Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

How about starting by making it that the top earners do not have a tax rate significantly lower than the rest of the population Mike?

[barmar]

How about starting by making it that the top earners do not have a tax rate significantly lower than the rest of the population Mike?

Yeah.

 

Ken considers the 50's a golden age, were there some pretty high tax brackets back then?

 

Raise the minimum wage, provide more public assistance for higher education (to make it feasible to get out of the cycle of poverty).

[Winstonm]

ncome inequality. The country is richer, but much more of it is in the hands of the 1%.

 

-----

 

 

Ok what policies do you want to pass to reverse this?

 

If you want to reverse this by what definition and measurement equals success?

 

 

Or do you think this is a nonproblem?

----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

 

 

For example my goals might be:

 

1) more people employed in full time jobs, many more

2) rising wages compared to inflation.

--------------------

---------------------

 

 

failure would look like:

 

decrease or tiny increase in full time jobs

decrease or tiny decrease in wages, after inflation

-----

 

I note none of this addresses income inequality

or free health care for all

or free college for all

or a wealth tax however you prefer to define wealth

 

 

all of the above are current hot topics for discussion on the political table.

 

The problem with wealth concentration (not income inequality) stems from a change in the national perspective, that reduced government, reduced taxation, and reduced regulation was the correct path forward. This ideology was sold strongly by the Republican Party in the early 80"s but it is in no way a 1-party contribution as the Democratic Party (namely Clinton) adopted and promoted many of the same themes.

 

The end result after 40+ years of change is a banking system that serves itself mainly. Investment has been replaced by speculation. Quality job growth and income growth have stalled, mainly due to a lack of investment in R&D, a victim of stock buy-backs to protect share prices and the emphasis on pleasing shareholders with each quarterly report.

 

From May 23, 2016 Time Magazine

 

....consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about 4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4% of all jobs.

 

Edit:

A couple of weeks ago, a poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics found something startling: only 19% of Americans ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as “capitalists.” In the richest and most market-oriented country in the world, only 42% of that group said they “supported capitalism.” The numbers were higher among older people; still, only 26% considered themselves capitalists. A little over half supported the system as a whole.

[Zelandakh]

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. So what do the answers actually tell us about what Americans actually think about their political system? Almost nothing. It is the kind of result that gives statisticians a bad name. :unsure:

[Winstonm]

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. So what do the answers actually tell us about what Americans actually think about their political system? Almost nothing. It is the kind of result that gives statisticians a bad name. :unsure:

 

While I agree this isn't the best information, I do give youth credit for having a semblance of understanding of capitalism.

 

Further breakdown from the polling site: http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harvard-iop-spring-2016-poll

 

When 18- to 29-year-old young Americans were asked whether or not they support socialism, capitalism, and other political theories and labels, a majority reject both socialism and capitalism. Socialism is supported by 33% of young Americans, while capitalism is supported by 42%. Among those most likely to vote, 41% support socialism and 52% support capitalism. Socialism is typically more supported by 18- to 20-year-olds (41%), Democrats (50%), Clinton voters (54%), Hispanics (38%) and African Americans (39%). Capitalism is more likely to be supported by people who have graduated from college (56%), whites (43%), men (49%), people who live in the South (46%) and the West (45%), and members of the GOP (54%).

[helene_t]

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. S

I thought a "capitalist" was a job description (factory owner or some such) and not an ideological label.

[kenberg]

It might have been interesting to then ask the respondents if they could define socialism or capitalism. Or communism, for that matter. Trotsky and Lenin, I believe, had some disagreements. And Mao? Or Castro (either one)? If I understand correctly, Sanders is advertising himself as a socialist who does not advocate socialism. Am I a capitalist? I have no idea. Sergei Brin? I suppose so, although I think he might resist the label. Donald Trump? Sure, but I would not want to stick that image on everyone who is a capitalist.

