13 August 2011
Breaking news from Iowa: Fall 2012 movie release scheduled!
08 August 2011
06 August 2011
The 20 most dangerous conservative organizations
The Christian Left has published a list of the 20 most dangerous conservative organizations in America. These groups stand united in a broad attempt to forever alter the face of our country: they favor various flavors of rich white men running things for their own profit behind a veneer of repressive Christianity.
None of this will be news to those who carefully follow the insidious web of money and influence the right has developed to manipulate elections, public policy, and fear in our country. For those who haven't had time to ferret out the links, however, this serves as a fair introduction.
Wash hands carefully after reading.
-Dr.DRL
None of this will be news to those who carefully follow the insidious web of money and influence the right has developed to manipulate elections, public policy, and fear in our country. For those who haven't had time to ferret out the links, however, this serves as a fair introduction.
Wash hands carefully after reading.
-Dr.DRL
03 August 2011
My latest column: the value of public lands
Here's my latest column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:
Public land evidence of government's good
If one spends enough time listening to anti-government ideologues like Rep. Michele Bachmann, it’s possible to conclude that “the government” does very little that’s worthwhile.
That position is easily proven wrong by a simple visit to any of our nation’s public lands. The federal public lands represent the legacy of 19th century American expansion and the wisdom of the 20th century conservation movement.
Today a handful of agencies manage about 575 million acres anyone can access for recreation or other pursuits — an area more than 10 times the size of the state of Minnesota. These lands stand as a symbol of democracy: they are open to all, often at no charge, to use on your own terms, on your own schedule, as often as you wish. There is no private equivalent because they fulfill a role that simply would not exist without government action.
The agencies
Our public lands are primarily managed by four federal agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
The Forest Service is familiar to many Minnesotans, who know of the Superior National Forest, rightly famous for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or the Chippewa National Forest, home to two of the state’s largest lakes, Leech and Winnibigoshish. But do they know the service manages 192 million acres of forest and grasslands in other states that absorb more than 200 million recreational visits each year? The local economic impact of sustainable timber harvests from these publicly owned forests should not be overlooked either.
The National Park Service is also well known, primarily for the “crown jewels” of the system: Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon national parks. But the NPS is responsible for 391 other sites nationwide, including not only natural wonders such as Glacier National Park but also historical structures, battlefields, ancient cliff dwellings, wild-and-scenic rivers, national trails and recreation areas. The agency’s 84 million acres are found in 49 states and served 281 million recreational visitors in 2010.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary steward of public lands dedicated to wildlife habitat, especially for waterfowl. It is responsible for 96 million acres of wildlife refuges, including the 14 refuges in our state, including the nearby Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. These lands provide not only habitat, but hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching and other recreational opportunities to nearly 40 million visitors per year.
The Bureau of Land Management is the largest of all the federal land agencies. Its 245 million acres are confined to the Western states and include vast tracts of range land, desert and mountains. It serves about 55 million recreational visitors annually while providing grazing, mineral development, timber and other natural resources for economic development.
Foresight
The key is that all of these lands are, by definition, public. We all own them collectively. We benefit from the recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and other ecosystem services they provide.
A simple glance at history will tell us that had these lands not been protected by the federal government they would have been destroyed or fenced off long ago. Private interests would have cluttered the Grand Canyon with tourist developments. They would have logged Yellowstone and Yosemite. They would have mined, grazed and drilled every scrap of valuable resources long ago for private profit, then developed the remains into expensive condos for the wealthy, leaving little, if anything, behind for the rest of us to enjoy.
Some bright Americans more than a century ago realized that the private sector wasn’t always perfect and that government action was sometimes a much better option. Their leaders — including Republican heroes such as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot — helped establish the policies that maintain the federal public lands as part of our national heritage.
Pinchot coined the term “conservation” to describe these policies, defining it as action that produced “the greatest good, for the largest number of people, over the longest period of time.”
Unfortunately many of our current leaders are so blinded by their own anti-government ideology that they can’t even recognize the value in what was considered common sense back when horses still pulled streetcars in Washington, DC.
-Dr.DRL
Public land evidence of government's good
If one spends enough time listening to anti-government ideologues like Rep. Michele Bachmann, it’s possible to conclude that “the government” does very little that’s worthwhile.
That position is easily proven wrong by a simple visit to any of our nation’s public lands. The federal public lands represent the legacy of 19th century American expansion and the wisdom of the 20th century conservation movement.
