Wednesday, May 25, 2016

The GOP Discovers Fascism...And Likes It

The Republican leaders who a few months ago were calling Trump dangerous and extremist and bigoted and irrational are now lining up to support him. Maybe what this tells us is the Republican Party has been an authoritarian party for a long time. Fascist in all but name.

They are an obedient party. A shameless party. A party that ignores corruption and worships wealth and arrogance. When Deep Throat instructed Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money” this is where it was leading. The Republican Party has gotten there at last.

The news media is doing its careful balancing job, where they refuse to report the insanity, bigotry and extremism of one candidate until they can invent something that makes the other candidate look just as bad.

The media message is “All politicians are dangerous, extremist, bigoted and irrational” so watch and laugh but get ready for the worst to happen.

They don’t report the policy differences (BORING!) they report the bickering, the tweets, the gossip, the bogus allegations. Trump is a master of the game of bogus allegations: he makes them ten at a time and is never called out for lying, and his lies quickly become the main story, turning the news cycle into a trash fiction contest.

Here are a few top national political observers bluntly admitting the F-word is the proper label for Donald Trump. He is a fascist.

This Is How Fascism Comes To America by neoconservative Robert Kagan in the Washington Post.

America Has Never Been So Ripe For Tyranny by conservative Andrew Sullivan in New York Magazine.

The Dangerous Acceptance Of Donald Trump by liberal Adam Gopnick in the New Yorker.

There is still time for America to regain its sanity, but the 24-hour news cycle will be pushing insanity and unreason from now till November. FoxNews has gotten into the tank with Trump. The major networks report his excesses as if they are perfectly normal and reasonable and emphasize the continuing debate in the Democratic Party as if it an embarrassing failure to get in line and follow the leader. As if politics demanded an obedient public.

Those of us who remember Nixon might try to think Trump is no worse than that, and we survived that episode.

We survived it because it was not this extreme.

Nixon had a political resumé and was part of a fairly reasonable right-of-center political party of country clubbers and members of the chamber of commerce. Trump's resumé is a circus of bankruptcies, tax evasions and cynical corruption. There is no set of values in Trump's history, except property values, which he routinely inflates or hides or lies about to fool investors and avoid taxes and evade creditors. His business life has been one long confidence trick, or a series of confidence tricks. His personal life has been a series of confidence tricks too. His vulgarity is shocking––mocking a man with disabilities––in front of a national audience; making suggestive sexual comments about his own daughter and bragging about his penis size––in front of a national audience; slurring women, veterans and one minority group after another––in front of a national audience. How vulgar can a national figure get?

It's hard to imagine anyone more uncouth than Trump. And yet conservative church leaders are saying God demands that His followers vote for Trump. Trump who shows no familiarity with Christian values, and only contempt for all other religions. But it would be "unseemly" for the national news media to criticize one party's candidate without condemning the other equally. Their "standards" require "balance" but balance is a lie. There is no equivalence here. The Republican Party has disgraced itself but as long as its leaders and the news media refuse to notice this disgrace all will be well. And they may win the election by pretending all is well.

The leaders (can we call them leaders?) of the Republican Party think they can control this goon. Their only hope may be that their long campaign to degrade government, to make it weak and dysfunctional, has worked well enough that Trump will be installed at the head of a government that has no power at all. Our country has been a long, interesting experiment in democracy, but the founders never anticipated an experiment this deranged or cynical.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 20, 2016

Are People Meaner At The Top?

Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It's the only thing anyone remembers about Acton. Was he right? Dacher Keltner recently put this statement to the test to see if behavior became more antisocial and rude the richer a person was. His researchers found that the drivers of more expensive cars were likelier to cut off others in traffic and not yield to pedestrians. His study constructed other tests to see if people of higher incomes were less considerate, greedier, less empathetic. They tended to be. Not all were, but some, and more than in lower income groups. People also tended to behave less altruistically if the test situation made the subject feel more powerful or superior in some way. Everyone who has ever sworn at a Mercedes can believe this is true, but can it be replicated? Having someone else recast the experiment might tease out the biases and make the results less clear-cut.

