Barney Frank’s Grand Bargain
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
A latter-day Lyndon? [dpanarelli / Flickr]
Barney Frank wants to make a deal. He’ll chair the Financial Services Committee in the House when the 110th Congress launches in January; like Charlie Rangel with his draft, Frank is using the news vacuum of a lame-duck Congress to make his intentions clear.
He’s been floating the idea of a Congressionally-mediated “Grand Bargain” between economic populists and free traders. The populists get federal subsidies for health care, an increase in the minimum wage, more freedom to create unions and better access to college loans. The free traders get, well, free trade.
Health care and free trade have long been debated as unrelated subjects, but like Lyndon Johnson — who in the fifties horse-traded Western dams for civil rights — Frank is attempting the impossible. He accepts that tariff-free borders are crucial to long-term economic growth, and that long-term economic growth is, in fact, good for everyone.
At the same time, he points out that economic dislocation is particularly hard on the ones being dislocated, and that perhaps a part of what voted the Democrats in this year is a general sense that even if the economy is doing well right now, we the people are not.
Is such a bargain even possible? Who has to give up what? Is there a such thing as a win-win in American politics?
Barney Frank
- U.S. Representative, D-MA
Brad DeLong
-
Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley
Blogger, Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal
Jeff Faux
- Founding President and Distinguished Fellow, The Economic Policy Institute
Jacob Hacker
-
Professor of Political Science, Yale University
Author, The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement - And How You Can Fight Back
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Steve Benen, Barney Frank envisions a ‘grand bargain’ with corporate America, The Carpetbagger Report, November 20, 2006: “‘I’m a capitalist, and that means I’m for inequality,’ Frank said. ‘But you reach a point where you get more inequality than is healthy, and I believe we’re at that point.’”
David Sirota, Top Dem Announces “Grand Bargain” to Undermine Election Mandate on Trade, November 10, 2006: “This doesn’t sound like a ‘grand bargain’ - it sounds like laying the groundwork for selling out just a few days after an election where a major mandate for change on trade was very clear.”
GeneH, Barney Frank’s “Grand Bargain”, Practical Machinist Manufacturing Forum, November 23, 2006: “One wonders what a self employed business person will get from Sarbanes-Oxley reform or special subsidies for trading abroad, especially if they have to chip in for “Universal Health Care” taxes?”
Michael Kranish and Ross Kerber, Rep. Frank offers business a ‘grand bargain’, The Boston Globe, November 19, 2006: “Frank proposes that if businesses support a minimum wage increase and provide protection for workers adversely affected by trade treaties, Democrats would be more willing to ease regulations and approve free-trade deals.”
Via valkyrie617: Joe Nocera, Talking Business; Resolving to Reimagine Health Costs, The New York Times (TimesSelect), November 18, 2006.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:23 am
This is a superb topic and although I’ve listened to almost as many episodes as CL, I’ve never felt compelled to contribute until now. I think this has profound implications for (democratic theory and) the future of the US. It is very easy to imagine compromises between two people that take the shape of what the sublime Mr Frank proposes; I wonder how feasible they are between two dischordant parties. In my own field (property development) and city (San Francisco), the prototypic developer and the platonic leftist could actually resolve a number of gnawing disputes fairly easily if there were only two of them, but the political process produces a stream of atrocities that leave everyone worse off.
I don’t think there are all that many truly masochistic free-traders, or luddite nostalgists for the factory town. Some combination of income security, educational opportunity, and trade liberalization is desirable to everyone. I was very heartened, for example, to hear Jim Webb describe protectionism as a “risk” that we face if we do not address the concerns of displaced workers, rather than a solution to their problems. He was absolutely right, and should be heeded by people who share my own preference for an integrated global economy.
To avoid merely stating principles, I’ll put forward the idea of some bills combining an even more vigorous executive trade promotion authority, with lower student loans and more generous grants, and some properly incentivized unemployment guarantees; we should also look at early retirement programs, such as lowering federally backed reverse mortgage age requirements, redirecting industrial subsidies toward their workers, etc. I hope only that we don’t end this show with a consensus that is too obvious to be implementable.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I’d like to see this discussion framed with a more global reach. It is hardly about just American have-to-littles getting a fairer share of the ever growing US pie, is it? I’m all for bringing back the long lost (at least for the past 30 years) goal of economic policy in the US, namely FAIR DISTRIBUTION. Though now with a global economy, this has to be done on a global level. It is not enough to talk of redistribution at home if the other pillar, growth, requires cold exploitation of workers and resources abroad.
Governments in Latin America are already ahead of the game and taking back control of their resources, thus ending some of the welfare support they’ve provided wealthier countries. Rather than trying to undermine their democracies and calling their policies protectionism, US policymakers should look to them as a source of inspiration. Why sell off the people’s heritage and wealth cheaply to transnational companies. This may be unregulated “free” trade, but it is hardly a bargain for those who do not share in the profits but have to live with the consequences.
The trickle-down model that only ever provided the vast majority of humanity with a trickle is a failure. Growth must now be measured against the real environmental and social costs of unequal economic development. If this is done, I wonder if we can even talk of long-term growth. Has there even been real growth over the past few decades? GNP, yes, but this is a highly suspicious indicator.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
“The populists get federal subsidies for health care, an increase in the minimum wage, more freedom to create unions and better access to college loans. The free traders get, well, free trade.”
This is just political game-playing and it’s exactly what’s wrong with our democracy.
These various issues have only the most tenuous relationship to each other. Trying to link them through quid-pro-quo log-rolling is intellectually dishonest because each of these issues need to be debated and considered on its own merits and costs. Linking them in this manner is sort of what the right-wingers do when they attach “defense of marriage” riders to defense appropriations bills.
Personally I would love to see a way for everyone in the US to afford quality health care, and if Congressman Frank thinks he has a way to do it, and pay for it, great, let’s see it. If it’s any good it would stand on its own merits. Likewise, WRT the other issues.
The technical term for what he’s doing is “log rolling” and, like pork-barrel spending, earmarks, and having flings with pages and interns, the mere fact that the practice is time-honored doesn’t make it honorable.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
“The trickle-down model that only ever provided the vast majority of humanity with a trickle is a failure”
It is? I work with LOTS of Chinese and Indians and I think they would disagree with you. As disruptive as things are right now in China, with huge population displacement from the countryside to the cities and new roads and cities springing up overnight, most Chinese people are GIDDY with optimism and national pride! Standards of healthcare and life expectancy, education, and job opportunities for a poor country with a quarter of thr world’s population, have risen very dramatically in a generation.
Likewise, India has seen the size of its middle class TRIPLE in the last 25 years, to 250 million people (almost the population of the US). Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam and Malaysia have also seen rapid improvements in healthcare, education, life expectancy and material standard of living.
Also N.B. that China is making a HUGE push in Latin America, especially for buying and processing natural resources. In several countries they already are, or are about to become, bigger sources of FDI than the US. How does that fit into your demonization of the US?
W enjoy the benefits of their low-cost highly-slkilled workers and designers in the goods we buy from them, while at the same time contributing to their huge improvements in living standards. How does that fit into your demonization of the US? Not only that, but with all of those economies growing at 6-10 % a year, they are also trading among themselves.
Here’s a question - The US and Canada, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, were all colonized, conquered and/or controlled by the European powers. But there are HUGE differences in how they turned out. Canada, the US, and the east Asian countries all did well and have created prosperous, stable nations. latin America has always been mired in corruption, revolution, and poverty. Africa is a basket case. Where is Africa’s or Latin America’s Singapore, South Korea, Japan, or China, and why don’t they have one?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
PLN, I’m not sure how your argument relates to trickle-down economics. Can you elaborate?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
(As opposed to liberalised trade and capital flows, that is.)
November 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
PLN, I’m not sure how your argument relates to trickle-down economics. Can you elaborate?
Huge improvements in education, life-expectancy, healthcare, and material living standards in countries with a combined population of over 2 billion people, plus the fact that literally hundreds of millions of people whose parents were dirt-poor peasants are now entering the middle class, shows that the benefits of liberalized trade policies and a globalized corporation-based trade and production model results in benefits that are broadly distributed in the society and not just benefitting the wealthy.