 

Truman nationalized the coal mines [oops, the steel mills, I sit corrected], or rather he attempted to do so. Presumably a socialist thinks he should have been able to do so, a capitalist thinks that he shouldn't. And communist thinks the owners should be sent to a re-education camp. So that could be a way to determine whether a person favors or does not favor socialism. Ask "Should the federal government nationalize the coal [make that steel] industry?" Yes means that you are a socialist, no means that you are a capitalist. I vote no, so I guess I am a capitalist. We could ask the Bern.

[PassedOut]

Truman nationalized the coal mines, or rather he attempted to do so.

Wasn't it the steel mills?

 

In my opinion, we need a mixture of capitalism (to ensure an adequate production of goods and services) and socialism (to provide for an equitable distribution of those goods and services). Not sure what the label is.

 

But the two are interlocked: for businesses to thrive, it's important to have a lot of folks with some disposable income. A problem we face is that there is no guarantee that there is now, or ever will be, enough well-paying jobs to provide that disposable income for many folks. It is certainly not automatic.

[Winstonm]

It might have been interesting to then ask the respondents if they could define socialism or capitalism. Or communism, for that matter. Trotsky and Lenin, I believe, had some disagreements. And Mao? Or Castro (either one)? If I understand correctly, Sanders is advertising himself as a socialist who does not advocate socialism. Am I a capitalist? I have no idea. Sergei Brin? I suppose so, although I think he might resist the label. Donald Trump? Sure, but I would not want to stick that image on everyone who is a capitalist.

 

Truman nationalized the coal mines, or rather he attempted to do so. Presumably a socialist thinks he should have been able to do so, a capitalist thinks that he shouldn't. And communist thinks the owners should be sent to a re-education camp. So that could be a way to determine whether a person favors or does not favor socialism. Ask "Should the federal government nationalize the coal industry?" Yes means that you are a socialist, no means that you are a capitalist. I vote no, so I guess I am a capitalist. We could ask the Bern.

 

To be fair, Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

[Winstonm]

Wasn't it the steel mills?

 

In my opinion, we need a mixture of capitalism (to ensure an adequate production of goods and services) and socialism (to provide for an equitable distribution of those goods and services). Not sure what the label is.

 

Perhaps the label is democratic socialist:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

[kenberg]

Wasn't it the steel mills?

 

In my opinion, we need a mixture of capitalism (to ensure an adequate production of goods and services) and socialism (to provide for an equitable distribution of those goods and services). Not sure what the label is.

 

But the two are interlocked: for businesses to thrive, it's important to have a lot of folks with some disposable income. A problem we face is that there is no guarantee that there is now, or ever will be, enough well-paying jobs to provide that disposable income for many folks. It is certainly not automatic.

 

Yes, I was relying on memory. Seems as if there was some action with coal too, but maybe I am wrong. And I completely agree that some sort of mixed form is what is needed.

 

My brief view of US labor history runs as follows:

 

During the thirties, things got tricky. Stalin had his admirers, as did Hitler. Some very good decisions got made that allowed workers to make substantial improvements in their lives. Circumstances, partly beyond our control, , WW II included, contributed to the favorable result.

 

Circumstances change. Although I am not prepared to write a paper on the subject, I suspect that both labor and management had a share of the blame for the auto industry's slow response to competition. And there was a philosophy that industry is no longer important, we are now a service economy. When I first heard this, a good forty years ago, I recall think ing that people in the service industry are called servants. It seemed like a mistake.

 

Now we are, I think, in a mess. Robert Samuelson had a recent column entitled Good news for the middle class

Maybe so. But there seem to be a lot of kids growing up in very insecure environments. Perhaps good news means that it is not as bad as it could be.

 

 

If I have to go with an ism, I prefer realism. Not that it is easy to come to agreements on just what that entails. But I have limited enthusiasm for any argument based on the inherent superiority of either capitalism or socialism. And attaching adjectives to it, democratic socialism or democratic capitalism, doesn't move me either.