The Economist magazine, the magazine by and for the people with money, published a piece on Keltner's experiment. It begins with a clear and persuasive discussion of the Keltner Inequality Study. The author also discusses the famous Stanford Prison Experiment in which people were cast as prison guards (the powerful) and prisoners (the powerless). The results showed there was a startling tendency to become less humane, less compassionate, crueler, when ordinary people acquired disproportionate power over others. There were similar results from another study at Iowa State.

The Economist then addressed Keltner's replication problem, citing a 2010 study where three European academics, Martin Korndörfer, Stefan Schmukle and Boris Egloff, tried to replicate the Keltner Inequality Study. Their results showed the opposite: higher income people tended to be more generous, more helpful, more considerate. The Economist article did not ask the Korndörfer, Schmukle and Egloff if there were differences in the studies or the subjects that might account for this, so I asked Keltner if there were differences he could think of. One thing about the European study raised questions: it had a difficult time being published. Why? Were there questions about the methodology? What were they?

I wondered about a few things so I sent Dr. Keltner an email:

Matthew Sweet’s discussion of the replication problem doesn’t get into why it might have failed.

Why was that Martin Korndörfer, Stefan Schmukle, Boris Egloff paper rejected?

Rejection tends to have criteria attached to explain why it was rejected. Were there flaws in their approach?

I realize conclusions can be pushed by how questions are asked or how data is collected. Was there bias in their study?

Did your group do things to avoid bias?

It also occurs to me that this replication study was conducted in continental Europe where the economic ideology is very different. There class differences are not small but there seems to be less arrogance among the rich, less sense of righteous entitlement. The absolute goodness of greed is not a given.

Is there, in Europe, a residual sense of “noblesse oblige” by which the gentry acknowledged obligations to the lower classes, something which is not just absent in America but laughed at. In Europe (and once upon a time here) even conservatives recognize and honor certain established institutions of public welfare, the way Eisenhower, for instance, said it was “stupid” for Republicans to urge repeal of New Deal institutions. Might this have skewed the results?

If true, might this be telling us something? Does the removal of governmental coercions (progressive redistributive taxation, tax-based welfare, help and relief in cases of disaster or trouble organized for us by government)––which is justified by the idea that it is unnecessary because people are already generous enough on their own without the government forcing it––does removing the coerced helpfulness end up making people less helpful?

When they are not told to be generous/helpful/kind/courteous do people become convinced that the opposite of these good social behaviors is actually OK?

One might assume that people would be less generous via private giving if the tax system already covered many or most of the public needs. But my reading of European norms and attitudes leads me to think the opposite, that coerced generosity by the power of the society and the government makes people more inclined to generosity beyond what is coerced.

If this seems counterintuitive, I would bring up other counterintuitive behaviors that prevail here in the US, as for instance the phenomenon Thomas Rich studied in What’s The Matter With Kansas, the habit of less affluent voters to vote against their economic self interest in certain regions. Regional group psychology or beliefs can change results by region. In Norway, for instance, everybody knowing what everyone else pays in taxes provides a pressure to not evade and a reassurance that everybody else isn’t getting away with something.

This also raises the influence the modern “religion” of self-reliance has on individual and group behavior. (I call it a religion because it has been preached in a deliberate quasi-religious way to cause Americans to reject the cooperative behaviors and traditions that date back to our founders and the first colonists.)

What I’m asking is this: did the European study’s failure to replicate your inequality studies point instead to fundamental differences in our psychology?

And might this psychological quirk or deviation be the result of this religion of self-reliance or the cult of Reaganomics and the Chicago School of Economics, which taught several generations of Americans that the rich deserve their riches and the poor deserve their poverty (and by implication that the sick and dying deserve to be sick and dying and the uneducated deserve their ignorance and the powerless deserve to be powerless by being barred from voting.)

