden occupies nearly the precise same policy space as Clinton, she already has the money locked down, and with the exception of South Carolina, is going to run much stronger in the South.

 

I think that Clinton's debate performance has erased a lot of the buyer's remorse that was fueling speculation about Biden.

An entry now seems nonsensical.

[andrei]

Other than dead relatives, I find it difficult to understand what he is planning to campaign on...

 

Moreover, I believe that Biden was a good to great VP.

 

Make sense.

[hrothgar]

Hey, look at that...

 

Biden announced that he isn't running.

[Winstonm]

Hey, look at that...

 

Biden announced that he isn't running.

 

That's a good choice and good for the Democratic party, not because Biden would not be a viable candidate but because he would be a viable candidate, and this is not the time to create dissent within the party.

[kenberg]

That's a good choice and good for the Democratic party, not because Biden would not be a viable candidate but because he would be a viable candidate, and this is not the time to create dissent within the party.

 

If not now, when?