The entrepreneurial spirit that made the US the world's dominant economy can't thrive without a strong middle class. But the middle class is being squeezed like a lemon, and soon nothing will be left but the pits.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - gonzo marx
not to be Abstract or Contrarian just for the sake of it..
but can someone point to this "Justice"
i mean Objectively..quantify it please..just point it out for me, hold it in your hand a sec and let's have a look at it
that enuff sarcasm fer yas?
heh
oh yes..and Mr. Nalle..don't mistake equating Vengence for Justice..ie:executions=vengence
so until the epistomology of this Concept called Justice is defined, yas can argue till yer blue in the face and nobody will have the exact same definition..
as for the Original Article by Jon Sobel...thanx for the Read...plenty for "leftists" to think about...
but of course the last 11 years has been all about making "Liberal" a dirty Word and utilizing it as a sterotype instead of as a political definition..
what the Demlicans need is to define their own Term and NOT let the Repubocrats define it for them on Fox and Limbaugh et al...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
27 - MDE
re:"essence of actual justice"
So.... Fill in the blanks - you tease!
In what way is the concept of justice as a balance of power in human relationships any more contrived that that of justice as punishment for wrong doing? The later is merely an instance of the former.
Mark
28 - MDE
The "bleeding heart liberal" is no less offensive a concept than is that of the "cold hearted conservative".
re:"Mention justice and the so-called "conservatives" just go mum. They have nothing to say on it. It has zero meaning or utility in their world view."
Not so. Talk to a "conservative" about government redistribution of wealth from producers to the poor, and you will get diatribes concerning 'justice'.
Mark
29 - Dave Nalle
>>"Social justice" means, among other things, that everyone is treated equally under the law - and you're delusional if you think that's the way things are today. More philosophically, it includes the idea that everyone has, in theory, equal opportunity under the law - remember "all men are created equal"?<<
Ok, if we accept that definition - which is a fine one - though not what leftists generally take it to mean - then Republicans have been THE great champions of social justice in America over the last 150 years, bar none.
Dave
30 - MDE
re: the development of the middle class
It is ownership of land and stock that distiguishes the middle and upper classes from the lower class. It is the indirect participation in the process of production that separates the upper class from the middle. The struggle between Bob and his boss is one between the poor and the middle classes.
In this sense, a proportionally large middle class is a post WWII and largely American phenomenon.
Mark
31 - MDE
re:""Social justice" means, ... that everyone has, in theory, equal opportunity under the law"
This is circular. Law is our attempt to implement "social justice".
What's "antisocial, (a-social, unsocial) justice", anyway. Even vigilantes are trying to implement their ideas of "social justice" as evidenced by the recent minutemen activities on the border.
Mark
32 - Steve S
Re: comment 29 by Dave. Republicans DO have a better record when it comes to civil rights, in our history. But look who's running the Republicans now, THAT is the problem. Democrats have a better history regarding the rights of the laborer.
33 - Steve S
In this sense, a proportionally large middle class is a post WWII and largely American phenomenon.
This is what I meant by we created it.
The dream of America's streets paved with gold, and the dream of a better life in America comes from the concept of the middle class being the majority. The doors are open out of poverty and destitution. The shrinking of the middle class is the shrinking of the American dream.
34 - MDE
Our liberal versus conservative argument is Swiftian for sure. Kind of like arguing over how to drink coffee - with or without cream. The ongoing concentration of capital will continue under either of these philosophies. Eventually an adjustment will occur. The question is, can the adjustment take place without a depression era like tearing of the social fabric.
Mark
35 - Victor Plenty
The poor are also producers of wealth. Without their labor, no wealth would exist for the rich to enjoy.
Justice will never be found by pitting the rich and the poor against one another. Class warfare is always self-defeating for all sides, regardless of whether the person stirring it up is Karl Marx or Rush Limbaugh. (And Limbaugh is more Marxist than Marx himself, when it comes to making sure the rich and the poor stay at each other's throats.)
36 - MDE
re:"Justice will never be found by pitting the rich and the poor against one another"
Wishing away competition for resources will not make it so.
"Class warfare is always self-defeating for all sides"
It is more realistic to talk in terms of class struggle, as instances of actual warfare in the US are rare. And within our system of class struggle, the rich have done OK for themselves.
