NYT Americas Exploding Pipe Dream
This from today’s Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
America’s Exploding Pipe Dream
By CHARLES M. BLOW
We are slowly — and painfully — being forced to realize that we are no longer the America of our imaginations. Our greatness was not enshrined. Being a world leader is less about destiny than focused determination, and it is there that we have faltered.
We sold ourselves a pipe dream that everyone could get rich and no one would get hurt — a pipe dream that exploded like a pipe bomb when the already-rich grabbed for all the gold; when they used their fortunes to influence government and gain favors and protection; when everyone else was left to scrounge around their ankles in hopes that a few coins would fall.
We have not taken care of the least among us. We have allowed a revolting level of income inequality to develop. We have watched as millions of our fellow countrymen have fallen into poverty. And we have done a poor job of educating our children and now threaten to leave them a country that is a shell of its former self. We should be ashamed.
Poor policies and poor choices have led to exceedingly poor outcomes. Our societal chickens have come home to roost.
This was underscored in a report released on Thursday by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation of Germany entitled “Social Justice in the OECD — How Do the Member States Compare?” It analyzed some metrics of basic fairness and equality among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and ranked America among the ones at the bottom.
I could write (and have written) ad nauseam about our woeful state, but it might be more powerful to see it for yourself. So here are some of the sad data from the report
Who is “we”, wall streeters?
The 1% sold fascists’ war profits and tax cuts, while scheming to profit from third world slave labor.
The people are figuring out that media ‘we’ is the rich who also own the government.
This is usual agitprop, par for the media.
Well first you need to change the mind set that Divine Providence has the best interests of the United States in mind. the adage of God helps those who help themselves has only been embraced by the super rich and they could care less about the the United States. Indeed it could be argued that the current state of this country is exactly what the super rich want. unless the 99 per centers are willing to work to take back the country, they are out of luck and so is the country
The US has been down there with Chile, Mexico, and Turkey for a long time now. The Nanny States are doing best, with more Chicago School economics the nations racing to the bottom go there even faster. And the Republicans with help from Democrats want to speed it up.
Well, Chile has always been described as a place doing things right by certain circles here in the US. It may take a bit of work to get Mexico and Turkey, and for grins and giggles, Equatorial Guinea on the “states we must emulate” list, and all will be well.
“This was underscored in a report released on Thursday by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation of Germany entitled “Social Justice in the OECD — How Do the Member States Compare?” It analyzed some metrics of basic fairness and equality among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and ranked America among the ones at the bottom.”
It’s a truly astonishing report that one.
First, set up your metrics to show that Scandinavian social democracies are the definition of socially just societies.
Then measure different societies.
Then, and I know you’ll find this amazing, find that Scandinavian social democracies are the socially just societies.
Just how *do* people manage to reach such surprising conclusions?
Alternatively, Tim, you could arrive at some standards for social justice independent of any particular national model and then compare the realities of different nations as you find them. I suspect that’s what happened here. Do you have proof that they arbitrarily chose the Scandinavian model? Or are you just sore because they didn’t adopt your personal religion?
ilsm,
While I share your frustration, I think any objective analysis would admit that “we” is a large slice of the American electorate. We do still have the opportunity to vote, and it’s a safe bet that a healthy fraction of the “99%” voted for the fascists that brought us where we are today.
The Wall Street 1% didn’t elect Congress or the president that appointed the paleolithic majority on the SCOTUS.
So, yes. We. Present company excepted, of course.
Do we have the opportunity to vote? Are our votes actually countied?
I know, I know, you are a tard. Just because blatant vote rigging has been admitted over, and over, and over, again, does not in any way mean that it could be worse than that.
You stand proudly against reality, saying “this is the most we have to admit to or be openly mocked”… NO FARTHER! Not one single more point conceded!
Actually, you go way past that and demand to be taken seriously when you hold positions that are inescabably stupid and retarded.
The only person retarded here is you, Barnum. But yours is a fitting name, since both you and the original Barnum are hucksters. Given your self-identification and the drivel that you posted under the Barnum name, I’ll take you on your own terms. You are a self-identified phony.
Smarter trolls, please!
Joel
probably what you said. Worstall would not accept “Scandanavian” standards because they imply that human beings have worth beyond what they can fetch on the auction block. If they only had the same skill set as Worstall, the holy market would reward them.
Tim
all people pretty much reach conclusions by a similar process of essentially circular reasoning. that very much includes you, though being as it’s your circle you would not notice it.
the final judge of “reasoning” is results. you appear to like the results of your reasoning as it allows you to wear a tie and sit on your butt and feel superior to everyone you don’t have to pretend to like because they can do something for you.
the rest of us unwashed have had to come to value other ideas, about which we reason in shameless circles.
