IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Better is better
You say your preferred system won't happen. So of the things that *might* happen, what makes things better?
--

Drew
New Tilting at windmills
Crazy fuckers never give up.
New Regulating the ever-loving shit out of employers works
New What he ^ said.
New I don't know how many more times ...
socialism can be called upon to save capitalism. In a mature capitalist state, you are either born into the monied class or you will never get there. The wife and I were discussing this last week-end and we agreed that we could not have moved up the economic ladder as far was we have if we were starting now. The upward mobility of the lower economic classes is largely gone. We're not 1 percenters by any stretch, but we're top 10 percenters. I didn't come from that background, but through hard work, an advanced degree and, to be honest, a bit of luck I was able to move up. I have serious doubts about my kids being able to maintain their economic class, let alone move up. This is a consequence of the maturation of our capitalist system over the past 40 years.

I just didn't move up high enough to guarantee my kids their position (i.e. I didn't get to the top 1 percent). And I moved up stupidly - I did it by working, not gambling in the Wall Street Casino. My kids lack of upward mobility exists notwithstanding how well they educate themselves nor how hard they are willing to work. The old idea that in our American Capitalist System, every generation does better economically than the one that preceded it is a thing of the past. We are getting close to the natural maturity of a Capitalist system. We have the robber baron class and the lower class. This situation (only two classes: the monied and the non-monied) is the goal of all Capitalist systems. We're rapidly approaching it. You can see it in our tax laws: as a society through those laws, we allow people born into wealth to keep more of the wealth they receive from passive income (investments, dividends, etc.) than we allow people making a living through earning their income. That is, we've constructed our laws to benefit the capitalists over the working class. This is expected behavior of a capitalist system - once the capitalist class has enough money and influence to dictate to the State what is to be done, it's all over for the working class. It will collapse completely eventually, probably through a bloody revolution. It won't come soon, but I suspect my kids will live to see it.

You asked of the things that can be done in such a corrupt system in the last stages of decay and I think, now, not much. I fear we are past the tipping point. One thing that could be done is to pass a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Bill of Rights is directed at human beings. Constructs of law (i.e. corporations) have no Constitutional Rights. That would help some. Then make all elections funded publicly. No private contributions of any sort. Demand anyone broadcasting on the public's airwaves for profit, set aside "public service time" for political debates and so forth. You could eliminate lobbyists by passing a law stating that only constituents may petition their elected officials (that's all the founders envisioned anyway) and they must do so directly, no hiring of third parties to "represent them to their elected officals." There are things that could be done, but at this stage, none of those things will be done. All of these things should have been done in the preceding 40 years as we watched the consequences of the Reagan Revolution. Instead, we allowed YAN Wall Street Asshat to pass as a Progressive in 2008 and so what remains is the Right and Hard Right in our body politic; neither of which represent anyone but the monied class. That's two advanced forms of cancer that will be fatal to the People.
New Some good points.
You might enjoy DeLong's little piece - http://delong.typepa...ance-of-marx.html Or maybe not. ;-)

Over at the New York Times Room for Debate:

I have long thought that Marx's fixation on the labor theory of value made his technical economic analyses of little worth. Marx was dead certain for ontological reasons that exchange-value was created by human socially-necessary labor time and by that alone, and that after its creation exchange-value could be transferred and redistributed but never enlarged or diminished. Thus he vanished into the swamp, the dark waters closed over his head, and was never seen again. READ MOAR at the Equitablog.

[...]


His NYTimes piece is here - http://www.nytimes.c...ility-to-reinvent

There are comments at all 3 places.

Cheers,
Scott.
New That's not optimism. That's delusional.
Karl Marx in his day could not believe the volume of production could possibly expand enough to reemploy those who lost their jobs as handloom weavers as well-paid machine-minders or carpet-sellers. He was wrong. The optimistic view is that our collective ingenuity will create so many things for people to do that are so attractive to the rich that they will pay through the nose for them and so recreate a middle-class society.

Um, care to consider this: http://www.shadowsta...employment-charts

Median income in the US (adjusted for inflation) between 1999 and 2012 FELL from $56,080 to $51,017. That's a 9 percent drop in median wages!

Right, tell me again how the rich are going to "pay through the nose."
New DeLong is an economist with a strong interest in history.
His Socratic-esq dialogs are entertaining - e.g. http://delong.typepa...ncial-crisis.html

He knows that it's perfectly within the capabilities of our leadership to fix our economic problems. The economics is well understood. I think that's what he's getting at - he doesn't accept that it's inevitable that we'll slouch toward the 1% owning everything and an eventual revolution of the proletariat.

He pulls his hair out like all of us over the stupidity of our politics - https://www.google.c...t+vote+republican

He's not saying our destiny is to tax the rich and have more leisure time. That is a possible outcome - we know how to do it - but it's not inevitable.

Now whether he's given a fair summary of Marx, I can't say. Marx wrote a lot and I've only read a little of his writing.

If you like graphs of how far we've fallen and where we are in our recovery, then you should read Calculated Risk if you aren't already - http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

You're welcome! ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New And Thanks!
Better articulated view that I adhere to. ;0)

http://www.nytimes.c...-would-have-known
     Dean Baker: Don't fear the robot overlords. - (Another Scott) - (33)
         Ever the apologist. - (mmoffitt) - (32)
             Eh? -NT - (Another Scott) - (22)
                 Capitalism is the enemy of the People. - (mmoffitt) - (21)
                     Wasn't aware that we weren't Capitalists in the pre-1970s... - (Another Scott) - (20)
                         he has point, as do you - (crazy) - (1)
                             Concur. Sadly. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                         Was speaking of productivity gains. - (mmoffitt) - (17)
                             I agree with Reich's thesis. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                 On Capitalism's "Success". - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                     Meh. - (Another Scott) - (14)
                                         Heh. Back to "the lessor of two evils" are we? - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                             Better is better - (drook) - (8)
                                                 Tilting at windmills - (crazy)
                                                 Regulating the ever-loving shit out of employers works -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                     What he ^ said. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 I don't know how many more times ... - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                     Some good points. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                         That's not optimism. That's delusional. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                             DeLong is an economist with a strong interest in history. - (Another Scott)
                                                         And Thanks! - (mmoffitt)
                                             LessEr. LessOr is opposite of Lessee... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                 Miss the quotation marks around it? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     Those are around the whole expression. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                         I yield. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
             the bigger problem - (boxley) - (8)
                 Hey! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     It all depends on being born into the right family . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         Not true - (crazy) - (1)
                             But ... - (drook)
                 This could be just-as-Big. Maybe terminal--for most of us. - (Ashton) - (3)
                     so you own nothing, the government rents it to you no thx -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Digital-think slogans can not be reasoned-with (or against.) -NT - (Ashton)
                     Well, you're right about that... - (dmcarls)

If nautical nonsense be what ye wish...
293 ms