Today a handful of agencies manage about 575 million acres anyone can access for recreation or other pursuits — an area more than 10 times the size of the state of Minnesota. These lands stand as a symbol of democracy: they are open to all, often at no charge, to use on your own terms, on your own schedule, as often as you wish. There is no private equivalent because they fulfill a role that simply would not exist without government action.
The agencies
Our public lands are primarily managed by four federal agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
The Forest Service is familiar to many Minnesotans, who know of the Superior National Forest, rightly famous for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or the Chippewa National Forest, home to two of the state’s largest lakes, Leech and Winnibigoshish. But do they know the service manages 192 million acres of forest and grasslands in other states that absorb more than 200 million recreational visits each year? The local economic impact of sustainable timber harvests from these publicly owned forests should not be overlooked either.
The National Park Service is also well known, primarily for the “crown jewels” of the system: Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon national parks. But the NPS is responsible for 391 other sites nationwide, including not only natural wonders such as Glacier National Park but also historical structures, battlefields, ancient cliff dwellings, wild-and-scenic rivers, national trails and recreation areas. The agency’s 84 million acres are found in 49 states and served 281 million recreational visitors in 2010.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary steward of public lands dedicated to wildlife habitat, especially for waterfowl. It is responsible for 96 million acres of wildlife refuges, including the 14 refuges in our state, including the nearby Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. These lands provide not only habitat, but hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching and other recreational opportunities to nearly 40 million visitors per year.
The Bureau of Land Management is the largest of all the federal land agencies. Its 245 million acres are confined to the Western states and include vast tracts of range land, desert and mountains. It serves about 55 million recreational visitors annually while providing grazing, mineral development, timber and other natural resources for economic development.
Foresight
The key is that all of these lands are, by definition, public. We all own them collectively. We benefit from the recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and other ecosystem services they provide.
A simple glance at history will tell us that had these lands not been protected by the federal government they would have been destroyed or fenced off long ago. Private interests would have cluttered the Grand Canyon with tourist developments. They would have logged Yellowstone and Yosemite. They would have mined, grazed and drilled every scrap of valuable resources long ago for private profit, then developed the remains into expensive condos for the wealthy, leaving little, if anything, behind for the rest of us to enjoy.
Some bright Americans more than a century ago realized that the private sector wasn’t always perfect and that government action was sometimes a much better option. Their leaders — including Republican heroes such as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot — helped establish the policies that maintain the federal public lands as part of our national heritage.
Pinchot coined the term “conservation” to describe these policies, defining it as action that produced “the greatest good, for the largest number of people, over the longest period of time.”
Unfortunately many of our current leaders are so blinded by their own anti-government ideology that they can’t even recognize the value in what was considered common sense back when horses still pulled streetcars in Washington, DC.
-Dr.DRL
21 July 2011
It's the Conservatism, Stupid!
I ran across this column from 2006 and felt the core argument deserved repeating: conservatism represents everything that is wrong with America-- and has for at least 200 years! You name the issue (slavery, women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, Civil Rights, McCarthyism, sexual liberation, environmental regulation, and on ad nauseum) and the conservative position was always wrong, always backward, always looking to the past to divide us instead of toward the future to unite us.
The original column by Paul Waldman ran at TomPaine.com in 2006. It's worth a read yet today.
The original column by Paul Waldman ran at TomPaine.com in 2006. It's worth a read yet today.
13 July 2011
Ever wonder where all that conservative legislation comes from?
Isn't it puzzling how one state legislature after another can suddenly produce very similar bills? And that they are almost always quite conservative, pro-business, anti-labor, and anti-regulation?
For those who didn't already know, the answer to that puzzle is ALEC: The American Legislative Exchange Council. For years they've operated as a sort of conservative back-bench, churning out "model legislation" which they hand to (mostly GOP) legislators on high-priced junkets. Then-- amazingly --this model legislation gets introduced around the country. What better law making process could ALEC's corporate funders hope to buy?
This year, due in part to the conservative overreach in Wisconsin, the media is finally paying attention to ALEC. Today a new site called ALEC Exposed was launched, literally exposing over 800 model bills funded by this conservative operation.
Take a look. It's certainly an example of the best government money can buy. Just keep in mind whose money is buying it-- and what they think of workers, kids, or the environment.
