The Era of Living Dangerously

[Ken White]

So our derivatives-based monarchy will look a little different. It won't change its basic nature: peasants go down here, stockholder-royalty goes up here.

Hyperprole!

A purpose. Otherwise, why not just let the financial elite run over everyone else?

The financial elite would like that especially as they think the pur[pose of capitalism is to provide them with lots of capital. Stirring the pot is NOT on their agenda. They want stability -- tranquility, even -- and they're willing ala Alfred Krupp and Otto Von Bismark to pay to get it -- but not too much...

I still don't completely agree on that point. I don't think the social policies aimed at raising the bottom were the problem--the problem was the ability of those at the top, caused by reduced and weakened oversight, to exploit those programs to a disastrous degree.

Not a problem, we can disagree; you blame those at the top, I blame politicians. Both are at fault -- but the politicians had and have the responsibility to mitigate the excesses of those at the nominal top who may or may not be altruistic. Been my observation that altruism needs encouragement...

Possibly, but I don't see the alleged over reliance of the lower strata as causing nearly as much of a problem as the over reliance of the upper.

The detriment is about equal IMO but they're different in their effect. The upper are simply manipulating the system; the lower believe that the government will and can do things that are far from certain thus the incentive to prepare oneself for potential problems or to enhance one's potential for success is removed -- so the nominal underclass stays where it is with little change . Want evidence? Look at the history of the US and its 'efforts' to improve the lot of that underclass over the last 100 years...

That's becoming less true. While the middle class is doing better now--arguably--than it was two decades ago, we're eating into the middle class's savings and shunting them into the lower class.

True to an extent but mostly as a result of our failure in 1990 to start adapting to a world that had changed in the previous 20 plus years. Needed efforts were identified but not implemented because they were not believed to be important or were politically unpalatable. However, my comment reached into all classes -- because all are buying big flat screens (to use a metaphor...). Even those lower class folks, old and new...

What I am in favor of is addressing the issue of generational wealth. In large part, generational wealth has to do with equality of outcome, because the outcome (or rather the income) of one generation directly affects the opportunities of the next. Now, let me be clear: people should never be prevented from using their wealth to improve the lives of their children. But. What concerns me is that lack of generational wealth--people lacking wealth with which to improve the lives of their children--has far too large a negative impact on the outcomes of their childrens' lives. This isn't a matter of Bobby being born in a poor household and growing up to be a poor man, while Charlie is born in a rich household and grows up to be a rich man--this is a matter of Bobby's great-great-great grandfather being poor, and all of Bobby's friends' great-great-great grandfathers being poor, and very few of them ever escaping being poor. At some point, the disparity of outcome between population groups over time becomes a clear indicator that there is a severe inequality of opportunity.

I totally agree there is a severe inequality of opportunity in this country (thus my been to Court lately question). What you say is generally correct --Charlie sometimes fritters away the Shekels and Bobby sometimes gather more wealth than Charlie could have dreamed of -- but by and large, you're right. Where we differ is on the solution. Since the 1930s, we have spent an inordinate amount of money and effort in trying to insure equality of outcome with little success. That's why Bobby and his friends are caught in the trap. You may not think of equality as equality of outcome but your government, mostly, has and that to the exclusion of rectifying the terrible problems of unequal opportunity. Throwing money at schools isn't the answer, nor are jobs programs -- fixing schools and making jobs are the answers. The first is a governmental responsibility and most governments at all levels have done an abysmal job of operating schools and they have killed efforts that succeeded where they could because that might upset the status quo. As a friend said, "Those latte drinkers need Baristas -- and sweepers; plus somebody's gotta build those bike trails."

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...

[slapout9]

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...

Ken, that just isn't true. They created the Hoover Dam,They electrified the south through the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority) they created Nuclear Energy, and they created NASA which has created more physical wealth that is used by Americans than any organization in the history of Mankind! Them wuz guvmint jobs!

And more important it is not just Government but it is the American Government. "We the people" not "I" the banker.

[Fuchs]

All general remarks on the role of government tend to be wrong much of the time.

This age is an age of difficulties - as probably every age before, too.
You cannot set up a maxim/ideology/rule and expect to be right more than about 60% of the time.

Example (de)regulation:
There's no simple answer. You need to look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and take many, many second order effects into account.
Sometimes you'll end up discovering the need for more regulation, sometimes one for better one, sometimes for less.