You said the vast majoritry of the population did not benefit; I contend that capitalism and globalization are the greatest antidotes to mass poverty and enforced peasantry the world has ever seen.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Wait, I didn’t say anything of the sort (that was sidewalker). I only asked how the stuff you cite relates to trickle-down AS OPPOSED TO liberalisation.
I agree with you that liberalised trade is a good thing and bears much responsibility for development in India and China. But there’s a difference between liberalised trade (which is supported by the establishment wings of both major parties) and trickle-down, supply-side ecoonomics (which has little support in the Democratic party and maybe even in the Republican party). Liberalised trade and trickle-down economics are two different things and don’t necessarily flow from one another.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Are capitalism and globalisation the greatest antidotes to mass poverty and peasantry that the world has ever seen?
Perhaps, if we only have a pseudo-socialist experiment to contrast with them.
I think it’s funny that Marx himself predicted a world where capitalism was fully triumphant–a fully globalised world, “flat” in the Thomas Friedman sense, in fact–that Marx predicted such a world would have to come about BEFORE communism’s ultimate triumph was possible.
I always felt that huge nations like Russia and China and India were jumping the gun by trying to go socialist or communist. I gather Marx, to some extent, thought so as well; at least, it’s my understanding that he thought communism would not do well in a country as large as Russia. I would add that communism would not do well in a country with a social and cultural history like Russia’s. I mean, should anyone have been surprised that a country with a history of violent repression and a secret police should retain such atrocious elements when it is supposed to be improving itself? It seems to me that the same situation holds true now, in the post-communist era.
I have few hopes that a Barney Frank-like compromise is possible in the US. Our people are far too conditioned to fear and loathe anything like socialised health care no matter how humane or necessary it is. American people, prove me wrong, by all means! But I doubt if you will. And certainly corporations and conglomerates won’t help us along the way to a humane culture.
One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Gandhi, questioned as to what he thought of Western civilization: “It’s a good idea.”
One, though, whose time has not quite come yet.
By the way, I’m with you, Sutter: the improvements (such as they are) to have come about in the globalised world have nothing to do with trickle-down economics. It surely did us no good in its heyday.
At bottom, I think the whole concept of money, rather than providing a level playing field (as it was, perhaps, meant to do it when it was originally conceived back at the beginning of the agricultural revolution) merely provides for the cruelest of divisions: dividing people not by their intrinsic worth but by arbitrary, imaginary, and aesthetic means. That would not be so bad if people didn’t have to live day by day according to such divisions. As it is, it is still appalling, and a concept whose day, I pray, will soon be done.
Maybe Marx’s predictions will still come true. Or better yet, maybe, in the not too distant future, a humane version of Marx will arise out of the glittering abattoir of globalised capitalism to provide socialism without loss of individualism (and isn’t it striking how defenders of individual liberties seem so often to shackle that concept to capitalism, as though money–arbitrary, imaginary, aesthetic–somehow equals liberty?). There is no reason why a world where we all care for and work for each other requires that we not do also what pleases us.
“Do what thou wilt: that shall be the whole of the law.”
–Aleister Crowley
Amen.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I have a simple request for not only politeness but for the aid of readers simply jumping onto the thread every so often to follow the conversation: PLEASE consider introducing a quote from another of us by writing, “Nick (or whoever) wrote:”
That way we can keep track of who is replying to whom. And it’s nicer. Much more polite.
Thanks!
November 30th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Are capitalism and globalisation the greatest antidotes to mass poverty and peasantry that the world has ever seen?
Perhaps, if we only have a pseudo-socialist experiment to contrast with them.
If you think about what you just said, semantically, it was already implicit. Capitalism is the greatest antidote to poverty we have ever seen. It’s certainly possible that somene might demonstrate an even better system, but since that they haven’t, capitalism remains the best we have ever seen.
and isn’t it striking how defenders of individual liberties seem so often to shackle that concept to capitalism, as though money–arbitrary, imaginary, aesthetic–somehow equals liberty?). There is no reason why a world where we all care for and work for each other requires that we not do also what pleases us
I do think capitalism equates to liberty. In most cases capitalism does allow us do do what we please. First of all, if we do it well enough, or in a sufficiently original and creative way, people will pay us to do it. This was not true in all of the socialist experiments tried so far - inevitably you were only allowed to do things in ways that the state approved of. If you wanted to devote yourself to growing a vegetable your collective didn’t want to grow; too bad. If you had an idea for a car radically different from what the state car factory made, there was no way to raise money to build your own car factory.
Second Because capitalism is good at genrating prosperity it gives us the resources to do what we like in our spare time.
As for a world where we all care for and work for each other that’s a hypothetical concept. It’s certainly not a description of this world, and it’s not the least bit clear that it’s even theoretically possible with the human animal wired the way it is.
There is an excellent book on the many many attempts to create utiopian societies during the 19th century by Mark Holloway - http://www.amazon.com/Heavens-Earth-Utopian-Communities-America/dp/0844622672
Democracy and capitalism, for all their flaws and unevenness, have an empirical track record that beats any alternative way of organizing political and economic systems by a mile. The onus is on those who conceive of other ways of organizing modern human societies to empirically demonstrate the virtues of their schemes. I’ve had this debate wih socialists, anarchists, libertarians, and others, who describe how wonderful society would be under their system. But inevitably it’s like cars that run on magic- excellent mileage, low pollution, reliable and quiet. But for some reason they haven’t got one to demonstrate.
It illuminates the way
November 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Barney Frank’s proposal may begin a dialog, but framing the proposal in terms of the economic populism and free trade polarizes the issue, oversimplifies the nature of the problem, and obscures possible solutions. A simple question will illustrate my point. How will trading off medical benefits for free trade solve global warming or end world hunger? Shouldn’t we be looking at the entire system to determine how best to use all of our resources to create a sustainable world society rather than simply trying to make a deal between political factions?
November 30th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
PLN Said:
“Capitalism is the greatest antidote to poverty we have ever seen. It’s certainly possible that someone might demonstrate an even better system, but since that they haven’t, capitalism remains the best we have ever seen.”
This to me smacks not of free market logic but rather a form of free market theology. Although market economies produce tremendous growth and innovation when coupled with good public accounting practices, antitrust regulation, labor standards, trust worthy court systems that enforce contracts and punish corruption, and strict securities regulations, capitalism in the raw is pretty dysfunctional. It depends on government referee the scrum, or it turns quickly from regulated game to a corrupt brawl.
It is this lack international standards and the rickety nature of the WTO our only real international enforcement body that makes the process of globalization concerning. The major International trade agreements lack even the most basic labor and environmental standards, or even a simple international minimum wage. Countries are left to their own devices when it comes to accounting regulation or anti trust rules. Frank’s solution of beefing up the social safety net to cushion the impact of letting our neat clean regulated and for the most part trustworthy market…Into the coal stained Dickensian swamp of the international marketplace is deeply insufficient.
The question for the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts is:
Given that in the global marketplace as it stands now American business and labor must compete with business and labor that are in some cases very unregulated… and not burdened with the government generated overhead costs associated with the expansive social safety net he proposes. How does he expect them to compete? Might his efferts be better spent getting the Chinese and the Bangladeshis to improve government, or international, overhead and oversite to level the playing field?
November 30th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
To plnelson; You say you would love to see a society where everyone could afford and have health insurance. ( I’m paraphrasing) and you would love to see Mr. Franks plans to make this all happen. So would I.
His plan is quite simple. Tax the hard working American.
Your other points on capitolism are all quite true. It always amazes me how so many people who benefit from capitolism enjoy criticizing it so much.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Plnelson,
First, capitalism only provides opportunity to those with capital. It certainly does not provide opportunity to those without it.
You speak of those who oppose capitalism lacking empirical evidence for the superiority of their alternate systems. I agree. But I believe it is yet to be demonstrated that capitalism as a whole, as it functions in the real world, is actually as strong as you make it out to be.
As for the question of spare time and the supposed abundance of resources to be used in that spare time: that doesn’t match up with the working lives of most of the people I know.
The growing gap between have-somes and have-nots on one side and the have-mosts on the other suggests to me that the reward system that capitalism espouses is fundamentally flawed.
If capitalism only really works well for a few, and works poorly (or not at all) for the rest of us, then it certainly deserves criticism from all possible realms.