Maybe the Cato institute could come up with their own statistics. As it is, you can start with the US with one hundred and the result will be the same, the numbers are what they are. Just take infant mortality, the gap is too big to close with a little manipulation. It is not the metrics, it is what it is.
Tim, it is not a surprising conclusions, it is well known for a long time, the US compares to MEXICO, CHILE and TURKEY.
Mike,
is Chile not the great succees story of the Friedman School of economics? Surely, certain circles here and there are the winners and looking good as long as no one looks under the bed. Maybe we should put Iraq with a 15% flat tax on the list to emulate?
“Alternatively, Tim, you could arrive at some standards for social justice independent of any particular national model”
Sure, we could. For example, the growth rate which means that the children are going to be richer (much so) than their parents. Intergenerational justice is one of the things that the report looks at but they don’t mention that aspect of it (yes, I have actually read it).
Using this metric China, Singapore, Hong Kong would come out well.
We could use social justice to mean whether producers of wealth were able to keep some arbitrary amount of the wealth they had created. Say, ooooh, 60%? You know, 40% for everyone else, 60% for them, just as an example?
Amazingly, the report doesn’t use this measure.
The specific measures they use to measure “social justice” just happen to be those which flatter the Scandis.
My, what a surprise.
Tim Worstall: “First, set up your metrics to show that Scandinavian social democracies are the definition of socially just societies.”
Gee, it seems to me that the metrics shown may be derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 by a vote of 48-0. There were 8 abstentions: Communist countries, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia. Hardly a Scandinavian plot.
Nah, Min,
Tim has told you what he values: Money is the measure of all things. Even if you have to fudge the measuring a bit. I don’t think it even enters his mind there could be a problem with this value system.
Hey Joel,
Rhymes with troll.
Best congress wall st could buy.
Whaddya think guy?
I picked up your role.
The Chilean Plan worked Great!
Okay they had to fix it after the fact complete with massive government transfers to make up for the flaws. Fixes that had to be paralleled with its bound at the hip wild success the Galveston Plan. But if you ignore niggling details like “outcomes” and “numbers” both are proof positive of the genius of Friedman and the Chicago School.
The elder Bush only got one thing wrong when he described Supply Side as “voodoo” as a candidate in 1980. Change a single initial letter and you have the perfect descriptor. And God help us 30 years later we are still trying to scrape it off our shoes.
Inetrgenerational justice, leave the kids a deregulated polluted world.
An Native American proverb holds that we “borrow” the world from our children.
Not just the children who can get away from the soiled environment the 1% would have for their profit.
Maybe US voters have wanted more economic freedom (and less socialism) over the past thirty years. That’s a social justice value that isn’t captured here. Turns out, however, that Denmark, Switzerland, Canada and some of the other countries that out-rank the US here also do better or about the same as the US on economic freedom indices published by Heritage Foundation and others. Perhaps these economic freedom indices aren’t measuring “freedom of the top 1 percent to ever-increase their share of the economic benefits produced by the country.” This is close to what Worstall recommends and is the form of freedom, provided by duly-elected GOP and Dem DLC-thinking leaders, that voters have been choosing. I think unwittingly, for most voters.
Tim I would feel more comfortable about those Intergenerational numbers if they actually showed age adjusted cohort to cohort numbers. That is any son of millionaires is likely to show huge increases in income as he transitions from post college ski bum to executive track deputy junior VP in the family firm to being slotted into the top floor Executive Suite.
Of course some people move up on an Intergenerational basis, the question is how many scions actually move down on a generation over generation basis. And at the top end I suspect the answer is “not many”. Because somehow those statistics on income mobility seem to discount Trust Fumds that don’t mature until age 30. I am not much impressed with arguments that silently rest on “Gosh I once had to bus tables in Gstad to pay for lift tickets”
Seriously how many people in Singapore, Hong Kong, or China who were objectively wealthy 30 years ago saw any children move down the ultimate income scale as opposed to the overwhelming majority of folks who only saw marginal increases? And no “today they have a toaster and a cell phone” doesn’t cut it. Generally speaking the rich stay rich and always have and passed these advantages to their children in all economic systems making all arguments based on “skill premium” suspect.
Oddly material success is enhanced if you have parents that can cut a check to Wharton Business School and connections that slot you into pretentious internships. Who knew?
Cute. Silly. Pointless. But cute.