There's little hope that governments will be gotten right until people (at least the powerful ones) understand that simple maxims and rules are nonsense.
Simplification allows laymen to discuss things, but applied at actual decision-making it merely means that the decision-maker flips a coin and is essentially ignorant.


The whole small government - big government debate is thus a huge display of ignorance.

Btw, this small government - big government thing is a fixation of the anglophone world, most evidently of the U.S.. It's not among the top 100 memes of many, many developed countries world-wide while Americans appear to even go crazy about it.

[slapout9]

All general remarks on the role of government tend to be wrong much of the time.

This age is an age of difficulties - as probably every age before, too.
You cannot set up a maxim/ideology/rule and expect to be right more than about 60% of the time.

Example (de)regulation:
There's no simple answer. You need to look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and take many, many second order effects into account.
Sometimes you'll end up discovering the need for more regulation, sometimes one for better one, sometimes for less.


There's little hope that governments will be gotten right until people (at least the powerful ones) understand that simple maxims and rules are nonsense.
Simplification allows laymen to discuss things, but applied at actual decision-making it merely means that the decision-maker flips a coin and is essentially ignorant.


The whole small government - big government debate is thus a huge display of ignorance.

Btw, this small government - big government thing is a fixation of the anglophone world, most evidently of the U.S.. It's not among the top 100 memes of many, many developed countries world-wide while Americans appear to even go crazy about it.

Nope. Here is my general simplistic theory. America largely grew to such prominence because after WW2 we developed all the advanced German technology when we gained access to the German Scientific Archives. If it hadn't been for that we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Science is the real creator of wealth and it dosen't care what your politics/or economic philosophy are.

[ganulv]

Here is my general simplistic theory. America largely grew to such prominence because after WW2 we developed all the advanced German technology when we gained access to the German Scientific Archives.

How many other nations apart from Sweden even had an intact industrial infrastructure to take advantage of it in the immediate post-War years? That’s something I wish everyone who wants the America their daddy grew up in back would keep in mind.

[Fuchs]

Those "archives" exceeded by far the ability of allied countries to absorb and exploit their content. Aerospace know-how transfer was spectacular, but didn't carry more forward than for a few years.
The deletion of previously published patents on the other hand helped the Western Allies' chemical industries a lot.

The classic economic science answer to what creates economic output is still
* labour input
* natural resources input
* capital usage
* productivity (productivity gain = "technological progress", but it's not wholly about tech or even science)

And then there's the issue whether economic output - be it nominal or in PPP - does mean a lot or not. 'happiness' studies don't show a very strong correlation, and a sizeable chunk of our economic output is about repairing BS or socially useless activity.

[slapout9]

Those "archives" exceeded by far the ability of allied countries to absorb and exploit their content. Aerospace know-how transfer was spectacular, but didn't carry more forward than for a few years.
The deletion of previously published patents on the other hand helped the Western Allies' chemical industries a lot.

I would say it is was much more than that. They had Television,better vacum tubes, and the beginnings of genetic engineering, and a very differant view of how to finance an economy. My Physics professor was named Han Ri Furherand (who was a real live rocket scientist) and he had to stick pretty much to the standard stuuf in the textbook but occasionly he would talk about an alternative view of just what science was.The German view of science stood the world on it's head. Short answer Einstein said the universe expands but the Germans said the universe spins.
What that means is zero-point energy is possible but that it the subject of a another thread I will start shortly, hope you stick around for it.

[Ken White]

Ken, that just isn't true.

I'm afraid it is very true -- in part. Anbother part is as you say untrue but that's my fault for not being clear about the type of program to which I referred.

They created the Hoover Dam...

Google Six Companies, Inc. Note that both Bechtel and Morrrison-Knudsen were involved.

They electrified the south through the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority)

The government did -- but TVA was exceptional in several respects, was and is controversial and most of the high paying jobs were not typical Government make work efforts -- though some were:

""The unemployed were hired for conservation, economic development, and social programs such as a library service that operated for the surrounding area. The professional staff headquarters was composed of experts from outside the region. The workers were categorized into the usual racial and gender lines of the day. TVA hired a few African-Americans for janitorial positions. TVA recognized labor unions; its skilled and semi-skilled blue collar employees were unionized, a breakthrough in an area known for corporations hostile to miners' unions and textile unions. Women were excluded from construction work, although TVA's cheap electricity attracted textile mills that hired mostly women."" (LINK).

they created Nuclear Energy, and they created NASA which has created more physical wealth that is used by Americans than any organization in the history of Mankind! Them wuz guvmint jobs!