Oh yes, the human animal isn’t wired for altruism on a mass level. We are very selfish and bigoted at heart. That doesn’t mean that we ought to encourage selfishness; quite the opposite. To me, that’s what civilization is all about … and why it is still, in Gandhi’s words, “a good idea.”
November 30th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
rc21,
Those of us who criticize capitalism are not always benefitting from it quite as much as you seem to think. Maybe you are. But I, for one, would prefer a different organization to our society.
Tax the hard working American?
Boo hoo.
In fact, if we really taxed citizens (and corporations) in a fair manner, those who really are working hard (as my wife did when she worked 30 hour weeks and 60 hour weekends) wouldn’t be taxed at all, while the rich, who after all don’t really need so much money to live on, would be taxed quite heavily.
Tax tax tax; just so long as we spend it on the social good rather than pork and the military, I’m okay with taxation.
Spending tax dollars on universal single-payer health care for all citizens?
Now that would be taxation with representation!
November 30th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
plnelsonHow does that fit into your demonization of the US?
Free markets aren’t free and transnational corporations don’t act for the good of the people, everybody knows this or should, which is why anyone who suggests that the present US practice of skewed capitalism, that of promoting corporate welfare over public welfare, is not sustainable is shouted down as evil. What else can they say to defend an untenable position!
At least they might just show their true colours and say “Greed is good Greed is right. Greed works,” and then go sell their pitch to a more gullible audience.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:26 am
“Frank’s solution of beefing up the social safety net to cushion the impact of letting our neat clean regulated and for the most part trustworthy market…Into the coal stained Dickensian swamp of the international marketplace is deeply insufficient.”
But what else can he do? The world is fed up with US attempts to impose it’s standards on others.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am
“First, capitalism only provides opportunity to those with capital. It certainly does not provide opportunity to those without it.”
This is completely untrue!
Try telling that to the millions of fresh-out-of-school young people in the US starting their first job iat a successful company. Someday they’ll have houses, cars families, nice vacations, etc. But they have no capital.
Or try telling that to the HUNDREDS of millions of people in China and India who grew up as peasants and now have entered the middle classes. They didn’t have capital.
Capitalism creates prosperity and opportunity that benefits all kinds of people, not just those with capital.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:37 am
To joshuahendrickson: Your arrogance astounds me. Tax the rich more they really dont need all their money. It’s their money who are you to decide if they need it or not. By the way the rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country.
“”Tax tax tax; just so long as we spend it on social good, and not on pork and the milatary”. One of the few things our founding fathers stipulated was that the country was to have limited taxation. One of the few exceptions was the military. So your off base with that statement. We have actually wasted trillions on social programs that have failed. Lets keep spending.
You say you would prefer a different organization to our society. As plnelson pointed out earlier capitalism is by far the best we have and he gave ample proof. It may not be perfect but it far exceeds anything else.
”Capitalism only provides oppertunity to those with capitol It certainly does not provide opportunitiy for those without it.” This is probably the silliest statement I have read in quite some time. Please where did you come up with this?
I am going to give you several examples in my very small world. I can think of 3 guys who have no college education. Actually 2 were highschool dropouts. One black two white. We all worked for a landscaping company back in the 80.s pay was 5.00 an hour hard pick and shovel work. No breaks 15 min for lunch. These guys after several years of learning the trade and saving some money struck out on their own with little more than a shovel and rake. Over the years they slowly grew their customer base. By 2000 one was a multi millionaire. He had branched out his small landscaping company into house and realestate development. The other 2 have also done quite well. Their companies both employ well over 20 people. The first guy employs upwards of 300 people and subcontracts out to thousands more. They have done more to help employ people than any of your social welfare tax programs ever will. Also many of the people who have worked for these 3 have also gone on to start their own business, thus helping employ even more people. None of these guys had any capitol when they started.
What they had was a desire to work hard and succeed. I could give you many other examples but I feel it would be useless to bother trying.
The fact is that through capitalism any American be they black or white. Poor or rich. Educated or uneducated, can do anything they want in this country. On a side note My friend in development tells me the biggest drawbacks to him growing bigger (and by extension employing more people ) Is the high taxes and hidden fees he has to pay plus all the governmental red tape and restrictions he has to deal with. Many which are put in place as money making schemes to help pay for more unneeded government beaurocrats. He is thinking of relocating to New Hampshire.
I would say if capitalism is not helping you, than perhaps you need to work a little harder. Or change careers.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
rc21, I’m not sure where to begin…so I’ll try this. You wrote:
“…the rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country†– which might be true. Or not. Can you cite some evidence?
I’d look myself if I knew where, but since I don’t, and since you apparently do:
Can you give us Federal Income Tax revenue totals for, say, last year? Divided into ‘total taxes paid by income bracket’, and then give us the tax brackets arranged by the country’s population percentages?
Thanks.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Hello. Some results of a quick search:
A study released in 2004 by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy finds that taxes on wages average about 23%, while taxes on income from investments average a little more than 9%. Of total personal income, wages make up about 77%, but make up 81% of federal tax revenue from personal taxes. Conversely, investment income provides 22% of personal income, while accounting for 11% of personal taxes. Summary at: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/earnpr.pdf
This amounts to a big break for people with enough wealth to have investments.
From an article in the National Review: “In a 2004 paper presented to the American Statistical Association, IRS economists Michael Strudler and Tom Petska calculated percentiles data that included both income taxes and Social Security taxes. In 1999, the top 1 percent paid 23.3 percent of combined payroll and income taxes, the top 10 percent paid 52.2 percent, and the top 20 percent paid 68.2 percent.”
The article also points out that while tax rates on upper brackets have fallen since 1980, the percentage of taxes paid by those in these brackets has continued to increase. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp
This is partly a result of rich folks getting richer, and the fact that there are more rich folks in general.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Okay. My handle is valkyrie607. Or Val, if you prefer. I’m Solvei but not online. Dig?
Anyhoo, I also saw an article in the NYtimes, sorry, no URL, about Bush’s meeting with the Big 3 automakers. One of their main concerns was health care, which they said was adding on average an extra $1,500 to the cost of each car.
The author said that health care is an increasing concern of business leaders, large corporations and such. They are feeling increasingly hobbled by the American system of employer-provided health care, since other companies in countries where the citizens look to the government to provide it don’t have that expense. It is, he said, a burden on American companies, it makes it more difficult for them to compete. He said there were stirrings of activity in the business world, signs that people are starting to think about different ways to provide health care coverage.
I believe this will be a necessary ingredient in any health care reform: getting employers to offer up their ideas and suggestions for something that works. After all, they’re the ones who’ve been stuck holding up the ends of this frayed net. They have something invested in the system. My question is, why haven’t we heard more about this?
December 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“The rich are too poor!â€
– Joan Jett (sarcastically)
Thank you, Solvei. Nice to have some facts on thread!
December 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
rc21,
congrats to your friends for making it in our system. I, too, know people who became millionaires without starting off with a lot of money. Their methods were not dishonest, but I would argue that they were skewed–those with money can always more easily make it than those without.
Of course, I wonder why, in the beginning, they had to work for five bucks an hour doing something that by its hard-laboring nature deserves quite a bit more?
If we are going to have to put up with capitalism, then fair compensation ought to be its backbone. But the way the world is going, with downsizing and moving of production to ever lower wage scales, the spine is being broken.
How long, in this metaphor, until capitalism is paralyzed–i.e., has returned us to a feudal and slavery society?
rc21, what really disturbs me is your apparent hatred for social programs. If that isn’t what government is for–social safety nets, care for all citizens–then what do we need a government for?
Oh, right … that’s what the neocons (I don’t know if you are one and don’t care much; you sound more like a libertarian to me) actually want … no government. Except when it concerns their precious military. That can never be too fat, huh?
We could support both capitalism and social programs in this country. That’s what this whole Barney Frank discussion is about! But it is thanks to folks like you that we likely never will have such a system. The hateful and heartless, the greedy and selfish, always outnumber the altruistic. I suppose they always will. Your way is easier, after all.