This might also explain the powerful force that seems almost unique to America, something I call The Rule of Accumulated Advantage, which is sometimes called (rather obscurely I think) The Matthew Effect.


It sounds overlong, hastily written and awkwardly didactic as I read it over again. (I've corrected a few mistakes.) In the impulse of the moment, I had carbon copied a few other academics and thinkers in the area of inequality to see what they would say. A discussion began almost immediately. (The academics were a lot more succinct than I was.)

Almost immediately I heard back from Dr. Keltner in Berkeley. "Check out a recent PNAS paper by Stephane cote and Robb Willer. They look at regional inequality as a moderator of the effects of privilege on altruism
It's relevant to your questions."


I looked up the study he mentioned, which does take a regional approach. My quick scan of the summary prompted some other thoughts. I emailed him back:

Thanks for replying.

The Cote/Willer study you cite seems to jibe with the racial integration findings discussed by my neighbor Myron Orfield.

Orfield published this summary in the Guardian today.

It would be interesting to see what social scientists learn if they address the questions I put to you. Europe should, perhaps, be studied as a control group where antisocial norms have not replaced the social norms put in place after centuries of hard experience. (Some of these norms were put in place by us after WW2.)

In the past few decades [here in the U.S.] government action has been widely repudiated, which means the positive force and influence government institutions (created by public consensus) had on our social norms of thought and behavior have also been repudiated.

The “repudiators” have rationalized their abandonment of these social norms and corrective actions by saying they weren’t needed, that people were already naturally good natured and fair-minded, but it has, and I believe you could show this, it has had the effect of throwing out those good social norms. (The reactionaries have also shown a bizarre loyalty to previously discredited norms dating back to slavery and Jim Crow.)

One of the architects of the Reagan revolution, Paul Weyrich, jeered at good government, calling it GooGoo and derided the idea of getting everyone to vote.

There is a fundamental dishonesty about the reactionary ascendancy in the past forty years, a casual dismissal of the need for basic rules of fairness has led to a broad and very serious-minded rejection of fairness itself, which has led to a widespread faith that fairness is wrong, that fairness is unnatural, that fairness is unAmerican, and (contrary to my New Testament) that fairness is unChristian.

It might be hard to study and describe this phenomenon without sounding satirical, just as it is hard to report on the Trump phenomenon with the necessary seriousness.


Rereading this I am reminded that I'm a Fox not a Hedgehog: I know a bit about many things rather than a lot about one big thing. Dr. Keltner seems like one of those professors who doesn't mind longwinded questions from overeager students.

One of the people I'd cc'ed was Richard Wilkinson, the director of the Equality Trust. His email arrived while I was replying to Dr. Keltner.

"Another paper which is likely to be relevant is:-
Paskov, M. & Dewilde, C. Income inequality and solidarity in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30, 415-432 (2012). It shows that people in more unequal European countries are less willing to help others. Rather than being simply a failure to replicate in Europe the entitlement of the rich shown in the USA, it seems likely that entitlement is influenced by the greater degree of inequality in the US. It would be interesting to try it here in the UK where inequality is higher than the rest of W. Europe.
Someone should write to the Economist."


While I was reading Richard Wilkinson's email and looking up Paskov & Dewilde, I got an email from Mark Blyth, professor of political economy at Brown.

"While we are on it.

I just got back from a conference at EUI in Florence where Sven Steinmo has just completed tax experiments in five countries. Here's the website.


Bottom Line 1: Systematic country differences no matter how you vary the experiment. Brits cheat more than Americans, Italians, Romanians and Swedes. Just happens to scale up nicely (almost) against the country GINI.

Bottom Line 2: If local institutions produce these differences, then the notion of replication has to be localized."