-Dr.DRL
For those who didn't already know, the answer to that puzzle is ALEC: The American Legislative Exchange Council. For years they've operated as a sort of conservative back-bench, churning out "model legislation" which they hand to (mostly GOP) legislators on high-priced junkets. Then-- amazingly --this model legislation gets introduced around the country. What better law making process could ALEC's corporate funders hope to buy?
This year, due in part to the conservative overreach in Wisconsin, the media is finally paying attention to ALEC. Today a new site called ALEC Exposed was launched, literally exposing over 800 model bills funded by this conservative operation.
Take a look. It's certainly an example of the best government money can buy. Just keep in mind whose money is buying it-- and what they think of workers, kids, or the environment.
-Dr.DRL
06 July 2011
My latest newspaper column: class warfare is real- and we're loosing!
Class warfare is real; we're losing
St. Cloud (MN) Times
July 6, 2011
Americans don’t like to talk about class. If pressed, the vast majority of us will identify as “middle class” and simply label those who are visibly more wealthy as “rich” and those who struggle to meet basic needs as “poor.”
Certainly very few Americans would accept the notion that we are somehow involved in class warfare. But in truth we are deeply engaged in an ongoing struggle between classes that pits the very wealthy against essentially everyone else.
The social contract that binds our common interests has, sadly, fallen apart. That is evident to some members of the upper class, including investment guru Warren Buffett, who in 2006 admitted “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
In the wake of the Great Recession, it’s actually surprising that more people aren’t talking about it. The impacts of the recession fell hardest upon working families. About 30 million people remain unemployed or underemployed despite the official declaration that the recession ended in 2010.
But in 2008, the year the Dow fell 38 percent, the richest 400 American taxpayers reported an average of $153 million in capital gains. Due to the lower tax rate on capital gains, these wealthy Americans paid a 15 percent rate on their millions while members of the “middle class,” who reported most of their income as wages, typically paid effective tax rates of 20 percent or more. During the Great Recession, the median wealth of American families dropped by 36 percent, while the wealth of the top 1 percent fell just 11 percent.
Teddy Roosevelt
A century ago, the 1912 presidential election was marked by open class conflict. Conservative Republican incumbent William Howard Taft was challenged not only by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, but by socialist Eugene Debs to his left. Theodore Roosevelt, unhappy with Taft’s abandonment of the progressive reforms that marked TR’s presidency, formed a fourth party. Roosevelt’s Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party platform included calls to establish a national health service, a program of social insurance to support the elderly and disabled, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage for women, workers’ compensation, new estate and income taxes, and the eight-hour workday.
In this case the middle class voted its interests; the Republican incumbent won only eight electoral votes that year and as we know most of the Progressive reforms were eventually adopted under Wilson’s Democratic administration.
Representing “us”?
The fact that power flows from wealth should be of no surprise. The cost of running today’s political campaigns — and the access to influential people that comes with money — means very few members of the “middle class” are elected to federal office any longer.
In 2009, when the unemployment rate exceeded 10 percent, one study found there were 261 millionaires in Congress. That these millionaires and the people they associate with favor policies that enhance their fortunes is not that shocking. One might expect a millionaires’ club to promote policies that focus on limiting inflation rather than job creation, prioritize debt reduction over providing public services, or favor tax cuts for themselves instead of investments in education, infrastructure, or the environment. What is surprising that the lack of outrage in response.
The puzzle today is not that the wealthy are organized to protect their own interests, or even that they have largely succeeded. Is is that the rest of us — the 99 percent who are not hedge fund managers, CEOs, or bank presidents — are not outraged. Both major parties are complicit. Our political debates have come down to not what can be done to help the middle class, but how we can best protect tax cuts for the very rich. The government of our state was shut down over that very issue. The Republican majority in Congress is pushing the country toward default on its debts for the same reason.
Why do we accept accusations of “class warfare” when someone suggests raising taxes on the wealthy, but are silent when policies punish the majority of Americans who make up the middle class as a matter of routine business?
Certainly Teddy Roosevelt would want to know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the crazy comments at the SC Times for more fun!
St. Cloud (MN) Times
July 6, 2011
Americans don’t like to talk about class. If pressed, the vast majority of us will identify as “middle class” and simply label those who are visibly more wealthy as “rich” and those who struggle to meet basic needs as “poor.”
Certainly very few Americans would accept the notion that we are somehow involved in class warfare. But in truth we are deeply engaged in an ongoing struggle between classes that pits the very wealthy against essentially everyone else.