Go on, keep defending those who need no defending, and keep on spitting in the faces of those who are already defenseless. Go on, go on; your side has already won, after all. In fact, there’s never been a time in history where your side hasn’t been the winner. I may have hope for a socialist world, but I am no optimist, and I surely don’t believe in any divine plan. I’m an atheist, and as such I don’t believe that you or anyone else faces damnation for such ugliness … or arrogance, which you rightly accuse me of. Arrogance is a virtue, to me. After all, if you look at the great men of history, you don’t find shrinking violets. I am not a great man. But I am not going to pretend to modesty. And I am not going to stop fighting a system that for all its real benefits is deeply flawed and unstable at its core.
Arrogance is something we share, isn’t it?
December 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Nick,
nice Joan Jett quote.
I’m remembering a passage from my favorite graphic novel, CEREBUS. The title character is asked, “If you could have any amount of money, how much would you want?” Cerebus answers, “All of it.” When asked to refine that answer through different hypothetical situations, he continues to say, “All of it.”
At last, an honest capitalist!
December 1st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
“I believe this will be a necessary ingredient in any health care reform: getting employers to offer up their ideas and suggestions for something that works. After all, they’re the ones who’ve been stuck holding up the ends of this frayed net. They have something invested in the system. My question is, why haven’t we heard more about this? ”
Maybe you need to look in more places.
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and they did an excellent series a year or two ago on the problem having so many Americans without health insurance, and of the huge costs to businesses of providing it. The stories on the uninsured Americans in that series of articles were heartbreaking and would have been a real eye-opener for liberals who never read the WSJ because they have distorted stereotypes about capitalists.
The US has less regulaion and less government involvement in health care than almost any other OECD nation (not that we don’t have a LOT, but we still have less than most places). And we also spend a higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare (15-17% depending on which numbers you use) than any other major country. But there are quite a few countries that have LOWER infant motality and LONGER lifespans than the US, which raises the question of WHY we’re spending so much.
One problem with lack of access to health insurance no one has mentioned is that we are an economy built on entrepeneurship. Most of the growth and new jobs in our economy comes from entrepeneurs. But there is growing concern in the business community that this is inhibiting the growth on new ventures because people with god ideas who want to start their own companies are reluctant to do so because they can’t afford to give up their employers’ health plan, and because it’s so incredibly expensive for for small-start ups to offer health insurance to employees.
So it’s a real problem. But it’s also a bit like Iraq - there are no good, obvious solutions. Countries that spend 8% of GDP of health care can afford to offer national health insurance. But because heathcare is twice that expensive here we’d go broke trying to do what the French or the Swedes do.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
plnelson,
I don’t hate the Wall Street Journal; it has a generally high standard for reporting, as newspapers go. Of course, as a liberal, you can imagine what I think of WSJ’s editorials, but that’s beside the point.
If putting the impetus on business for health care is really impeding growth of new ventures (I might look askance at the claim that entrepreneurs really are the basis of our economy, but not in this post), then it seems to me that taking it out of business’s hands and putting it into the hands of the government is the only solution. I would argue that business should never have been responsible for health care in the first place.
Of course, I would argue that the real problem is the insurance industry, which is ultimately unnecessary. Why do we need middle men whose sole purpose is to get fat off of the needs and expenditures of doctors and patients?
Would we really go broke trying a national socialised health care system? Maybe. But it seems to me that we’ve already gone broke throwing our money away on everything but the general welfare of our citizens. So I agree–there are no good, obvious solutions. There are, however, solutions we haven’t tried … and until we try them, we’ll never really know whether they work or not.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:30 pm
If putting the impetus on business for health care is really impeding growth of new ventures (I might look askance at the claim that entrepreneurs really are the basis of our economy, but not in this post), then it seems to me that taking it out of business’s hands and putting it into the hands of the government is the only solution. I would argue that business should never have been responsible for health care in the first place.
Most people who discuss this topic, on both sides of it, have never done the math. When they do, they stagger backwards in horror! Since I work in an allied field and many of my friends are doctors or healthcare providers I’ve looked at the issue more closely than most people, which is why I compared it to Iraq.
Not only do we spend about twice as much per capita as most other advanced nations, but the numbers have been going up WAY faster than inflation. And with the graying of our population that’s going to get worse.
Run the numbers and it quickly becomes clear that the tax consequences of trying to socialize a system this expensive would be unsalable to the American public. Period. On the other hand, with costs going up as fast as they are, and with so many people uninsured or inadequately insured the indirect costs (e.g., $5 aspirin) or paying for the uninsured, and the huge burdens the current system places on companies, are becoming unsustainable.
Free-market advocates keep touting “choice” as a panacea but there’s no empirical evidence that it works for healthcare. American consumers already have more choice than people in other countries and yet our costs are dramatically higher, and going up faster. And for the really big expensive things, like heart disaease and cancer, people are not usually in any position to shop around, and the choices are usually dictated by clinical concerns or expert opinion - it’s not like buying an iPod.
The administrative costs of having so many disparate insurance companies probably does contribute to the high prices here but it’s not clear that this is a significant part of the problem.
Of course, I would argue that the real problem is the insurance industry, which is ultimately unnecessary. Why do we need middle men whose sole purpose is to get fat off of the needs and expenditures of doctors and patients?
December 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
I accidentally left a paragraph from Joshua’s post at the end of mine
BRENDAN - I asked before why this site doesn’t have an editing feature like most other web forums do!!
December 1st, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Joshua, Yes I am a libertarian, more than a neocon, But I used to be a liberal Democrat. I am in favor of safety net programs for the mentaly and phisically handicapped. I also am in favor of programs that help the elderly. Also I have no problems with programs that help victims of natural disasters. Although even there we are seeing tremendous waste and corruption taking place.
I am not a mean old conservative. I want all people do have a good and successful life. I have just come to the realization that unabated capitalism coupled with enormous tax relief is the best way to go about this. It is also the nearest form of social structure our founding fathers envisioned for us. What do you have against total economic freedom? As plnelson said earlier, it is the best way for us to gain personal freedom. Why would you be adverse to this?
Let me keep the thousands of dollars in taxes I pay every year.(all of which is my money that I earned) And I will provide for my childs education, my own insurance, and just about everything else the govt thinks they can do better than me.
Why are you so in favor of government control of everything? Dont you trust yourself to make good decisions with your life. Do you need to be coddled from cradle to grave?
As to working for 5 dollars an hour, that was the going pay for a pick and shovel laborer back then. the company was not forcing anyone to work there. We earned every penny of it.
I guess I to am arrogant about the belief that the USA was founded on the principle that more freedom and less govt restrictions,and fewer taxes is what this country was all about. That is why we fought the revolution. You would have us surrender to the big govt corruption and waste that we see today from both the republicans and democrats. So actually it is you who is winning. Taxes keep rising. We keep spending more on useless social programs. government corruption continues without interruption. What more could you ask for?
You claim to be an atheist but you sure worship big govt as if it was your God as do so many other liberals. All power to the state.
To solvei blue: Thanks for printing those tax stats. Hopefully nick will read them.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 am
One key question economists and other policy makers must address is why there is a growing income gap within and between nations despite all the global economic growth. Why is trickle down policy just that?
The obvious answer is that the policies needed to reduce income inequality, provide for dignified work and a fair income are too few or too ineffective. In fact, in the wealthier nations, the old welfare policies have been drastically reformed at the same time that corporate welfare has increased. This has yet to be accounted for.
How can it be that in a supposed democracy such as that of the US you can have the top 1% of households account for one third of household net worth, which is greater than that of the bottom 90%? Is this a sign that the economy is healthy? Sure there is continued growth, despite increased fuel costs driving inflation higher. This is surely a sign of broad-based stability. Not really. The 2003 Consumer Expenditure Survey showed that the total expenditures of the top 20% of households is greater than the bottom 60%. What this means is that those with less are having less and less impact on economic growth than in the past. Those with much higher incomes are not substantially affected by a bump in oil prices, for example.
It is interesting that in a report in the journal Constitution by no less a capitalist than Ajay Kapur, who heads the Global Equity Strategy Group for Smith Barney Citigroup, he calls the present divide a “plutonomy,” which he describes as a system where you have a wealthy few and the rest. He says that the US, the UK and Canada are now plutonomies.
Is it surprising that these three economies follow most closely a Milton Fiedman model introduced by Regan, Thatcher and Mulroney?