Richard Wilkinson followed up with a letter he was sending to The Economist, though he thought it was probably too late for publication:

"Different research findings on whether or not the rich are more anti-social than others, does not, as you suggest, reflect weaknesses in empirical research (‘Does Power Really Corrupt’ – Economist 3rd May). As you pointed out, the Keltner study which found the rich were more anti-social was conducted in the USA, the Egloff study, which failed to confirm that, was conducted in Europe. New research (Côté, S., House, J. & Willer, R. High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015; 112, 15838-15843) shows that the rich are more anti-social if they live in one of the more unequal states of the USA. A study of 27 European countries found that the more unequal they were, the less willing people were to help each other (Paskov, M. & Dewilde, C. Income inequality and solidarity in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 2012; 30, 415-432.). The explanation is likely to hinge on the well established fact that inequality is divisive: it lowers levels of trust and weakens community life so people are more out for themselves."

Dr. Keltner sent this:

"Thanks all for this really productive discussion. I do wish we had more systematic behavioral studies of the kind we do on the diminishment of prosocial and ethical tendencies found to accompany greater wealth in the US. My collaborators -- Paul and Stephane cced here -- agree -- that what we've documented is likely to be influenced by inequality, and many labs are looking into that know - as well as other cultural variables. We're delighted our studies are initiating conversations with many of you, who inspired much of our work."

Considering how busy they are, and the great distance between their grasp of the material and ours, I've always found academics very accessible and patiently. They teach for a living and the wider and friendlier the discussion the more their ideas and information gain traction.

After asking my initial questions I sat down to read what was sent and think about what was said. I also jotted down my thoughts. Being a reader rather than a writer of these kinds of articles and not a social scientist or an academic, I tend to ask questions that presume a certain answer. In our silos of shared opinion we're always having our prejudices reenforced. Scientists test these prejudices and try to suppress their own because it tends to discredit their argument. They also try to discover the reasons for the prejudices and how they work, what they are doing to reshape the consensus.

As I read, questions kept occurring to me:

Perhaps, as these studies seem to show, Americans today do behave with less generosity and courtesy on the upper end of the income scale. (And these studies are only showing greater tendencies not dominant norms.) But if the upper classes are more aggressive and less considerate of others I am guessing the people on the lower end, who suffer these indignities, are probably more passive aggressive. I would guess that the coarse abuse we read in Twitter feeds and comment threads is more of a lower income phenomenon. Abusive language being the last resort of the powerless.

As Americans have become more unequal in the post-Reagan period, have we become different people than we were in our grandparents' generation? More tolerant of inequality but also believers that inequality is proper? (There's been a lot of misquotation and distortion of Adam Smith as the financial and conservative press have tried to rationalize self-centeredness as an American ideal and a public good.)

Has this new pro-inequality bias tended to compound inequality––the Rule of Accumulated Advantage idea I've written about––causing advantages and disadvantages to compound and create greater unfairness? (Do we have a feedback cycle?)

Has the tolerance of inequality led to a celebration and reverence for inequality? (These are philosophical questions more than scientific ones.)

By enshrining and celebrating greater inequality, have we rewritten our rules of social interaction? Have we thrown out the social contract our country was founded upon? My inclination, when I read that Mercedes and BMW and Bentley drivers might tend to be less considerate drivers, is to ask why do they feel they are entitled to cut ahead of us and cut us out? If a study says they are likelier to behave this way I want to know where this rationale came from. Maybe they assume their time is worth more than Toyota drivers; on an hourly income basis, it is. Do they assume they are more important? That their lives are worth more? That ours are worth less? Do they think this through? I saw the European paper showing the opposite was true, at least in Europe, and my question is: do wealthier Europeans, in their less unequal societies, learn to be less arrogant about their superiority, less entitled-feeling? Do they care more about what other people think of them? Have rich Americans levitated above the judgment of others the way they have levitated above tax obligations? If fairness and following rules is "inefficient" for the wealthy few, maybe it is the inefficiencies, the everyday friction with our fellow human beings that makes us better people. Maybe what the European study was showing was the difference between the more conformist, rule-bound Old World and non-conformist, rule-breaking America. Maybe we've always been more ill-mannered.