The social contract that binds our common interests has, sadly, fallen apart. That is evident to some members of the upper class, including investment guru Warren Buffett, who in 2006 admitted “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
In the wake of the Great Recession, it’s actually surprising that more people aren’t talking about it. The impacts of the recession fell hardest upon working families. About 30 million people remain unemployed or underemployed despite the official declaration that the recession ended in 2010.
But in 2008, the year the Dow fell 38 percent, the richest 400 American taxpayers reported an average of $153 million in capital gains. Due to the lower tax rate on capital gains, these wealthy Americans paid a 15 percent rate on their millions while members of the “middle class,” who reported most of their income as wages, typically paid effective tax rates of 20 percent or more. During the Great Recession, the median wealth of American families dropped by 36 percent, while the wealth of the top 1 percent fell just 11 percent.
Teddy Roosevelt
A century ago, the 1912 presidential election was marked by open class conflict. Conservative Republican incumbent William Howard Taft was challenged not only by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, but by socialist Eugene Debs to his left. Theodore Roosevelt, unhappy with Taft’s abandonment of the progressive reforms that marked TR’s presidency, formed a fourth party. Roosevelt’s Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party platform included calls to establish a national health service, a program of social insurance to support the elderly and disabled, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage for women, workers’ compensation, new estate and income taxes, and the eight-hour workday.
In this case the middle class voted its interests; the Republican incumbent won only eight electoral votes that year and as we know most of the Progressive reforms were eventually adopted under Wilson’s Democratic administration.
Representing “us”?
The fact that power flows from wealth should be of no surprise. The cost of running today’s political campaigns — and the access to influential people that comes with money — means very few members of the “middle class” are elected to federal office any longer.
In 2009, when the unemployment rate exceeded 10 percent, one study found there were 261 millionaires in Congress. That these millionaires and the people they associate with favor policies that enhance their fortunes is not that shocking. One might expect a millionaires’ club to promote policies that focus on limiting inflation rather than job creation, prioritize debt reduction over providing public services, or favor tax cuts for themselves instead of investments in education, infrastructure, or the environment. What is surprising that the lack of outrage in response.
The puzzle today is not that the wealthy are organized to protect their own interests, or even that they have largely succeeded. Is is that the rest of us — the 99 percent who are not hedge fund managers, CEOs, or bank presidents — are not outraged. Both major parties are complicit. Our political debates have come down to not what can be done to help the middle class, but how we can best protect tax cuts for the very rich. The government of our state was shut down over that very issue. The Republican majority in Congress is pushing the country toward default on its debts for the same reason.
Why do we accept accusations of “class warfare” when someone suggests raising taxes on the wealthy, but are silent when policies punish the majority of Americans who make up the middle class as a matter of routine business?
Certainly Teddy Roosevelt would want to know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the crazy comments at the SC Times for more fun!
02 March 2011
My latest newspaper column: class warfare is back!
My regular column ran again today, March 2nd, under the header "Class warfare is nothing new." I've linked to the St. Cloud Times but their archive is only free for seven days after publication, so I've pasted the text in below as well.
-Dr.DRL
--------------------------------------------------
Class warfare is nothing new
St. Cloud (MN) Times March 2, 2011
Recent events in Wisconsin eerily echo those of a century ago, when progressive reformers in both political parties sought to constrain the power of corporations and the influence of money in politics for the good of the nation. They saw a healthy working class and a growing middle class as bulwarks of democracy and central to a strong economy. The consolidation of economic and political power by corporations representing a wealthy minority was seen as a threat to the very character of America. Fears of class warfare were not unfounded, as radical representatives of socialist and anarchist groups marched to protest the growing power of corporations while those who ran the corporations sought to cement their power over the working class.
Early 20th century
In his 1905 State of the Union message Republican President Theodore Roosevelt noted “The fortunes amassed through corporate organization are so large, and vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of necessity to give ... the government, which represents the people as a whole ... some effective power of supervision over their corporate use.” Antitrust laws and other regulations were enacted to constrain the power of corporations and to weigh their political and economic interests against those of the working and middle classes they employed.
Though widespread in the tumultuous years of the Great Depression, accusations of class warfare fell to the margins of American politics in the 1950s, reflecting an amicable truce made possible by a rapidly expanding economy, new opportunities for education and increasing geographical mobility that began to erode some of the historical barriers that separated the working class from the wealthy. The corresponding growth of the middle class — buoyed by rising wages, access to education, widespread home ownership and relative political stability — yielded a period of social and economic progress unmatched in our history.