Hi Tim:
Lets lok at another report, one which just examines the US and intergenerational poverty an wealth. The Center for American Progress did a study examining mobility in America and how income and wealth impacts both . . . “Understanding Mobility in America” http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf I can discuss it with you if you care. For now, I will post a few pertinrnt facts as developed by the study.
– “Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.”
Now this study is from 2006 so things have changed a bit. Family household income has increased a bit but in relation to the upper 3% not not as much and much of the increase is due to the 2001/2003 tax breaks heavily skewed to that segment of the population. In reality, this portion of the taxpaying population has indeed slipped backwards.
– “Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.”
Does this need an explanation? Given that many of these children do not have access to the same schools that those who live in Farmington Hills, Bloomfield Hills, Oak Brook, Lake Forest, Madion, etc. I suspect this is mostly true as they can not start from the same plateau as their higher income friends. City schools perform at a lower level. Cities have lower incomes than that of their higher income sburbs.
– “Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.”
Without a doubt, the level of education (as shown by employment figures), race (blacks have higher unemployment), health (the unemployed do not have healthcare insurance mostly), and state of residence (the South is notoriously bad) all have an impact on mobility.
– “By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United […]
Oooooo, you pretend to be a smartee. Form over substance because you have no substance.
You can’t address my point because it is obviously true.
And you are obviously a retard.
Totally wrong. If all the “growth” is going to the top 10% with the 90% suffering declining incomes, then growth rate doesn’t help intergenerational fairness.
And how does America do on “growth” even ignoring this obvious flaw?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Oh, and I’ll see you the “less taxes” and raise you “highest prison population in the world”.
“Gee, it seems to me that the metrics shown may be derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”
Could be I suppose.
Although they seem to have left out Articles 1,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,…..
They seem very keen on 22,23,24,25,26,29 though.
As I say, let’s select those bits that make the Scandis look good and then declare that the Scandis look good by the measure we’ve chosen.
“Although they seem to have left out Articles 1,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,….. “
I suppose they are “left out” in the sense that the laws of thermodynamics and of planetary motion are also “left out.” I would have said they were implied. Omitting these articles, like the omission of the laws of thermodynamics and of planetary motion, neiter advantages nor disadvantages Scandanavian nations.
I can tell you hate the Scandinavian economic and human rights policies, Tim, but your comments here look to me like projecting, not thoughtful analysis.
“countied” is usually “counted” in standard American English. Oh, and there is no such word as “inescabably”. We can only suppose you meant “inescapably.” FYI. NancyO
“countied” is usually “counted” in standard American English. Oh, and there is no such word as “inescabably”. We can only suppose you meant “inescapably.” FYI. NancyO
Projecting much, PT?
That’s right! I made spelling errors and so the fact that you are so obviously wrong you refuse to even address the point doesn’t matter!
Oh bring it man!
Some of those articles address “police state” issues. I’m sure Amerika scores WAY better than the fascist Scandis do on that!
Hee-hee.
Why do people take clowns seriously? Because the clowns buddies like firing people who question the clowns. That’s why.
Barnum
i make spelling errors myself. worse since i got old. tells me what the rest of the class was fighting with when we were told spelling was important.
and i pretty much agree with you about the rigged elections.
but where i think you went wrong was telling everyone they were stupid before they had a chance to agree with you.
Joel
to be fair to tim… a concept he would not understand… thoughtful analysis is not what you expect on a blog, and projecting is probably not the word you want here… at least i understand “projecting” to mean ascribing your own dishonorable motives to the other person.
in a just universe Tim would be born again in a pure capitalist state of his imagining, only he wouldn’t have any of the in-demand skills, so he would be condemned to a life of extreme poverty whatever his other strengths and virtues.
Except, that just as some people have brain damage that affects their ability to spell, other people have brain damage that affects their sense of human decency. If Tim is born into his next life with no other “talent” than his lack of decency, he will always be able to find employment in a state of pure competition.
Tim,
the table shows Chile and Mexico spend a higher percentage of GDP on education than does the USA. Today, Ron Paul, the disciple of Ayn Rand, advocated on TV to phase out student loans. He claimed the nation spends about one trillion $$$ to finance the education of students who can’t find jobs to pay back their student loans. His solution ” NO MORE STUDENT LOANS” What do you think about that? I say, lets race down to Texas and Mississippi level, VOTE REPUBLICAN. Who needs a Scandinavian Nanny State, we are so much better.
Tim,
you do not need any metrics or any statistics. They are doing better than the US by any measure. You can see it, all you have to do is open your eyes and ears.
“at least i understand “projecting” to mean ascribing your own dishonorable motives to the other person.”