We have had our own conformist periods. After the New Deal re-sorted and reformed our economy and society there was a long period of greater conformity. The period the Beat Poets and rock and roll criticized and tried to blow up. Perhaps our non-conformist outburst in the 1960s and the Me Decade of the 70s led naturally to the worship of self-interest inaugurated with Ronald Reagan. Or perhaps it dates back to the 30s and 40s when the non-conformists were the elites who preferred the pre-New Deal economy, the one that failed, the rich minority who hated FDR and plotted to overthrow him.

It has always struck me as odd that the so-called "conservatives" in our recent public conversation are the ones who are throwing out the past, a recent past that represents the longest and broadest and most stable prosperity our country or any country has ever experienced. They are repudiating not only the customs and institutions created in the broad consensus of the New Deal period and preserved through the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, but also rejecting centuries of cooperative and anti-elitist social norms dating back to the Founders and the Pilgrims. Are social norms dictated from the top or do they emerge from the masses?

Rugged individualism was a meme invented by cowboy novelists and western movies, but we rarely celebrated lack of empathy or callous cruelty until fairly recently, as decency and fair play became "old fashioned." I'm not sure how "conservative" and "liberal" sort out on this spectrum. Teamwork and equal, fair, regulated competition is a pattern set down not just by our elected governments and by the so-called PC police. It's a tradition played out on the football field (which is our holy of holies), where the hero quarterback is only as good as his offensive line and his receivers. There is rough and tumble but also respect and a basic decency. There are referees; we resent them but without them the game would fall apart.

Where did this new amoral "ethos" come from? Have we become a nation of tax cheats who figure cheating to get ahead is not only all right but the American way? Why do we applaud the degradation of working incomes and the new custom of paying executives as much in a day as their average workers earn in a year––and taxing them at a lower rate?

When you are abroad you hear about a stereotype of Americans. The Ugly American. You hear that we are loud and rude and think we're better than everyone else. This was not our reputation when our G.I.'s helped retake Europe from the Nazis and Asia from the Japanese. Our periods of reconstruction overseas were overwhelmingly powerful yet managed to be basically generous and somewhat self-effacing considering the asymmetry of power. We were admired for that. The Marshall Plan did not seek a profit. I think the arrogance grew over time. We overreached in Vietnam and in Iraq and were criticized for our pains. I think we overreacted to that. But the American military reach was more economic than an expression of our government. It was a business plan. American companies profited from our throwing our weight around globally. They profited when the world was in turmoil rather than at peace. Wars also upset our national psyche. These changes are enormously complex but the large factors can hardly be missed.

The biggest, most arrogant, pushiest, rudest, greediest, least generous forces in American society may not reflect all of us but they tend to define all of us, and they affect and upset all of us.

When power is concentrated in fewer hands it seems to corrupt the ones with power and it makes the rest of us angrier and less happy.

We used to be better than this.

We behaved better when we were happier and less unequal, when the system was fairer. Before the powerful began telling us fairness was unAmerican. This inequality and the deep sense of unfairness is the reason for a lot of the anger out there. People feel what they've worked for has been taken away and they worry that their children's future has been stolen from them. If left unaddressed, mass grievances of this kind often lead to revolutions, and most revolutions do not unfold as happily as ours did in the late eighteenth century.

In 2009, Dacher Keltner was interviewed by Scientific American. He had a new book out about the science of being good. Is it a science? Look at it this way: if being jerks makes us less happy as a society, doesn't that prove it? A scientific truth is something that can be subjected to proof. I think the mass experience of the past few decades has proven his theory right.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Donald Trump: How Am I Disgusted? Let Me Count The Ways.

I began reading this New York Times story this morning.

You really should read it now.

It's about Donald Trump and his behaviors around women. He is repellant in so many other ways but this article had me repeatedly washing my hands and stepping outside for air. I had to put the article down. (If you go read the Times story now you can come back to this blog when you have to stop and catch your breath.)