Yes, they were -- and both the AEC and NASA are productive and permanenet entities of the US Government and not the often temporary make-work government programs like the CCC and WPA were and that many suggest today. Or as had been suggested, expanding AmeriCorps. I should have made clear are the types of thing I was referring to...

Particularly as I had one of those permanent type Guvmint jobs for which I was significantly overpaid...

And more important it is not just Government but it is the American Government. "We the people" not "I" the banker.

Bankers are people, too. they just have different priorites than you or I do...

[Surferbeetle]

...it's interesting to consider the capacity of the current crop of the 1st world's political class. Is this crop able to successfully conduct demographic analysis, conduct risk analysis, understand technical (economic, military, etc) considerations, negotiate, craft deals, lead, and perform as committed statesmen and stateswomen?

From the Financial Times, European Officials Round on Lagarde, by FT Reporters, 28 Aug 2011

European officials rounded on Christine Lagarde on Sunday, accusing the managing director of the International Monetary Fund of making a “confused” and “misguided” attack on the health of Europe’s banks.

Ms Lagarde, the former French finance minister who replaced Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the IMF in July, used her address at an annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to call for an “urgent” recapitalisation of Europe’s weakest lenders, saying that shoring up the banking system was key to cutting “chains of contagion” across the region.

From the Financial Times, Caterpillar Chief Attacks Washington, by Hal Weitzman, August 28, 2011

Mr Oberhelman joins a growing chorus of US business leaders who say they are fed up with the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans, displayed most recently in the gridlock over the debate to raise the country’s debt ceiling.

Howard Schultz, Starbucks chief executive, has called on his peers to stop donating to politicians until Congress reaches a bipartisan agreement on debt reduction. More than 100 business leaders have backed the campaign, including Duncan Niederauer of NYSE Euronext, Walter Robb of Whole Foods and Myron Ullman of JC Penney.

[motorfirebox]

Hyperprole!

Honestly? Not so much. I'm not saying we're there yet, but I think we're headed directly to that state of affairs.

Not a problem, we can disagree; you blame those at the top, I blame politicians. Both are at fault -- but the politicians had and have the responsibility to mitigate the excesses of those at the nominal top who may or may not be altruistic. Been my observation that altruism needs encouragement...

Actually, I place more root blame on the politicians. Those at the top are doing what they're supposed to be doing--trying to make a buck any way they can. Gasoline is supposed to burn. The politicians' job is to encourage that when it's needed and to limit it when it would be harmful, the way a fuel system directs more or less gas to combust depending on the needs of the system and the direction of the driver. I think S&P ought to be punished, for instance, because I think their actions are harmful to the system and that situation needs to be corrected. Any personal satisfaction--while very real!--would not be the driving concern.

The detriment is about equal IMO but they're different in their effect. The upper are simply manipulating the system; the lower believe that the government will and can do things that are far from certain thus the incentive to prepare oneself for potential problems or to enhance one's potential for success is removed -- so the nominal underclass stays where it is with little change . Want evidence? Look at the history of the US and its 'efforts' to improve the lot of that underclass over the last 100 years...

So if people get help they won't want to succeed? That's simply not a position that makes any sense as a philosophy of government. Why have cops, it just encourages people to leave their doors unlocked. There's certainly a point at which help becomes harm, but when the median wealth of a black woman is $5 I don't see how it's possible to argue we're helping her too much.

True to an extent but mostly as a result of our failure in 1990 to start adapting to a world that had changed in the previous 20 plus years. Needed efforts were identified but not implemented because they were not believed to be important or were politically unpalatable. However, my comment reached into all classes -- because all are buying big flat screens (to use a metaphor...). Even those lower class folks, old and new...

I would say the failure started in the 70s, when we started shifting the majority of our profits into capital gains rather than splitting it with guys who actually make the widgets. The original comment, though, was about squeezing blood from a turnip. The US certainly isn't a turnip--the funding to do the things that, in my opinion, ought to be done is there for the taking.