Correct. In this context, Tim ascribes dishonorable motives to those who set up the table linked to this post. He has no evidence for this. Where do you suppose he gets his evidence. To me, it appears that Tim, like many people lacking a sense of integrity, ascribes to others his own deficiency. I would call that “projecting.” YMMV.
Skip the social justice scale. Just read our own CBO report of the past week. The summary:
After-Tax Income Grew More for Highest-Income Households
After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,65 percent for the next 19 percent,Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
Worstall, it that is your idea of a balanced and fair economy than you are truly a toady for that One Percent Club we keep reading about. Yes, there are plenty in the next 4%-10% below the rgument that can be sold to an ignorant electorate. Within the lower 90% there are too many who are focused on social conservatism rather than their own best economic interests. How do we explain a Congress with leadership like Paul Ryan and his economic ideologically challenged cohorts. Sadly this same behavior can be found on both sides of the aisle with Democrats only providing the right of center alternative that provides no better plan for the Lower Ninety Nine Percent. We don’t have to look any further than the CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
joel
okay. you convinced me.
jack
well, they are social conservatives to be sure, though in their personal lives most of them treat you better than your neighbors in New York who vote Democratic. This is not meant as the standard slur on “liberals.” It’s just that if you live in a big city you have different ideas about what can work than if you live in a rural mindset. from talking to them i get the idea that they think they are over taxed too. this is probably not realistic of them, but as long as their Big R friends on the airwaves tell them it’s so, it’s really easy for them to believe.
Thing is, I expect “the people” to be simple. When someone with Worstalls advantages touts a simple minded story, I suspect him of dishonest. I am probably not being fair. Even rich people can be simple minded.
as for upward mobility
as a sign of intergenerational justice , i don’t get it.
but suppose you lived in a society where you had everything you needed, and if you wanted something “more” you could reasonably aspire to get it as long as you did not harm your neighbors.
would you need or want “upward mobility”? or is the desire for upward mobility based on having a large part of the population in actual want. degrading poverty.
and yes, i am curious to know what Worstall does to “create wealth.”
coberly,
“..from talking to them i get the idea that they think they are over taxed too. this is probably not realistic of them, but as long as their Big R friends on the airwaves tell them it’s so, it’s really easy for them to believe.”
And over taxed they most probably are. Someone has to make up for the tax breaks given to the One Percenters. The Congress that promises to give shall taketh away unless you happen to be amongst the group that has it all and provides the local congressional candidate with the means to become a member of the servile political class. That certain kind of ignorance that puts one’s social conservatism ahead of one’s economic well being occurs in both the urban, suburban and rural precincts of our country. Damn sure they’re over taxed and damned certainn that tax policies of the right wing won’t change that a bit. Someone has to make up for the tax holidays given to the truly rich.
Jack
i share your anger at the “right.” But I think that as long as it is expressed in terms of the rich versus the poor it will be self defeating.
It sounds to me like a couple arguing over whose turn it is to change the baby’s diaper while rats crawl in the window and carry off the baby.
The insane right is the enemy. The “tax the rich instead of us” left is what feeds the enemy.
The most recent “tax holiday” on the surface gives “the poor” their money back. In reality it robs the poor of their chance to retire at a decent age. All the “liberals” standing up and calling the payroll tax a “regressive tax” or even a “jobs killing tax” just makes it easier for the hard right to increase the sum of human misery. As well as being wrong on the facts.
The rich need to pay a fair share of the taxes… indeed most of the taxes since they have most of the money…. but the rest of us need to pay a fair share of the taxes too, if only to stay honest.
Not to say we shouldn’t try to find ways to save “government money.”
“The “tax the rich instead of us” left is what feeds the enemy.”
Funny, but that’s an argument I haven’t actually heard. no one has said instead of. The focus is always in addition to or for a change, as in tax the rich for a change. You never have to worry about wage earners paying their fair share of taxes. It has been that way for centuries.
I have to disagree, coberly. The “insane right” is not the enemy, it is the footsoldiers. And nobody is calling for “tax the rich instead of us”; as far as I can tell, only the President and some Dem senators that think taxes should remain lower than they are for the middle classes, and they’re obviously not “us”. But, and I think I speak for a lot of people here, taxes have been falling for the upper classes since at least Kennedy, and especially since Reagan, and even more especially since Bush II, and we’re sick of it.
Indeed, Jack. Is it possible that the “tax the rich instead of us” line is being put into people’s mouths by the right wing media in order to make it SEEM like class warfare? I think someone Luntz’d all over that one.