We are not unfamiliar with men in power behaving badly. Trump takes it to a new level. He views women like a judge at a livestock show. There is a sinister eugenic aspect to his creepiness. I might say it's almost Nazi-like but Hitler was so asexual. Trump is more like a buyer in a Roman slave market. A deviant trolling in a black sedan.

Donald Trump is a creep of monumental proportions. We thought he was a weird rich insecure narcissistic bully but there are so many stories that have not been told about him. Why has the news media waited until now? Why have they focused on the laughable, stupid things he says? The funny statements, the funny hair, the funny orange tan, the silly bravado of a phony Romeo on a street corner in Queens. What about his mob connections? What about his multiple bankruptcies? His many shady business deals? What about his behavior toward women, which seems like something out of Saudi Arabia or Hustler magazine?

If reporters ask him a question he can’t answer why don’t they keep asking it? Why do they cave? Why do they cater to his weirdness? Why do they cover up his weirdness and pretend that it is normal? They act as if they need him more than he needs them, which is untrue. Trump craves attention. Journalists should give it to him but if he lies report that he is lying. If he denies the ugly truth report the ugly truth repeatedly until he has to admit it. If Trump runs away and hides report that. Instead the media obeys this man. Which is one reason we have a loathsome human being at the top of a major party ticket. The other reason he is there is the Republican Party has become the party of voters who want a loathsome, weird, rich, insecure, narcissistic bully as president.

Here is a Mother Jones article about how Trump plays the news media.

Another weird thing emerged recently.

Trump is always willing to brag about himself, about his sexual conquests, about his alleged penis size, about his fabulous possessions (material and female), about his money, about the famous people he is pals with, about the important people who “love him” ("The Queen is wonderful! She loves hanging around with me!”) He brags endlessly and unsupportedly about the huge fabulous things he will do, the promises he will get out of the moment he pockets the money. He is a carnival barker. He is the guy bragging about the strippers on the sidewalk outside a topless bar. He is the guy who lies you into buying a junk car. He is the slimy investment shill who calls you uninvited from a call room in Costa Rica. But mostly he is a braggart. His favorite topic is him. Sometimes he prefers to brag about himself in the third person. Maybe he is practicing to be Queen. Accounts have emerged, and recordings, where Trump has pretended to be his own publicist so he can brag about himself without seeming conceited.

Here is the New Yorker article about it. Instead of electing him president maybe we should start discussing which kind of mental ward we should confine him to.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 12, 2016

College Education––Public or Private...or For-Profit?

Bernie’s free tuition proposal is only “radical” and “unrealistic” if you reject the policies that worked very well from Truman through Carter and accept and want to keep all of the rich-favoring tax breaks that came about since Reagan reset our economy. It was Reagan that set us on the road to dysfunction and unfairness.

This appeared in my news feed a minute ago from the Bernie campaign. Kind of puts the whole thing in context.


















Bill Moyers explains some of the new tricks the for-profit college "industry" uses to fleece college students. This is why certain things don't lend themselves to the profit model. When you are focused on profit above all you are obligated to deliver profits when colleges should be obligated to deliver education.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The High-Low On The American Economy

Here’s what Robert Reich had to say this morning about exorbitant executive pay in America:

"Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex W. Tillerson is delivering bad news to shareholders: Profits were down 63 percent in the first quarter financial results, announced yesterday. They were down by half in 2015. Low petroleum prices have forced Exxon Mobil to cut spending, reduce capital outlays, and borrow to meet dividend payments. This week Standard & Poor’s downgraded the corporation’s credit rating.

"But don’t cry for Tillerson. He’s scheduled to retire next March with a nest egg of $218 million in Exxon stock plus a pension plan worth $69.5 million. His salary this year alone is about 500 times the median U.S. household income.