I totally agree there is a severe inequality of opportunity in this country (thus my been to Court lately question). What you say is generally correct --Charlie sometimes fritters away the Shekels and Bobby sometimes gather more wealth than Charlie could have dreamed of -- but by and large, you're right. Where we differ is on the solution. Since the 1930s, we have spent an inordinate amount of money and effort in trying to insure equality of outcome with little success. That's why Bobby and his friends are caught in the trap. You may not think of equality as equality of outcome but your government, mostly, has and that to the exclusion of rectifying the terrible problems of unequal opportunity. Throwing money at schools isn't the answer, nor are jobs programs -- fixing schools and making jobs are the answers. The first is a governmental responsibility and most governments at all levels have done an abysmal job of operating schools and they have killed efforts that succeeded where they could because that might upset the status quo. As a friend said, "Those latte drinkers need Baristas -- and sweepers; plus somebody's gotta build those bike trails."

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...

Throwing money at schools may not be the whole solution, but I find it hard to believe that continually reducing school funding is the way to go, either.

To a large extent, I think we agree on the solution: I think we're both in favor of empowering individuals. I think greatly disincentivizing capital gains, and greatly limiting the power and rights of corporations, would be a good start. But I also think there myriad ways in which the government, right now, can and should shift wealth from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. Not because rich people shouldn't be rich--as fun as it is to bash executives, this isn't about wealthy individuals as it is about corporate machinery--but because the manner in which the financial elite have gained much of their current wealth amounts to outright theft from the rest of the country.

[slapout9]

Link to interview of Economic Historian Dr. Michael Hudson by Max Keiser.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=bC-EQM7YHz0#!

[Ken White]

Honestly? Not so much. I'm not saying we're there yet, but I think we're headed directly to that state of affairs.

Sigh. Okay, no more plays on words...

Actually, I place more root blame on the politicians...

That's good to know but hard to divine from your comments.

So if people get help they won't want to succeed?

Not what I wrote but a good snap back on what I did write. The granting of excessive aid and creating of excessive dependency on government can have that effect on some persons. Note the use of "excessive." That's a value determination that will vary widely among people; some are more susceptible to coasting than are others.

That's simply not a position that makes any sense as a philosophy of government. Why have cops, it just encourages people to leave their doors unlocked. There's certainly a point at which help becomes harm, but when the median wealth of a black woman is $5 I don't see how it's possible to argue we're helping her too much.

The existence of Cops doesn't encourage that -- though one's place of residence can -- and we have Cops to take care of most law enforcement issues to the best of their ability. Note use of the words "most" and "best of their ability." The Cops cannot take care of all such issues, just as Government in toto cannot take care of all issues. Nor can you or I take care of every issue with which we're confronted -- that's just reality. Sometimes we need help, nice if its available -- it is also nice and quite satisfying to be able to do things by and for oneself (well, for most people, anyway...). The question is what capabilities are needed and what are we willing to pay for or do to get a selected capability...

The real issue here is not the provision of help but the methods used. We've been trying what you seem to wish for approaching 80 years -- effectively for my lifetime -- and the underclass still exists. Net figures for poverty and such have changed very little. Educational attainment has in many instances declined in spite significantly more spending (we tie with Switzerland in first in the world for the amount per pupil, K-12). What you seem to want to continue, even expand, simply is proven to not work.

...The US certainly isn't a turnip--the funding to do the things that, in my opinion, ought to be done is there for the taking.

Still, if that is done, they will come at the expense of something else; wealth, yes -- unlimited wealth, no. Someone has to work to make that money that is taxed to feed the Turnip Crusher. Yes, we're wealthy, perhaps too wealthy in some senses -- but like many with inherited wealth or other wealth that isn't hard earned by ourselves, we do not spend wisely. IMO, you propose to keep spending the same way -- except more.

Throwing money at schools may not be the whole solution, but I find it hard to believe that continually reducing school funding is the way to go, either.

There is no continuing or consistent reduction in school spending nationwide of which I'm aware. There are cases of temporary reduction due to tax shortfalls. Where I live, there is for example a slight retrenchment, they're letting a few teachers go (but no Administrators -- claiming State and Federal Regulatory requirements make them necessary ) -- though I note we're buying a multi million dollar AV system for the City Council and Bike Path construction continues...

... But I also think there myriad ways in which the government, right now, can and should shift wealth from the top of the pyramid to the bottom.

So can I. Most of them have been tried and do not work because people find a way to manipulate them and because they eventually cut too heavily into the tax base and revenues decline so retrenchment is necessary and the cycle begins anew...