Kapur goes on to say, “What are the common drivers of plutonomy? Technology driven productivity gains, financial innovation, capitalist friendly and cooperative governments, an internal dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law and the patenting of inventions. Often these wealth waves involved great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of their time. We project that the plutonomies, the US, Uk, and Canada will likely see even more income inequality disproportionally feeding off capitalist friendly government and globalization.” Finally, he concludes, “Buy shares in the companies that make the toys that the plutonomists enjoy.” BIG SURPRISE.
It is clear that this model isn’t working for the majority of the world’s people, who cannot afford to even dream of those toys and who still live on less than $2 a day while a trillion dollars in corporate welfare is spent on military, half of it in the US!!!
Economic growth, measured narrowly as GDP, cannot be the sole end-goal of economic policy if social justice is at all an issue.But it is sad to think that the only way to bring back policies of economic equality is to make some “Grand Bargain” to appease those who have been hogging the public wealth troughs too long.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:23 am
If what we have is in fact a plutonomy,(this is debateable) Than I would submit that more countries need to follow our role.
It seems this system helps poor people more than anything else out there.We really dont need to try and disect and analyze numbers. All we have to do is look at reality. Poor people from 3rd world and even 2nd world countries are literally defying death just for the chance to be part of this plutonomy.
Long live plutonomy!
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
rc21, I read Val’s stats, but have taken from them a different lesson than I expect you have: there’s an obscene concentration of wealth at the top of the American class pyramid.
I’m politically aligned with Joshua’s preferences, although, in our not-very-democratic republic whose political spectrum (as tacitly constituted) allows only “a Property Party with two right wings†(G. Vidal), I have no realistic expectations for the advent of economic equality, decency, or sanity in this lifetime or next, or even within the next three.
I agree with the new progressive frame-name for taxes: membership fees for your society. If you live in a republic whose structures and rules are designed to facilitate the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few, and from the hands of the many, then why not pay more for the privilege that republic affords you?
And I would like to repeat: the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few, and from the hands of the many, because wealth isn’t “magically conjured into existence by the brilliant richâ€, it is mined from the commons. Somebody does the work that the owners of businesses harvest. Right wing mythology might want to obscure that simple truth, but that obfuscation doesn’t make it legitimate. They just have the money necessary to dominate the propaganda available to the republic’s citizenry.
If most of the country’s wealth is concentrated into the hands of but 20% of the people, then they damn well should pay the bulk of the membership fees.
And like Joshua says: they should be made to pay more. Because their money has come from the other 80% already. Taxing the other 80% isn’t all that far from a subtle act of double jeopardy.
Up the Revolution!
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“One key question economists and other policy makers must address is why there is a growing income gap within and between nations despite all the global economic growth.”
I think in both cases the answer is similar. Success in the modern world requires a great deal organization, long-term planning, discipline, etc. Those nations that are successful have an educated workforce, a reliable physical infrastructure (roads, communication, etc), a legal system the supports modern business, political stability (i.e., no tanks in the street every few years), and a culture that’s flexible enough to deal with modernity and change. And obviously success begets success.
Likewise with individuals - those who get left behind - for the most part - are people who drop out of school, don’t study, don’t take an interest in the world around them, get involved in drugs or crime or having babies, etc.
I’m an engineer “of a certain age” and I work my butt off to stay current - learning and using the latest sw development tools, new programming languages, new technical standards for interfacing portable and consumer devices, etc. (luckily I enjoy it) Awhile back I knew a guy my age in my field who got laid off. He had been doing Unix system work for years. I asked him whether he’d used any open-source software, or ever worked in Linux, or bothered to set up a system at home to experiment on, or learned any new programming languages, or taken any classes or workshops, etc. No, no, and no. I’m not optimistic about his future.
Success begets success among both nations and individuals, and in a world moving this fast, with as much money sloshing around, and companies going in and out of business as quickly as they are, karma really IS instant - those differences widen very quickly .
I really DO believe that America is the land of opportunity and the number of immigrants who come here seeking a better life - and achieving it is testimony to this fact.
But anyway, all this hand-wringing over income inequality begs the question - what is a demonstrably workable alternative for a nation as large and diverse as ours? I agree that GDP is not the be-all-and-and-all if “social justice” is the goal - I would suggest unemployment rate and new job creation would be a better metric. But - whoops! - we seem to excel at that too! The more redistributionist economies like France and Germany do a TERRIBLE job generating jobs so they have an angry, restive class of young people who see no future for themselves.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:45 pm
“In fact, in the wealthier nations, the old welfare policies have been drastically reformed at the same time that corporate welfare has increased.”
This depends on your definition of corporate welfare. I agree that protectionist policies protecting US steel makers and preventing Brazilian ethanol coming in and competing with more expesive US ethanol ARE corporate welfare and should be scrapped. But wait! - It’s the traditional liberal groups such as labor that supports those examples of corporate welfare!
In plenty of other areas in recent decades we’ve seen the elimination of government protected fat-cat welfare. For example, the airline industry used to operate in an environment protecting airlines from competition and ensuring high profits. No more. Telecoms were a monopoly! Remember Ma Bell? - she’s retired. How about banking? Remember Glass Steagall? It was repealed in 1999 so bankers had to compete on the merits of their services and price and could no longer look to government to protect their territory.
Now we have liberals demanding the government pay Ford and GM’s healthcare costs! If that’s not corporate welfare I don’t know WHAT is!
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 pm
rc21,
As far as right-wing philosophies go, I have fewer disputes with libertarians than with others. After all, libertarians pretty much by definition are not social conservatives. As I like to say, if a person is a fiscal conservative, then although I may strongly disagree with that person, I don’t have anything against them. So allow me to apologize if my previous posting got a little ugly. When, however, a person is a social conservative, well, that’s what really makes my blood boil. I believe that America was founded with both economic and social freedom in mind (if not, initially, in practice, in either case; blue laws, though dwindling, still exist in too great a profusion, and regardless of what freedom there was for landowners in the early days, the existence of slavery pretty well negated any concept of economic freedom in a honest sense). I am not so much against economic freedom; I only think that a more level playing field would benefit the many (and sorry, greater taxation on the wealthy would not hurt them).
I’m glad that we can agree on our both being arrogant. As I said before, I consider it more a virtue than a vice.
Yes, I’m an atheist. But do I really worship big government, as you claim? I personally don’t need to have decisions made for me by the state; I’m not a Leninist or any such thing. What I want is for the state to have the means to take care of me if I cannot (or, yes, frankly, will not) do it for myself. I think most people want to be able to decide for themselves; I also think many people are sheep who want big decisions to be made for them (as an atheist I could hardly have come to any other conclusion). I simply believe that a fair government ought to be able to provide for both. Really, it seems to me that most arguments against social safety nets (and I am not trying to imply that this is your argument, necessarily) come down to a kind of twisted puritan ethic: if people are poor or unhealthy or unlucky, then they are sinners who deserve it, while if people are rich and healthy and lucky, then they are blessed and deserve that. To me, that kind of thinking isn’t just wrong, it’s evil (a word I don’t choose to use very often).
Alas, this is very much a puritan country, and although what benefits there are in America come from the rejection of puritanism, it still defines the thoughts of the majority. I love America; never has there been a nation with such potential. But to me, the major source of that potential is social, not economic.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Up the Revolution!
The problem with this left-wing economic theory where the fat cats exploit the slaving masses is twofold:
1 . If the US is such an exploitive society why do people continue to STREAM into here from all over the world? And all KINDS of people from all KINDS of different economies and socioeconomic systems! We have peasants coming here from Latin America, scholars coming here from Europe and the mideast; we have doctors, engineers, and scientists, coming here from China and India. People compare the fence on the Mexican border to the Berlin Wall, but the irony is that the berlin Wall was designed to keep people from LEAVING, and the fence is designed to slow down the rate at which people are trying to get IN!
2. Demonstrate an empirically better way to economically structure a large modern economy. The US system generates jobs and opportunity at a prodigious rate. Other large economies with more redistributionist structures stagnate in that department.