Mark
37 - Dave Nalle
The poor have done damned well for themselves too, Mark. Our poor people have a higher standard of living than the average SoL for 90% of the other countries in the world.
Dave
38 - Victor Plenty
Competition for resources is a vapid oversimplification. If economics was really only about competition for resources, the poor vastly outnumber the rich, and could simply kill the rich and take their wealth.
In fact this has been tried numerous times, and always ends in disaster for everyone. The rich and the poor need each other.
A sane economic system maximizes cooperation between all classes of society, and minimizes competition. Many people don't realize this, because many people fail to think clearly on the subject.
39 - MDE
re:"The poor have done damned well for themselves too, Mark"
Didn't say that they haven't. Nothing like being a super power.
Mark
40 - MDE
re:"Competition for resources is a vapid oversimplification"
An oversimplification for sure. But 'vapid'? It interested you enough to comment on it.
re:"If economics was really only about competition for resources, the poor vastly outnumber the rich, and could simply kill the rich and take their wealth"
It's not that easy.
re:"The rich and the poor need each other"
It's true. The poor do need the rich in order to remain poor.
re:"A sane economic system maximizes cooperation between all classes of society, and minimizes competition"
True. Tibet used to be an interesting country.
Mark
41 - Victor Plenty
A society with poverty but not wealth is easy to make. Humans have lived in such societies for millions of years.
Making a society with both is slightly harder, but we've been doing that for at least ten thousand years.
What we can make now is a society with wealth but not poverty.
42 - Dave Nalle
>>What we can make now is a society with wealth but not poverty.<<
Well, we can try it. The problem is that you either end up making everyone poor, or as you bring up the standard of living for the poor society at the same time redefines what poverty is so that even though they are better off, in relative terms they remain 'the poor', because someone always has to occupy that bottom rung.
Dave
43 - Victor Plenty
Of course I do not refer to making everyone equal in economic terms. The only way to do that, as you observe, is to make everyone poor.
What we can eliminate is the extreme poverty that deprives people of hope. What we can and must eliminate is the permanent underclass.
Once we arrange our planetary economy to eliminate that extreme of poverty, I will have no quarrel with concentrations of wealth in the hands of the rich.
44 - MDE
re:"What we can eliminate is the extreme poverty that deprives people of hope. What we can and must eliminate is the permanent underclass."
How?
45 - Victor Plenty
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I've seen enough to convince me it is within humanity's capability to eliminate extreme poverty, everywhere in the world, if we choose to do so.
A large part of what convinced me was reading Muhammad Yunus's autobiography, Banker to the Poor. If you wish to understand why I make such statements, reading that book would be a good place to start.
46 - MDE
re:" Muhammad Yunus's autobiography, Banker to the Poor."
good link to support your optimism - thanks
Mark
47 - Dave Nalle
That's quite a task to undertake on a planetary basis. It might be more than the economy of even the richest nation in the world can achieve - unless the goals are kept relatively realistic.
I like the general idea, but I'd like to see a blueprint for achieving it without using government direct redistribution of wealth.
Dave
48 - Bennett Dawson
Ok, if we accept that definition - then Republicans have been THE great champions of social justice in America over the last 150 years, bar none.
Uhhhhhh..... RIGHT!
Except for 1865-1890 when all of the Plains Indians were killed or put on reservations. But hey, that's a dirty little secret that we'll just gloss over, okay?
49 - Dave Nalle
Ironically, Bennett, the Republicans of the period you point out though that they were helping to 'civilize' the indians. Their intentions were positive by their lights. They thought that government intervention could protect the indians and make them more modern and self-sufficient. They were hideously wrong and the whole thing was implemented horribly, but the goal still fit under what we're calling 'social justice'.
Dave
'
50 - gonzo marx
Dave Nalle sez..
*Ironically, Bennett, the Republicans of the period you point out though that they were helping to 'civilize' the indians. Their intentions were positive by their lights*
soOOOoOOOooo giving folks blankets that are KNOWN to be infected witrh smallpox is "civilizing"?
curious definitions..
Excelsior!