Not because rich people shouldn't be rich--as fun as it is to bash executives, this isn't about wealthy individuals as it is about corporate machinery--but because the manner in which the financial elite have gained much of their current wealth amounts to outright theft from the rest of the country.

You forget to add in there somewhere 'abetted by Politicians.' You keep leaving that part out. It modifies your complaint a considerable amount.

Until the political problem is fixed, your issues will continue apace...

[omarali50]

As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...

[slapout9]

As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...

Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7169

[Ken White]

Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7169

Who knew...

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation.

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680

[slapout9]

Who knew...

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation.

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680

It is all about who controls the money and Rothschild the Banker said this:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

[Ken White]

...And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that)

I do not buy it either. Not at all. I'm old enough to recall the so-called Great Depression and the US was several orders of magnitude more poor than we are today. There was a bit more corruption at lower levels but less at higher levels and the national trust factor reflected that. People did more for themselves -- government also had little money -- and cooperation at all levels was less grudging. I have watched this slowly change through the intervening decades and most corruption and malfeasance has been modified, often but not always for the better, as more wealth accrued to the system.

IMO cooperation between the levels of government today is generally only fair. While it is somewhat facilitated by the process of Federal grants and transfers of money to states and localities, it is impeded -- harmed, even -- by the Federal penchant for excessive interference and ill-thought out laws and regulations. The arrogance of Federal agencies in dealing with other entities is real, palpable and is, I think, due to patronizing engendered by the fact that they have the power of those transfers. Individually or en masse, the wealthy tend to look down their noses at the proles.

I suspect a shift in tax policy to more correctly place tax authority at the point of need -- education and medical care are State, not Federal responsibilities would be helpful in that regard. Such an effort would also curtail the elements of corruption induced by excessive amounts of money that can be obtained from the Feds.

And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?...

Good question and something to ponder.

I wonder if the explosion of media outlets by sheer volume and which have to raise issues to garner attention has not caused an attack dog mentality on the part of that media and caused them to be aggressive to the point where they overstate issue and thus, deliberately or inadvertently, sow distrust?

I think your point on low level (city and county) and high level (federal) corruption may be explained by the visibility factor. The local issues are always readily apparent to everyone while the federal level is heavily if usually poorly covered by the national media and punditocracy -- the equally human State level is generally noted only by political junkies and those close to particular issues; State government news and event coverage in the dozen or so states in which I've lived as an adult is generally poor. My perception mirrors yours, that it was worse in the 19th century and my belief is that it was worse in the 1940s and 50s than it now is as I wrote above...

We are, I believe, improving -- if only slowly. People are people, after all.

[motorfirebox]

That's good to know but hard to divine from your comments.

Well, let me clarify. The problem is with the financial elite. The responsibility is on the politicians. You don't blame the dog over the owner, but the dog is what you worry about.

Not what I wrote but a good snap back on what I did write. The granting of excessive aid and creating of excessive dependency on government can have that effect on some persons. Note the use of "excessive." That's a value determination that will vary widely among people; some are more susceptible to coasting than are others.

I think there's coasting going on, but I think that coasting is a combinational result. Our social services provide some opportunity to coast, but we match that with a failure to provide opportunity to advance. I don't want to reduce the support structure we have--on which it is possible for some to coast--without first removing the obstacles that retard advancement. So it's those obstacles I see as the larger problem--larger in my perspective because they're closer.

The real issue here is not the provision of help but the methods used. We've been trying what you seem to wish for approaching 80 years -- effectively for my lifetime -- and the underclass still exists. Net figures for poverty and such have changed very little. Educational attainment has in many instances declined in spite significantly more spending (we tie with Switzerland in first in the world for the amount per pupil, K-12). What you seem to want to continue, even expand, simply is proven to not work.

If it doesn't work, it's because any benefit gained from these systems is immediately stripped away through other factors. We had a system which provided equity with which low-income families could bootstrap themselves--and when it failed, the penalty for that failure was foisted onto those the system was intended to help by those who made the system fail in the first place.

Most of the alternatives I see have to do with cutting taxes even further, starting at the top of the economy. The wealth gap is widening, the only cure is to make rich corporations even richer!