As a stockholder I am not convinced that paying the CEO’s of the companies I own $90 million, instead of, say, $50 million actually results in my EPS being any higher. But I just chalk it up to US culture - not some plutocratic conspiracy. For example, did you see how much money the Boston Red Sox just paid just to TALK to Daisuke Matsuzaka?? But the fans are OK with that as long as it nets them a Championship. That’s America. I don’t think most Americans really CARE about how much the people at the top get paid.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
“What I want is for the state to have the means to take care of me if I cannot (or, yes, frankly, will not) “
Why “yes, frankly, will not”? Why should someone who will not take care of themselves expect the taxpayers to do it for them. I’m all in favor of a social safety net for people who cannot take care of themselves, but “WILL not”? That seems bizarre.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I’ve been watching this conversation unfold, trying to figure out a way to disagree with everyone, and I think I’ve found it. (Just kidding, of course…)
One problem with debates like these is that they wind up becoming defined by the polar extremes, with some version of Dickensian lessez-faire capitalism placed in opposition to late-stage socialism. But that’s not the debate in this country. The debate here — and the conversation Mr. Frank is initiating — takes place on far more circumscribed terrain, and centers on different degrees to which American capitalism’s rough edges should be smoothed over. The strict libertarian regime isn’t part of the debate in this country, or in any: we need roads and militaries and other “public goods” that individuals won’t pay for or require a state to coordinate, and even the most libertarian economists recognize that markets fail under certain conditions. And Mr. Frank certainly isn’t suggesting a shift to socialism: His plans presume corporations with private property investing capital to earn returns, etc. We’re playing within the 45 yeard lines here, and while arguments about what things would be like on the 10 yard lines is illuminating but ultimately of little relevance.
So the question (for this show, anyway) is not whether capitalism works. It’s how to best calibrate capitalism. And those who claim that “calibration” is definitionally incompatible with capitalism are being disingenuous. Our economic policy has always been managed in one form or another: trade policy, labor laws, corporate tax incentives, fiscal and monetary policy, and so forth.
Given all this, it’s my hope that we can talk turkey about the real costs and benefits of Mr. Frank’s hope of forging a new social compact between large corporations and private citizens. The ROS folks likened Frank to Johnson (by virtue of the horse-trading implicit in the proposal), but the real parallels here are Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who recognized a century ago that large accumulations of corporate power demanded a new type of government. They had different responses: TR looked to counterbalance corporate power against that of the state, and Wilson looked to smash the accumulations to ensure a fair fight. Is Frank’s proposal analogous to either of these? Or is he looking at a third path altogether? And what are the real costs and benefits?
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Why “will not”?
(I knew that assertion would raise some eyebrows.)
First of all, to a large part of the conservative mindset, ALL of the poor or homeless fall into the category of “will not”; they refuse to believe that some people cannot pull themselves up out of poverty, or perhaps they believe that the poor deserve it; please refer to my tirade against the puritan ethic in my post above.
However, you don’t seem to fall under that category of conservative, plnelson, and I will presume for the sake of argument that rc21 doesn’t either.
Let me be plain: not all people are temperamentally suited to work. Or, in some cases, they are suited to work but not of the laboring variety. I’m thinking of artists, here. Not all people are artists, and not all of those who are really ought to be, but for some of those people who are artists, they are wasting their time and talent doing anything but creating. Every minute spent toiling for their daily bread is a minute wasted, for them. They do work, of course; but not all work is with the goal of making money.
Now, I am an artist (a novelist, to be precise) and I personally have no problem with working in order to support myself and my family. But I am keenly aware of the hours wasted lugging boxes or flipping burgers. I am no fool; barring the most incredible kind of luck, upon which I do not count, I will never make anything more from my novels than I could doing ordinary work. But of course, I don’t write novels for the money. Nor, really, should I. Writing novels is hard work; very hard work indeed. But I would never give it up, or make it anything less than my number one priority.
What are a person’s hobbies? How many people have accounting for a hobby? How many people would sell insurance for a hobby, or lug boxes, or flip burgers? You see, I think people ought to live their lives doing what they love. We pursue money in this society only because we have to, not because it makes us happy or fulfilled. Do you pursue money for your own fulfillment? Or because it is what you are expected to do? Does your job afford you the time for your hobbies? Or are you that happiest of individuals, who actually makes a living doing what you would do even if it didn’t make you money?
By focusing on artists I may have skipped the issue of lazy layabouts without the urge to do anything but be couch potatoes. In all honesty, none of us love that sort of person. But you know what? None of us ask to be born. None of us ask to be the people we are. There’s no reason that a decent society can’t take care of all kinds of people. No reason but that people are mean enough not to want to. And if you would argue that economically such an arrangement is impossible, allow me to remind you that money is illusory, material is not. All arrangements are possible if human beings make them so.
Yes, it’s still bizarre. But only to our minds as they are presently conditioned. Society is changing, and more rapidly than ever before. Who is to say what kind of society is to come in the future?
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
PLN, I’m increasingly disinclined to engage you since I feel (perhaps only subjectively, and wrongly) that the way you quote without attribution is a bit demeaning in its impersonalness. However, I must make an exception now to respond to this oversimplification: “The problem with this left-wing economic theory where the fat cats exploit the slaving masses is twofoldâ€â€¦
First, I’m not anti-capitalist—I’m anti-rapacious-capitalist. I’ve an admitted preference for Social Democracy. Social Democracy is not Stalinism or anything of that ilk. It simply prioritizes the needs of people over the needs of economic entities like corporations. It is not hostile to capitalism—it sees capitalism as the best economic means to its ends, but it doesn’t fear regulating the economy.
The question in our republic is ‘whether’ the economy should be regulated. Social Democracies instead debate, ‘How much?’
That’s a debate we’re mostly unaware of, or, if aware, mistranslate through our American-centric lens.
I am appalled and incensed by this:
“In 2001, the average annual pay of U.S. CEOs topped $11 million—some 350 times as much as the U.S. factory worker, who earned on average $31,260.†http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4289
Please have a look at the table on that page. In Sweden, instead of the 350-times gap, it’s 14 times. That’s reasonable.
If you’ve ever worked blue collar jobs (I have, plenty), you’ll know that although they do not require the same educational investment, most such occupations can be very, very demanding: physically, mentally (stress), and/or emotionally. I’ve watched waitresses perform near miracles of memory, dexterity, grace, and efficiency under the most stressful circumstances. Perhaps this seems a trivial example, but the way we value the labor of our society’s members isn’t ‘natural’ but a matter of social convention. It’s arbitrary, and it’s arbitrated by those with the wealth necessary to entice laborers. (I can’t answer the question you posed about would-be workers streaming into our country in this post, but if I find time, I’ll try to tackle as best I can later.)
I want to return to the little known example of Sweden, not because it’s a perfect utopia, but because Americans are mostly unaware of how good life in Sweden is, relatively speaking, despite its having selected Social Democrats to run the place for most of the past few decades.
In Social Democracies like Sweden, the question isn’t ‘whether’ the economy should be regulated but ‘how much?’ The Social Democrats in Sweden recently lost their majority in the Riksdag not because Swedes are beaten down by their welfare state, but over the sheer size of the welfare state. Swedes, in the main, like their welfare state. It has, without reliance on precious natural resources (like oil in Venezuela) afforded them an enviable ‘First World’ standard of living, including trilingual education for all. In the recent elections, a coalition of smaller parties out-polled the Social Democrats, who are still the country’s biggest party (35% to the nearest competitor, the Moderates, at 26%). But my (unfortunately limited) understanding of the situation implies that if the Moderates and their allies attempt to do more than merely trim the state, they will suffer the same fate as in the early ’90’s, when the Social Democrats were voted out before being swept back in but two years later! Why? Because Sweden’s national ethics, cultured for decades by the Social Democrats, expect and demand relative economic equity, like the mere 14-times gap in earnings between CEO’s and workers.
In Sweden you’ll find no filthy rich, and, most importantly, no poor. It’s decent, not obscene.
Sweden’s international rankings are instructive:
— CIA World Factbook - GDP - PPP per capita
o 2005: 19th of 232 countries [2]
— Save the Children: State of the World’s Mothers (2004) Report (PDF file)
o Mothers’ index rank: 1st of 119 countries
o Women’s index rank: 1st of 119 countries
o Children’s index rank: 10th of 119 countries
o Infant mortality rate: 2nd lowest
o % seats in the national government held by women: 50% (highest)
— UN Human Development Index (2006)
o 5th of 177 countries
— World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report [3] (2006-2007)
o 3rd of 125 countries
— Reporters Without Borders world-wide press freedom index 2005:
o 12th of 167 countries
— The Economist Intelligence Unit’s worldwide quality-of-life index 2005:
o 5th of 111 countries
— Nation Master’s list by economic importance:
o 19th of 25 countries
— Nation Master’s list by technological achievement:
o 4th of 68 countries
Can Social Democracy work in the USA? We’ll never know without a constitutional change allowing the emergence and evolution of a vibrant multi-party political debate. But I’m willing to wager that we could do just as well, if not better, if we simply accepted that human beings are more important than their society’s economic entities – i.e., that corporations should be made to serve the commonwealth, not the commonwealth the corporations.