[kenberg]

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

 

Fine. Does that mean nationalizing the steel industry? Really I am not just being argumentative. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that in the UK since WW II some industries have been nationalized and later de-nationalized. And I believe this has involved socialism. I think it is not just the UK. So it is fair to ask someone who describes himself as a socialist, adjectivised or not, whether he believes that some industries should be nationalized and if so which ones. If he does not believe any industries should be nationalized, it seems misleading for him to refer to himself as a socialist.Why would he choose to do this, if he isn't one? Putting an adjective in front of it, hoping we will accept that this totally neutralizes the noun, seems weird. It's a matter of clarity, and I think also it is a matter of honesty.

[Winstonm]

Fine. Does that mean nationalizing the steel industry? Really I am not just being argumentative. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that in the UK since WW II some industries have been nationalized and later de-nationalized. And I believe this has involved socialism. I think it is not just the UK. So it is fair to ask someone who describes himself as a socialist, adjectivised or not, whether he believes that some industries should be nationalized and if so which ones. If he does not believe any industries should be nationalized, it seems misleading for him to refer to himself as a socialist.Why would he choose to do this, if he isn't one? Putting an adjective in front of it, hoping we will accept that this totally neutralizes the noun, seems weird. It's a matter of clarity, and I think also it is a matter of honesty.

 

I don't think this is a perfect solution but the scales have tipped so far in the other direction that a change is necessary to restore some kind of balance. I think very few think now that central planning is the answer. That is not what the SCs want. The democratic socialists describe it this way:

 

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

 

In my views, putting people ahead of profits is a good model from which to work.

[cherdano]

I have been told multiple times that attributing support for Trump to racial resentment is impolite and a conversation stopper. Which may be right, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11833548/donald-trump-support-race-religion-economy

[mike777]

"ocial ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

 

 

In my views, putting people ahead of profits is a good model from which to work."

 

Very interesting points.

 

I do wonder why market mechanisms are needed for consumer goods but not, transportation, housing and energy? To put it another way what "angel" is going to be in charge of these areas?

 

 

For example do you want Trump and Mitch MConnel and Ryan being in control of transportation, energy and housing?

[PassedOut]

I have been told multiple times that attributing support for Trump to racial resentment is impolite and a conversation stopper. Which may be right, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11833548/donald-trump-support-race-religion-economy

I read the piece, but nevertheless have trouble believing all of it:

 

Indeed, Obama embodies of each of these concerns for a large segment of Republicans. He is obviously African-American; as mentioned previously, more than half of all Republicans believe he is a Muslim; and finally, only 29 percent of Republicans think he was born in the US.

Something is off; that can't be correct.

[barmar]

I do wonder why market mechanisms are needed for consumer goods but not, transportation, housing and energy? To put it another way what "angel" is going to be in charge of these areas?

The free market works well for discretionary spending. If no one offers the product at an acceptable price, you just don't buy it. This puts pressure on vendors to reduce their prices, and eventually you reach the intersection point in the supply-demand curve that's so familiar from microeconomics.

 

This doesn't work as well for necessities. You can't just decide to do without food because prices are too high. Similarly, there are public necessities: society can't decide not to maintain the transportation infrastructure, because everyone needs it.

[helene_t]

It is more about monopolies. You can't decide not to eat, but you can decide to go to the competitor for your groceries.

 

Transportation and energy is different. These are natural monopolies so there is no such thing as a free market for those things.

[mike777]

Perhaps the problem is people dont seem to understand what capitalism and free markets mean when it comes to such issues as food, housing, energy and transportation. It does NOT mean an economy without laws and regulations and a court and police system.

 

It does mean the alternatives tend toward fascism. It tends toward finding an Angel you trust in to make the decisions rather than letting hundreds of millions of consumers of that product make the decision.

 

 

One tiny example...if food prices are too high capitalism and free markets allow you to produce food, more food, sell that food, without permission from the government.