Still, if that is done, they will come at the expense of something else; wealth, yes -- unlimited wealth, no. Someone has to work to make that money that is taxed to feed the Turnip Crusher. Yes, we're wealthy, perhaps too wealthy in some senses -- but like many with inherited wealth or other wealth that isn't hard earned by ourselves, we do not spend wisely. IMO, you propose to keep spending the same way -- except more.

I'm proposing a fairly significant change in the way we spend, actually. Right now, we spend billions on assisting corporations that are already bringing in billions, and when that doesn't improve the job rate we spend billions more. Your paradigm is, "make the lower class work." Mine is, "provide them with the opportunity to work." Given how little average wages have increased over the past 40 years, and how much capital gains have increased over the same period, I really don't see how it's possible to entertain the idea that I'm proposing "the same, but moreso". That's like saying electing Obama means we've tried things the liberal way.

There is no continuing or consistent reduction in school spending nationwide of which I'm aware. There are cases of temporary reduction due to tax shortfalls. Where I live, there is for example a slight retrenchment, they're letting a few teachers go (but no Administrators -- claiming State and Federal Regulatory requirements make them necessary ) -- though I note we're buying a multi million dollar AV system for the City Council and Bike Path construction continues...

There are cuts, and likely more coming. Or, at least, I'm not optimistic about funding increasing during the Austerity Inquisition.

So can I. Most of them have been tried and do not work because people find a way to manipulate them and because they eventually cut too heavily into the tax base and revenues decline so retrenchment is necessary and the cycle begins anew...

Eh. For "cutting into the tax base" read instead "the guys who would be paying more taxes exercise too much political power to allow that to happen".

You forget to add in there somewhere 'abetted by Politicians.' You keep leaving that part out. It modifies your complaint a considerable amount.

Until the political problem is fixed, your issues will continue apace...

I don't think they're separable like that. How can we elect politicians who will put big business in its place, in the face of actions like the Citizens United decision?

[Ken White]

Well, let me clarify. The problem is with the financial elite. The responsibility is on the politicians. You don't blame the dog over the owner, but the dog is what you worry about.

Bad simile. For most purposes the Dog cannot reason and mystify you with sleight of hand while stealing your Steak. People can and almost certainly will do that. The Dog can be controlled, chained or penned by his owner -- People tend to resist and evade that. The problem is not "with the financial elite," the problem is human greed and reasoning ability. That can only be countered with better reasoning and a better motive than greed. Thus far, most governments most places in the world have proven to be not particularly adept at the former and unable to consistently apply the latter to the extent it vanquishes their greed...

I think there's coasting going on...without first removing the obstacles that retard advancement. So it's those obstacles I see as the larger problem--larger in my perspective because they're closer.

I agree. Where we seem to differ is in how to remove those obstacles. I contend that continuing what we are doing is bad and expanding most programs would only worsen the situation. Our problem as I see it is that a long term, multi-generational program is needed but that the American desire for a quick fix has led us since the '30s unto today to eschew long term thinking. There was a program, in Minnesota IIRC, that targeted at-risk families with several measures and it was proving successful in affecting the opportunities for the kids but not their parents. The program was halted because while quite successful, the parents and not the children had been the target audience.

Social 'Science' at work...

If it doesn't work, it's because any benefit gained from these systems is immediately stripped away through other factors. We had a system which provided equity with which low-income families could bootstrap themselves--and when it failed, the penalty for that failure was foisted onto those the system was intended to help by those who made the system fail in the first place.

Not sure of which program(s) you write but I suspect that there are counterpoints to it similar to the Minnesota program I cited above.

Most of the alternatives I see have to do with cutting taxes even further, starting at the top of the economy. The wealth gap is widening, the only cure is to make rich corporations even richer!

Nor do I know what this refers to. Whose alternatives? Does this include those who want to increase taxes at the top?

...Your paradigm is, "make the lower class work." Mine is, "provide them with the opportunity to work." Given how little average wages have increased over the past 40 years, and how much capital gains have increased over the same period, I really don't see how it's possible to entertain the idea that I'm proposing "the same, but moreso"...

That's an assumption on your part and it is not correct. My paradigm is remove excessive government interference in all aspects of American life. An action that I fully realize is highly unlikely but I am convinced that we can preclude further damage. Whether that will happen or not is unknown but I believe the 2012 Congressional elections will provide some indications -- the Presidential election is largely irrelevant to that, Congress does the money stuff...

slapout9 quoted Rothschild above: ""“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”" The US is a bit different -- here, Congress controls the Banks and thus the money supply. "We the people..." and all that. If the Bankers are not behaving as you wish, you need to speak to your Congress Critters...