I’ve got to run, PLN, but I’ll try, from this same little-understood angle, to answer your other questions.
One short final reminder: Americans (even me) are much too unaware of the rest of the world: of the national ethics of others, and of the socio-economic-governmental systems these ethics culture within their societies.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I wrote and posted my previous before seeing Sutter’s excellent December 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm, in which I find much to laud.
Gotta differ here though: “We’re playing within the 45 yard lines†– we’re certainly playing within a ten-yard frame, but, from my perspective, the play is between the five and fifteen yard lines, and on the right half of the field.
Thus, yes: we do in America debate some minutia of economic policy, but not our society’s basic economic ethics; or this: what is the best purpose of our economy?
Generating wealth for those whose talents favor capitalism?
Or generating a robust standard of living for all of our citizens?
That latter question is the European debate. Is it imperfect? Of course: it’s a work in progress, not a utopia. That imperfection doesn’t however render it a debate we can’t learn from and adapt to our society – if only we had a political spectrum broad enough to “play between the two 20 yards linesâ€!
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Let me be plain: not all people are temperamentally suited to work. Or, in some cases, they are suited to work but not of the laboring variety. I’m thinking of artists, here. Not all people are artists, and not all of those who are really ought to be, but for some of those people who are artists, they are wasting their time and talent doing anything but creating. Every minute spent toiling for their daily bread is a minute wasted, for them. They do work, of course; but not all work is with the goal of making money.
OK Let’s talk about ART.
I’m an artist. I’m an oil painter and photographer whose work has been displayed in various galleries here in Massachusetts. I’m also a published poet who has given numerous public readings. I’m a member of various artists’ associations and organizations. So I think I can speak with some authority on this topic.
I know PLENTY of artists who support themselves with their art. I know plenty of others who support themselves doing art-related jobs, such as teaching or working in art-supply stores (in fact I know a couple who OWN such stores). And I know plenty of other artists such as myself who have day jobs.
in some cases, they are suited to work but not of the laboring variety. I’m thinking of artists, here. To suggest that art does not consist of labor is an insult to artists everywhere! Not only is art hard work, but as a creative endeavor it is not unique - engineering, which is my day job is just as creative and just as much a “passion” as art is. To suggest that artists are, somehow, a “different” kind of creature with some strange sensitive temperment is a stereotype that has no basis in fact or history. Most artists are workaday people. Both da Vinci and Michelangelo worked as engineers!
Good grief.
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
PNelson asks why, if America is so exploitative, are all these people trying to live here?
USA is a great place to live, no doubt about it. Of course, without the resources we’ve mined from other countries in the world, it wouldn’t be so nice. We need our Middle Eastern oil, African metals, our Argentinian apples, to maintain our quality of life. I say “mined” in the sense that when one extracts resources at a rate faster than they can be replaced, one is mining that resource. People in the Southwest are currently mining their water.
We really don’t pay full price for most of our goods, and folks who live where the materials for these goods come from usually make up the difference, whether it’s in substandard wages or environmental pollution.
Although I love America in many ways, and the desire to emigrate here certainly points up the educational and economic opportunities available to those living WITHIN the States, I also see the fact that so many would like to emigrate doesn’t say that much about how awesome America is. Rather, it is an indicator of how desperate life has become in wherever it is these emigrants are coming from. After all, most people don’t really want to leave their family, community, culture and language behind. It’s only when these things are breaking down anyway that leaving is a real option. Although there are many factors in the breakdown of communities around the world, I would argue that economic exploitation motivated by the thirst for cheap goods (upon which our economy depends in many ways) plays a large role.
-valkyrie
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Nick’s Sweden example . . .
I follow Sweden quite closely because I’m part Swedish. (My American name “Nelson” is a corruption of Nielsen). I used to subscribe to Dagens Nyheter.
I knew someone would bring up Sweden which is why I was careful to say in all my above posts “large modern economies”.
Sweden is a tiny, culturally homogeneous country. And Nick is right - they like their social democracy.
But whether they have anything to teach large heterogeneous nations like the US (or France, Germany, etc) is questionable. France and Germany are also essentially social-democratic systems and they have been disasterous at job or new business creation, and they are going broke trying to maintain their social welfare systems. It’s just not clear that the Swedish model scales well.
To use an analogy, conservatives are fond of citing New Hampshire as some kind libertarian/conservative archetype. No state income tax or sales tax, low-per-pupil school spending (compared to bordering Massachusetts), etc, but extremely high graduation rates, low crime, low rates of drug abuse or unwed pregnancy, etc. But the problem is that New Hampshire is a mostly rural, mostly lilly-white, tiny state bordering the boisterous industrial economy of Massachusetts and benefitting from all those Massachusetts consumers and jobs. It’s not clear how much New Hampshire can teach, say, California.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
I also see the fact that so many would like to emigrate doesn’t say that much about how awesome America is. Rather, it is an indicator of how desperate life has become in wherever it is these emigrants are coming from.
People come here from all over the world and I think you’d be hard-pressed to demonstrate that in general life has become any more desperate in most of the places they’ve come from.
In fact, in MOST places things are better than they used to be. Even in Latin America, where a lot of US immigrants come from, standards of living, life-expectancy, levels of education, etc, are HIGHER than they were a generation or two ago. Here in Massachusetts we have MANY Chinese and Indians and conditions in those countries have improved dramatically in recent decades. We also continue to get immigrants from Europe.
Of course there are a few places where things really have gotten worse, but that’s not what’s driving immigration. What’s driving immigration to the US is that we have a vibrant economy overflowing with opportunity. The anti-Americanism on this forum is so thick that people can’t see that.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Thanks, PLN.
You wrote,
“But whether (Sweden has) anything to teach large heterogeneous nations like the US (or France, Germany, etc) is questionable. France and Germany are also essentially social-democratic systems and they have been disastrous at job or new business creation, and they are going broke trying to maintain their social welfare systems. It’s just not clear that the Swedish model scales well.â€
And you might be right. The operative word is ‘might’. How do we know with any certainty that France and Germany’s problems are systemic instead of parochial? How do we know that their problems don’t stem from faulty oversight and a lack of anticipation of eventual problems, rather than from a fatal flaw in the ideal of using government to mold the economy towards the goal of generating a robust standard of living for all citizens?
How do we know an American adaptation of Social Democracy can’t work?
Hell, right now, in this arid political environment whose only viable megafauna are the Elephant and the Donkey (the two right wings of the Property Party), we can’t even begin to discuss it.
The Dems, without having to work hard for it, or having to do anything more than mouth faintly progressive platitudes, want to claim the votes of folks like me, who would rather have a legitimate Social Democratic Party to support.
I’m sick of it.
Look, you’re right about different conditions in different countries: we wouldn’t be able to mimic Sweden, or France, or Germany. Nor should we want to. And yet even if my speculative American Social Democrats never won a majority of seats in a new national legislature, simply having such a party in the national debate (garnering perhaps a minimum of 20% of the national vote) would do wonders to nudge the ‘center’ back to the more natural international center, instead of keeping it artificially well on the right.
And that, methinks, would do wonders to reduce the extremes of obscene wealth and appalling poverty in our national commonwealth.
What’s the ideal purpose of our economy? Generating a robust standard of living for all of our citizens? Or merely generating wealth for those whose talents favor the development of runaway capitalism?
Shouldn’t that latter be controlled in favor of the former?
Have we no national ethics? Or shame?
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Anti-Americanism? Which American have I insulted?
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
PLN wrote, “The anti-Americanism on this forum is so thick that people can’t see that.â€
I beg to differ: I sense not anti-Americanism, but anti-status quo-ism.
