Plutocracy Rising
Via reader rjs news and Naked Capitalism comes this excerpt on income inequality and programs to address the issue:
Bill Moyers: Plutocracy Rising – via Yves Smith – Bill Moyer’s latest show, with Matt Taibbi and and Chrystia Freeland, focuses on how the super rich have established a yawning chasm between themselves and ordinary Americans, both in financial and physical terms. One major focus is view the rich are where they are by virtue of their talents and efforts, not (say) by regulatory and tax arbitrage, and how they’ve convinced themselves and a large swathe of society of this myth.
One place where I quibble is where and Freeland argues that “progressives” have dropped the ball by focusing on manufacturing jobs as a solution to the woes of the fallen middle class. That’s hardly the first or best remedy; more progressive taxation (on the order, say, of what we had in Reagan’s day) and getting rid of the favorable treatment of “carried interest” would have far more short term impact. And if I’ve heard the weak tea lefties correctly, the preferred fix for creating more manly jobs (remember Obama’s fixation with that?) is infrastructure spending, where the US has fallen way behind its advanced economy peers, and lousy infrastructure is an impediment to commerce. Freeland has spent too much time in Davos and is unduly enamored of the big multinational corporation business models of extended supply chains. But that aside, there is a lot of good stuff in this show
well, Yves is partly wrong
“income inequality” is not the problem.
it may be that some poor do not have enough for a decent life.
and it may be that some rich have too much money-power to be safe for the country.
but that’s not the same as “inequality” being the problem.
nor is “more progressive taxation” necessarily the solution… especially as long as liberals view Social Security as a “regressive tax”… progressive taxation is essentially the only reasonable way to tax incomes, the most reasonable place to tax. but as long as you are thinking in terms of soaking the rich… whether you admit it or not… you are creating political obstacles to doing what needs to be done: better wages for the poorest. high enough wages for all so they can pay for their own health care and retirement (aka Medicare and Social Security) insurance; better housing, better school… ah, distant dream always broken by the nightmare of politics in education.
but seriously, folks…
oh, i should have added… better regulation of financial markets, and an economy not built around playing games with money.
i don’t like factory work myself… a good reason it should be highly paid… but you can’t have an economy where the rich get rich by gambling, and the poor wish they could too.
and, oh yes, while i don’t know any workers who think of themselves as “victims” and “won’t take responsibility for themselves”… it is apparent that the “liberal” voices are calling for just that.
“….you are creating political obstacles to doing what needs to be done: better wages for the poorest. high enough wages for all so they can pay for their own health care and retirement (aka Medicare and Social Security) insurance; better housing, better school… ah, distant dream always broken by the nightmare of politics in education.
but seriously, folks…”
But seriously coberly, why do you think the “job creators” will be any happier with paying better wages?
Coberly,
Inequality is the problem. It is the immediate problem. It is also a result. It is the results of the lack of what you are calling for.
To lecture that inequality is not the problem and then to highlight it with:
…while i don’t know any workers who think of themselves as “victims” and “won’t take responsibility for themselves”… it is apparent that the “liberal” voices are calling for just that.
is to ignore the immediate need. As I noted in an earlier post, in the Moyer’s piece it was noted that 37% of the gains post recession have gone to the top 0.01%.
We all agree that policies over time have allowed this to happen, but for you to dismiss the results as not being a problem is to dismiss the raw sewage running in the street from the floods of the rain and instead only saying the issue is the lack of properly maintained sewer systems while some people may not have adequate drainage and some may have excess. Kind of like New Orleans?
You also know exactly why raising taxes on the rich is required because it has been a major subject for a long time, even before I started writing. It is insulting to present your argument as if the call for a higher tax rate is “soaking the rich”.
We need a more progressive income tax structure and that means higher marginal rates. It means very high rates at the top. You should also know why this is appropriate from reading here at AB.
In the meantime, we need to prevent the harm from the raw sewage that is present.
Becker
no, i do not agree. we need a healthier economy. there will be “inequality” in a health economy. there may not be the gross injustices that look like “inequality.”
as long as you think “inequality” is “the” problem, you are missing the point. look again at “some poor do not make enough for a decent life,” and “some rich have too much money to be safe for the country”. that is not the same as “inequality.” though of course it is inequality, that is not what makes it evil.
and calling for more progressive taxation is not the way to get better results.
sorry that i am just repeating what i said before, but i think that until you understand the point, there isn’t much point in arguing.
Anna Lee
I can’t imagine why you think i think they would.
in the first place “job creators” is part of the republican myth. please note that the government creates jobs. as do millions of businesses which do not treat their workers like slaves. where the problem is that some workers are unable to find work at decent wages. since the pfree market cannot solve that problem “we” have to. the only tool we have is “the government,” which, bless us, is also staffed with fools who can’t think outside the paradigm created by the politicians who serve one special interest or another.