Fuchs comment above is also quite germane: ""Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do. "" That is absolutely correct IMO -- and while I know we will never undo that mistaken approach, we can mitigate the damage instead of exacerbating it as you seem to propose.

I do not advocate that we "make the lower class work." I just want the system changed to enable them to work and to provide reasonably rewarding work. The goal of 'meaningful' work is a chimera ('pleasant' even more so...). That's why they call it work instead of fun...

There are cuts, and likely more coming. Or, at least, I'm not optimistic about funding increasing during the Austerity Inquisition.

Of course there are cuts -- but those cuts are a reflection of a significantly tightened economy, not a concerted plan to deny education to the masses as that article could be assumed by some to impute. You are correct that it is likely to worsen because the economy almost certainly will worsen before it recovers, slowly -- but as the economy eventually climbs back from the pits, education spending is likely to continue its historic trend and inch back up to reach and then pass previous highs.

The real issue is for what those education dollars are spent. While there are some improvements taking place in K-6 (which has always been fairly good anyway), the same is not true for 7-12 -- we have really screwed that up but we sure have a lot of kids with great self esteem...

Eh. For "cutting into the tax base" read instead "the guys who would be paying more taxes exercise too much political power to allow that to happen".

That's partly true in some cases -- and more true in some than others -- but anyway you handle it, there has to be a tax base of some sort. If the system is skewed to a particular segment of the population then it is up to the Politicians to change that. To hope they will clamp down and jail those who are paying a healthy percentage of the taxes that pay said Pols salaries seems, uh, unrealistic...

Unless they are confronted with loss of their political job.

I don't think they're separable like that. How can we elect politicians who will put big business in its place, in the face of actions like the Citizens United decision?

That decision is over hyped under comprehended. It didn't really change much of anything. The FEC was formed in the wake of Watergate and has done as much harm as good; Mc Cain-Feingold, dearly loved by some is nothing but a very flawed incumbent protection act -- which gave to the media carte blanche while severely restricting the potential for dissenting views from others. What the Supreme court did with Citizens United is remove that media advantage, no more. That's why the media fulminates against it...

All that's needed to separate the evil wealthy from the nice (heh...) politicians is consistently voting for new faces in Congress. Ideally, we'd have better K-12 education and better informed electorate with some Civics and History classes under their belts. We don't but what we do have is a reasonably savvy collective knowledge and ability to force Congress to change their profligate and venal ways by sending the message that continued election is not a given. That's all it would take. Congress will not change until it is forced to. Short of a revolt, the only way -- and the best way -- to do that is to keep the doors of the Capitol, the House AND Senate Office buildings revolving...

None of that is going to dismantle or even roll back much of the Social Democratic state in which we live - but we can keep it from doing more damage by expanding previous failed efforts.

[Fuchs]

Ken, your stance on social insurances etc can be explained with personal preferences.
This means your stance is not qualified for a universal truth, but for being a foundation for deciding on how to vote ... and in the end it's bound to lose, for most people have different preferences.

You're furthermore making your assessment by looking back at life, while philosophy uses the fiction of how a human would choose if he didn't know what lays ahead of him (=not being born into any family yet) for investigating what's right or wrong.

A rational approach includes a certain appreciation of the risk mitigation by insurances, and this means that someone who doesn't know whether #### will happen to him or not will see a value in an insurance (unlike some people who already know that they didn't need one).

There are furthermore many reasons to believe that maximum output does not mean maximum joy. Most people tolerate certain inefficiencies in favour of conditions that promise greater satisfaction. This is one of the reasons why transfer systems exist in countries that have a majority in favour of state-organised social transfers.

A well-run social state has great merit (way beyond mere wealth-related stuff; it also helps to keep intra-society conflict in small, such as strikes).
The problem is that running it well requires much effort, unlike just laying back and do nothing, hoping that the #### won't hit the fan for yourself personally.

Finally, there are certain national experiences that should be exploited as experiences by all nations. Such as having seen the destruction of wealth four times in a single generation (First World War 1914-1918, Hyperinflation 1923-1924, Great Depression 1929-1932, Second World War 1939-1945).
A country with such a national memory won't be inclined to dismiss a transfer-based retirement insurance easily.
Nor should others, for it's stupid to learn only from one's own experiences.