I came into political awareness as a youth of the late 1960’s: too young to be a hippie, but not too young to misunderstand the anti-status quo-ism of the era’s tumult.
The kids who wore American flags in patches on their jeans weren’t anti-patriotic as the Right characterized them to be. They wanted a better, more egalitarian country and society. A fairer world. That’s what’s “so thick on this forum.â€
I grew up wanting a country to be proud of, and despaired at the Reagan reactionary “revolutionâ€. (And I’m still trying to recover even now in the waning of the Bush Madhouse Era.)
I would suggest that dissidents, not jingoists, are the real patriots. The question implicit in any thoughtful criticism of your country is: “How has the country’s evolution from its origins corrupted, lost, or ignored the principles, ideals, and promises it was founded upon? And what can we do to redress this?â€
Thomas Jefferson advocated periodic repair of the Constitution.
He was right. The still-in-use 18th century construction-of-body-politic is, well, 18th century.
Are we patriotic to cling to it? Or just intellectually timid and vapid?
My 50th birthday isn’t so terribly far away. In 1969, I couldn’t imagine we’d still be stuck in the unpaved muck of the 18th century six years into the 21st. I dare not raise my hopes, but I’d like to think it possible that, if Sanford Levinson’s proposal for a new Constitutional Convention is taken seriously, I just might finally be living in a country I can be proud of as my 60th birthday nears.
I won’t hold my breath, but I’ll agitate for it – patriotically.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 pm
“The Dems, without having to work hard for it, or having to do anything more than mouth faintly progressive platitudes, want to claim the votes of folks like me, who would rather have a legitimate Social Democratic Party to support.
I’m sick of it.”
I’m lucky that I didn’t have to soil my conscience by voting for the Democrats. I live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts where every single significant office was held by, or won by, Democrats.. The US Congressman from my district ran unopposed. At least in the old USSR you could vote “da” or “nyet” - if you’re a voter in this part of the PRM you don’t even get that choice. What a country!
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:20 pm
PLN wrote, “The anti-Americanism on this forum is so thick that people can’t see that.â€
I beg to differ: I sense not anti-Americanism, but anti-status quo-ism.
No, I think it’s anti-Americanism. I was specifically responding to Valkyrie’s implication that people only come here because things have declined so badly in their countries. I work with and know lots of immigrants from many different countries (I’m an engineer for a large foreign multinational). Most people are not driven out of their countries because they are such hell-holes. They are attracted to our country because we offer so much opportunity.
I know TWO people from Korea. Korea is a strong, growing, dynamic economy. Things are good there. But the US offers them even more opportunities.
We have a lot of problems in the US, and we have an idiotic administration that has destroyed the US’ position in the world. But we should at least recognize the things that are good about our system. And one of those things is that this is STILL the best place in the world if you are serious about becoming prosperous, starting a company, or making something of yourself. And that is what attracts people to the US. I challenge anyone here to name a place in the world that’s better than the US for a person starting from nothing to become prosperous.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:44 am
Ok I have to address the fallacies of the assumptions of this statement seeing as I live in NH:
“To use an analogy, conservatives are fond of citing New Hampshire as some kind libertarian/conservative archetype. No state income tax or sales tax, low-per-pupil school spending (compared to bordering Massachusetts), etc, but extremely high graduation rates, low crime, low rates of drug abuse or unwed pregnancy, etc. But the problem is that New Hampshire is a mostly rural, mostly lilly-white, tiny state bordering the boisterous industrial economy of Massachusetts and benefitting from all those Massachusetts consumers and jobs. It’s not clear how much New Hampshire can teach, say, California.”
- NH spends between $6K and $15K per pupil.
- We are NOT mostly rural, mostly lily white!
- We have our own economy that is healthier than any of the others states around it.
- We have done this in spite of having the lowest tax burden (http:///www.cnht.org/images/tax_chart.jpg)
- We are the healthiest and most liveable state. We are the first state to offer HPV vaccine to all girls..
We are the cleanest state in the nation. The people who come up here from Mass are now trying to spoil it with their socialistic programs and control freak legislation. They want an income tax because they are never happy with the money spent on education.
We can teach California to give some of that money back to the taxpayers and let them be more self reliant!
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:13 am
He is an interesting and little known counter intuitive fact about how well globalization is working for the wealthy nations: according to UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) there has been 9 years of a negative net transfer of financial capital from the poorer Southern hemisphere to the wealthy Northern one. Just last year this was about 200 billion dollars.
This means that all the aid, investment and trade moving south is 200 billion less than the foreign exchange, debt repayments, interest going north. By 2004, the accumulated total was 350 billion.
Some will see in this a confirmation of Darwin’s theory of the most fitted. They will want to wave their flag and shout down anyone who suggests something is imbalanced here or they might fall back on victimization rhetoric. Why are they so anti our way of life and our great culture (of greed) they may ask?
But these figures rather confirm the argument that there is something inherently flawed about regulating capitalism for the benefit of those already with great sums of wealth. It is not enough that the wealthiest nation spends billions on the world’s greatest army in order to guarantee access to other’s resources, but it uses institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF to help make sure the playing field remains tipped to one end. Sad is it not that a bunch of rock stars must go around begging global leaders to forgive crippling debt and interest payments?
With these finances come a flow of relatively well-off immigrants who are able to leave. Does this flow confirm the “greatness” of the recipient nation? In a sense, yes. Then again, there was an inflow of migrants to all great imperial centres. The thing is, empires are conquerors, not liberators. Why don’t the apologists just call it like it is and not spin it in order to feel good about their tribe?
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 am
Violet says to Charlie Brown, “My father has more money and great athletic ability.” Charlie say, “Come,” and he leads her towards his father’s barber shop. Then he says, “My father loves me and always gives me a big smile.”
My son is learning English in his Japanese high school and this conversation appeared in his text, or something close to it. He asked me what was interesting about Charlie Brown. A good question for someone immersed in dramatic and aggressive Japanese manga. As I explained to him about Charlie’s compassion for the baseball losers and the weaker people in society or items in nature (that limp Xmas tree, for example) I thought about the ongoing conversation here between the unabashed free-marketers and more hesitant souls.
Probably some would like to accuse me because of my criticism of anti-Americanism, but the opposite is actually the case and the reason I post here. Yet it is not today’s America that I love–Violets’ boastful America. Rather, it is Charlie Brown’s America. It is the America represented by the Statute of Liberty and those beautiful words
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
In a sense the real message of 9/11 should have been that this important symbol of the American ethos, the New Colossus, should not be overshadowed by symbols of a newer hunger to dominate the earth. The fall of the towers should be seen as a break from the shackles of excess and a chance to rediscover America the beautiful–Charlie Brown’s America.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Great post webgurl. You also failed to note New Hampshires state legislature gets this done on almost zero pay. I think they are basically given a stipend of less than a few thousand a year. (This may have changed) But compare it to Mass where the Legislature almost all liberal Dems continually rape the tax payer , by paying themselves upwards of 75 thousand or more. Especially when one throws in the perks of special commitees..
N.H. Is changing the more Mass dems who move to N.H. The more you will see your taxes go up. Of course crime and welfare will also rise as will spending on social programs that the mean gop have under funded for so long.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:21 am
To plnelson; You are correct their is a strong anti-American sentiment among many on the left. I should say far-left. This is one of the reasons I left the party. It is one thing to criticize Bush or certain policies of this country. But it is quite another thing to negate everything positive that this country does for it’s people as well as people in other countries.
I was very liberal well into my 30’s and I know and have friends to this day (some are in my own family) who just seem to dislike America, I was like this myself at one time. Maybe it is as simple as the rooting for the underdog phenomena that we see in sports. We all like to see the undermanned less talented team knock of the big stong powerhouse. Who knows. I can’t really figure it out. But it is out there and I know radical leftists will deny it but they are being disingenous.
Before the bashers attack, I’m not saying all liberals,just the hard core left. M. Moore. G. Soros. Daily Kos. etc But these groups have tremendous sway in the Dem Party. Ok go ahead let me have it.
One more small point. I read many times what an awful pres and warmonger R.Reagan was. But the funny thing is he brought down the single most repressive and brutal regime the world has ever seen without fireing a single shot. You would have thought the left would have made him a patron saint. Can you imagine if Carter or Clinton had done this. They would have insisted that the nobel peace prize have