 

Again I ask do you really want Trump telling you how you must run the food industry, the energy industry, the housing industry, the transportation industry? How much you can produce and what you can produce and what price to sell it?

 

I dont mind Winston's suggestion that the workers and whatever own the company..I just wonder where the workers are going to come up with a trillion dollars to buy the companies.

[Winstonm]

"ocial ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

 

 

In my views, putting people ahead of profits is a good model from which to work."

 

Very interesting points.

 

I do wonder why market mechanisms are needed for consumer goods but not, transportation, housing and energy? To put it another way what "angel" is going to be in charge of these areas?

 

 

For example do you want Trump and Mitch MConnel and Ryan being in control of transportation, energy and housing?

Can't say for sure who but history shows us that big endeavors are handled pretty well by the federal government - the interstate highway system, Hoover Dam, and so on.

[mike777]

Can't say for sure who but history shows us that in big endeavors are handled pretty well by the federal government - the interstate highway system, Hoover Dam, and so on.

 

 

 

I agree that socialism when it comes to the highway system has worked pretty well, as I recaLL THE Argument was self defense in the name of war. Ike built it in the name of defense not social issues after seeing Germany and the Autoban.

[Zelandakh]

It does mean the alternatives tend toward fascism.

The alternatives to capitalism tend towards fascism? That is quite the statement Mike - care to back it up?

[kenberg]

I agree that socialism when it comes to the highway system has worked pretty well, as I recall the argument was self defense in the name of war. Ike built it in the name of defense not social issues after seeing Germany and the Autobahn.

 

This is one of the many laugh or cry moments of history. As I recall, it was something like the National Defense Highway Act. Of course a good highway system is relevant to national security, most large programs have some relevance to national security, but it seems pretty clear that Ike thought we needed a good federal highway system and pitching it as national defense was the way to get it. So we got it, it was good, and it was a bit of a con job.

 

Perhaps the con job aspect made good planning a little more difficult. Focusing fully on the transportation aspects might have led to better planning, less cutting up of neighborhoods while still providing good routes in and out of center cities. Or maybe not. Recently we were out in Oregon. We made the serious error of flying out of Reagan National in Northern Virginia. Our flight back was scheduled to get in late on a Tuesday but weather problems led to us getting back about 4 in the afternoon on Wednesday. You cannot get from Norther Virginia to Maryland, north of Washington, at 4 in the afternoon. It cannot be done. Not if you value your sanity anyway.

 

Maybe this problem could be seen as a national defense issue rather than a get Ken Berg home issue.

Yes, Baltimore Washington International works fine. I cannot imagine what we were thinking when we booked a flight from National.

 

Anyway, I do think that there are quite a few things that are best done at the federal level. When the USA was created, a trip from Northern Maryland to where we are in Maryland, 30 or so miles north of Washington, would probably have required overnight lodging along the way. individual states were the natural unit for decisions and projects. That was long ago. There are problems with doing things at a national scale, just as in Europe there are problems with doing things on an EU scale, but I think that we have to learn how to do it. This isn't 1776, or 1787, or even 1900. We have a nation, not a loose knit collection of fifty independent states, so we better figure out how to deal with that. I suppose we will muddle through.

[Winstonm]

I agree that socialism when it comes to the highway system has worked pretty well, as I recaLL THE Argument was self defense in the name of war. Ike built it in the name of defense not social issues after seeing Germany and the Autoban.

 

I think Ike built it that way because he was compelled to sell it that way because the country was still concerned about security. Today, at least with the youth who support Sanders, I am confident the idea could have been sold without the nod to defense.

[barmar]

Today's Writer's Almanac has a section about the anniversary of John Adams first arriving in DC, which was still under construction as the new capitol. On the morning after his first night sleeping in the White House, he wrote a letter to Abigail including the lines:

I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.

And FDR had those words carved into the mantel in the State Dining Room.

 

I can't imagine what these statesmen would think of Trump.