"Even when big corporations and their shareholders lose, their CEOs seem always to come out winners. Isn’t it time CEO pay was capped at, say, 100 times the income of the median household? Shareholders should set this standard, and the government shouldn’t allow a company to deduct any executive pay in excess of $1 million. Alternatively, as I've suggested before, tax corporations in proportion to the ratio of their CEO pay to the typical U.S. worker's pay."

The Washington Post reports on how the CEO of EXXON earns many millions whether the company has a good year or a bad year. How fair is that?

The departing CEO of Yahoo! (is that company still around?) is being paid $55 million to go away.

How we got to where we are now: The Washington Post reports on how "high finance" thinking has warped our values and our policies.

What makes it worse is how our policies are shaped by Big Money and their lobbyists and superPACs. These forces are far more powerful than organized labor, which is shrinking every year, more powerful than the Republican controlled Congress, which the lobbyists carry around in their pocket. Bloomberg reports on how hard the US Chamber of Commerce has pushed our tax policies to the extreme.

This disparity in power is more significant than the disparity in pay. Americans have bought into the myth of Rugged Individualism, that each of us is better alone than as a part of a group. (Because groups are communist…unless it’s the American Legion or the Rotary or the Chamber of Commerce.)

This is a distortion of American tradition. The tradition of barn raising and helping your neighbor, of standing together the way the original colonists did, despite their differences. This idea of individualism has helped the 1% reduce the voice of the rest of us to nothing. It has persuaded millions of working Americans to rush to get the anti-union bargains at Walmart. It has organized the workers to break up the unions that won their parents a middle class life.

Salon explains the rise of individualism and the decline of America's sense of teamwork.

Meanwhile, at the high end of the economy the members of the owning class are paid more in an day than ordinary workers are paid in a year. Some are paid that much every hour.

The Wall Street Journal reports that CEOs now make 373 times what average workers do.

If you wonder why healthcare keeps costing you more, look at the multi-millions their CEOs are paid each year.

At the low end, working people get next to nothing. Millions of low end jobs don’t pay a living wage, so people have to work two jobs, and the workers are subject to rampant wage theft. Still, Republicans block every proposal to raise the minimum wage.

The Wall Street Journal, the favorite newspaper of America's 1%, published a story blaming the sluggish growth in the U.S. economy on the refusal to raise working people's wages. After 30 years of suppressed wages and nothing growing but CEO salaries and investment bubbles you'd think it would be clear that economic energy doesn't come from the people who spend at Cartier and the local Jaguar dealership, it comes from the broad spending of ordinary working people...when they have enough money to spend.

Even the middle class is feeling insecure, a story told in this month's Atlantic.

But the working poor and the unemployed have it much worse.

Why not do what the Republican gods Hayek and Friedman both proposed: have a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans? Why not? Because people who earn money from their money, who own for a living, dislike anything that shares their luck with other less fortunate people. The people who own for a living don’t want to give anything to the people who work for a living. VOX explains the idea of a guaranteed minimum income and how it would work.

The rich are always discussing how they wish the poor were better people. Who really needs to fix that problem? The rich do. They are extremely lucky but they believe luck had nothing to do with it. If they were reminded where their fortunes came from they might be less arrogant and less greedy. They might become better people, to the benefit of all of us. Robert Frank (author of the new book Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy) discusses this at VOX.





Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Most Agree With Sanders But Understand We Can't Elect Him...Why?

Noam Chomsky discussed this democratic quandary. We agree on what we want but we also agree we cannot have it.

Most Americans agree with Sanders.

Most are persuaded he is radical and impractical.

Therefore what most Americans want and believe in is radical and impractical. And we can't have that.

This is an undemocratic problem. It may also be the key rationale of voter suppression.

Public opinion seems driven not by what the public wants but by fiat from the persuaders, the persuading class, who are employed by the people with greater wealth.

(The rich persuasions are also obeyed by those with less wealth, who own for a living on a more modest scale, whose financial security is held hostage by equity markets, the people who have retired from working life and joined––as junior members––the body of those who “own for a living.”)