51 - Victor Plenty
Now I have time to expand on yesterday's comments. The key to the Grameen method of fighting poverty is simple. It recognizes the poor themselves as the crucial active element in the battle against poverty, and not merely passive recipients of aid from wealthier individuals or nations.
It builds on the skills and abilities the poor already possess, rather then treating them as utterly ignorant and incapable. It takes skill and determination to survive being poor in most of the world. Those skills and that energy can be turned to productive ends that benefit the whole economy. Seeing the situation in this light makes it clear the solution does not require redistributing wealth, not in the sense that phrase is usually meant. Microloans are true investments, not grants. The loans are used to build profitable businesses, and are paid back to the bank with reasonable interest.
Grameen Bank repayment rates, over the long term, are above 98%.
Short term repayment rates sometimes dip lower when adjustments are made to compensate for Bangladesh's frequent natural disasters, but even in those circumstances the repayments are only delayed, not cancelled. What this system does is empower the people to lift themselves out of bare-subsistence poverty to the entrepreneurial state of taking responsibility for their own financial future. It does this while earning money back on the initial investment, not by "redistributing" wealth.
Using this system and similar initiatives, we can eliminate extreme poverty entirely, everywhere on this planet, if we choose to do so.
For a more detailed explanation of how this can happen, I refer interested readers to the book I linked in comment 45, Banker to the Poor, and to the Grameen Bank's web site, http://www.grameen-info.org.
52 - Dave Nalle
>>soOOOoOOOooo giving folks blankets that are KNOWN to be infected witrh smallpox is "civilizing"<<
Get your history straight, Gonzo. That plan was originally proposed by Lord Jeffrey Amherst - who was British and proposed it prior to the Revolutionary war. It was rejected by the colonial office as inhumane. However the idea was then picked up by colonists who did it on an informal basis in the Ohio valley area. All of this almost exactly 100 years before the Republican party was formed. That's the only historically verified instance of germ warfare being deliberately used against indians in America.
Dave
53 - Dave Nalle
Sounds pretty cool, Victor. Why isn't it being tried out by any US states? This sounds like the kind of thing Tommy Thompson would have picked up on when he was a governor.
Dave
54 - Eric Olsen
"The blankets they give the indians
Only make them die"
Michael Franks, "Antonio's Song"
55 - Victor Plenty
Microfinance is working in parts of the United States, albeit slowly. I know of at least two U.S. programs with direct ties to the Grameen Bank. One started in New York City in 1996, but does not seem to have its own web site. Some information on it is available at the Grameen Foundation's site: Project Enterprise
The other is located in Dallas, Texas, dates back to 1997, and is known as The PLAN Fund.
56 - gonzo marx
Dave Nalle sez...
*That's the only historically verified instance of germ warfare being deliberately used against indians in America.*
fair enuff..i will gladly stand corrected under the terms "historically verified"
so we will stick with some GOP fun...
howabout Custer and the Lakota Sioux
the idea there was to "civilize" the natives by riding into their villages and wiping out the old foklks, women and children ...basically because they could nto find the warriors...and this tactic would "stop their breeding"
that example decent enough and historically accurate?
no worries Mr. Nalle...now that you have shed any semblance of independance and embraced your inner Republican it is all good...
Excelsior!
57 - Jon Sobel
Talking about history is fun, but it's kind of silly to debate what the GOP and the Dems (or Whigs or whatever) stood for a century or two ago. I don't think Lincoln would recognize today's GOP, and I'm not so sure FDR would recognize today's Dems either. What matters is that returning some power to the Democrats now would give us at least a half a chance of rescuing our economy (not to mention our national reputation). In my opinion.
"I just figured the Democrats were back in power."
- Abe Simpson, when asked why he didn't question why he was receiving mysterious checks in the mail.
58 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I never said the Republican indian policy was good, but Custer's behavior was hardly part of that policy. He was completely out of control and often acted in direct defiance of orders from Washington. Massacres were not part of the policy, they were just Custer's unique way of implementing the policy. The actual indian policy was incredibly wrongheaded for other reasons, but the point remains true that the Republicans THOUGHT they were doing it for the good of the indians - but the philosophy behind it was arrogant and foolish and the execution sucked.
You want to really come down on indian policy, check out the Dawes Sevrality Act sometime.
Dave