This conundrum is difficult to explain in one sentence, and therefore not useful in persuading people. Fiats are one sentence.

Experience is a better persuader. The persuading class uses hard experience against us. In most cases it is hard experience their rich clients have caused.

The psychological control exerted by the people with money is our larger problem.

The defection of retired workers is understandable; their sentiments run one way but their fears dictate the safer choice of doing what their money says.

For working people the rhetorical trick works like this:

They are earning less than their parents did, but the tax burden has been shifted off of the owning classes and onto them.

This persuades them that they/we cannot afford good government and public sector spending. (Even if government-run programs and projects are less wasteful and less expensive because they’re not driven by profit.)

Their experience of lack of money persuades working people that they do not DESERVE good government and public services.

You pay for what you get.

You get what you deserve.

What you cannot afford you do not deserve.

Hence those with riches are deserving, those living in poverty deserve nothing. Working hard has nothing to do with it.

Working for a living makes you less deserving than owning for a living. In this sense Americans are participating in a violent upending of fundamental American values.

We have returned to the brutality of an earlier age.

Hillary may accomplish more in the hurly-burly of Washington politics than Bernie would. Practicality has a place. But the demands of working people, the grievances of working people, are not radical, and practical politics can solve them if we don't relegate them to second class status, which is the danger right now.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Two Examples Show How The Legal System Is Stacked In Favor Of The Rich

This is what happens to people at the bottom of the justice system. Reported today at VOX.

This is what happens to the people at the top. Reported today in the New Yorker.

A 75 year old disabled man in Mississippi who did time many years ago for robbery is tried for marijuana possession. He is convicted and sentenced to life in prison, a mandatory sentence because of his 20-year old conviction for robbery. The Supreme Court refuses to consider his appeal. Apparently life imprisonment for marijuana possession is not cruel and unusual punishment. Or the Supreme Court can’t be bothered. This is what happens to people at the bottom of the system.

Meanwhile the SEC, the agency charged with investigating and bringing charges against the largest financial companies, hesitates to prosecute individuals who made billions by defrauding millions of ordinary Americans during the financial crisis.

Why?

Because the man at the SEC who was in charge of the case had seen the “devasting [sic] impact our little ol’ civil actions reap on real people more often than I care to remember. It is the least favorite part of the job. Most of our civil defendants are good people who have done one bad thing.”

People at the top level of massive multi-billion dollar frauds that ruined thousands of ordinary people’s lives are “real people” who “have done one bad thing” but a sad old disabled onetime felon who possesses pot is nobody.

The poor man in Mississippi is nobody that anybody running the system knows personally. Nobody the prosecutors care about. Prosecutors mingle with “real people” who earn massive fortunes, sometimes by fraud. The fraudulent seem very plausible, that is how they are able to commit the fraud. The larger the fraud, the more plausible and real they seem. Prosecutors don’t enjoy mingling with people at the lower end of the criminal spectrum where their misfortune and desperation makes them less plausible and less deserving.

Successful criminals who have massive fortunes and fabulous Manhattan apartments plus expensive homes in various luxury enclaves are real people but ex-cons who live quietly on a farm in Mississippi are not real people––at least in the eyes of the law. There have been multiple cases rejected by the right hand side of the Supreme Court, cases where a man has been proved innocent but is still facing the death penalty. The conservatives on the court shrug and say No. But the criminal who has stolen massive amounts of money from millions of unsuspecting Americans gets a pass. Someone who seems that real and that plausible must not have meant any harm. He can keep his houses and his money.

This is what Americans are angry about. This is what Bernie Sanders is listening to. This might be the kind of non-violent marijuana "offender" President Obama pardons. But we need to repair the system, not simply hope that occasionally a hand reaches down from the sky and corrects one or a handful of the terrible injustices. This is why electing a Democrat president is so vital this year. It would begin to redress the harm and rebalance the scales in favor of regular people.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,