Income disparity
Unfortunately we’ve lost much of the ground gained during the past half-century as political power and wealth have again become increasingly concentrated at the very top of pyramid, while the wages and rights of workers have been curtailed. Income disparity has risen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Today the top 1 percent own 38 percent of all wealth in the United States and the top 10 percent control 71 percent, leaving a relatively small piece of pie to be split among the 270 million Americans who don’t fit in either group.
Union membership was at its highest in the late 1950s; today only 15 percent of all workers are unionized and the collective voice of labor has become muted as a result. Nonunion workers have taking to questioning why unions receive “unfair” wages and benefits, instead of demanding more from their own employers.
In a shocking rebuke to Roosevelt, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United last year effectively ended limits to political spending by corporations, handing them a massive cudgel to use against unions, politicians and even government agencies that might question their interests or motives.
It seems Roosevelt’s opinion that “in order to insure a healthy social and industrial life, every big corporation should be held responsible by, and be accountable to, some sovereign strong enough to control its conduct” has been forgotten. One result is the growing influence of corporations on elections, clearly evident in the financial support the anti-labor Koch Industries provided for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign in 2010.
Ongoing class warfare
Today we are seeing the results of this long process played out on the streets of Madison and other state capitals. Despite limited coverage by the mainstream media, hundreds of thousands of Americans have stood up to protest Wisconsin’s attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, knowing that once the public sector unions are gone the private sector comes next. Once the unions are gone, there is nothing to stand between the interests of working people and the power of corporations and the plutocrats who control them.
As protesters in Madison have been pointing out in recent days, “It’s only class warfare when the workers fight back.” The truth is that class warfare has been going on in America for decades, but we’ve all been too polite to talk about it.
###
-Dr.DRL
--------------------------------------------------
Class warfare is nothing new
St. Cloud (MN) Times March 2, 2011
Recent events in Wisconsin eerily echo those of a century ago, when progressive reformers in both political parties sought to constrain the power of corporations and the influence of money in politics for the good of the nation. They saw a healthy working class and a growing middle class as bulwarks of democracy and central to a strong economy. The consolidation of economic and political power by corporations representing a wealthy minority was seen as a threat to the very character of America. Fears of class warfare were not unfounded, as radical representatives of socialist and anarchist groups marched to protest the growing power of corporations while those who ran the corporations sought to cement their power over the working class.
Early 20th century
In his 1905 State of the Union message Republican President Theodore Roosevelt noted “The fortunes amassed through corporate organization are so large, and vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of necessity to give ... the government, which represents the people as a whole ... some effective power of supervision over their corporate use.” Antitrust laws and other regulations were enacted to constrain the power of corporations and to weigh their political and economic interests against those of the working and middle classes they employed.
Though widespread in the tumultuous years of the Great Depression, accusations of class warfare fell to the margins of American politics in the 1950s, reflecting an amicable truce made possible by a rapidly expanding economy, new opportunities for education and increasing geographical mobility that began to erode some of the historical barriers that separated the working class from the wealthy. The corresponding growth of the middle class — buoyed by rising wages, access to education, widespread home ownership and relative political stability — yielded a period of social and economic progress unmatched in our history.
Income disparity
Unfortunately we’ve lost much of the ground gained during the past half-century as political power and wealth have again become increasingly concentrated at the very top of pyramid, while the wages and rights of workers have been curtailed. Income disparity has risen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Today the top 1 percent own 38 percent of all wealth in the United States and the top 10 percent control 71 percent, leaving a relatively small piece of pie to be split among the 270 million Americans who don’t fit in either group.
Union membership was at its highest in the late 1950s; today only 15 percent of all workers are unionized and the collective voice of labor has become muted as a result. Nonunion workers have taking to questioning why unions receive “unfair” wages and benefits, instead of demanding more from their own employers.
It seems Roosevelt’s opinion that “in order to insure a healthy social and industrial life, every big corporation should be held responsible by, and be accountable to, some sovereign strong enough to control its conduct” has been forgotten. One result is the growing influence of corporations on elections, clearly evident in the financial support the anti-labor Koch Industries provided for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign in 2010.
Ongoing class warfare
Today we are seeing the results of this long process played out on the streets of Madison and other state capitals. Despite limited coverage by the mainstream media, hundreds of thousands of Americans have stood up to protest Wisconsin’s attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, knowing that once the public sector unions are gone the private sector comes next. Once the unions are gone, there is nothing to stand between the interests of working people and the power of corporations and the plutocrats who control them.
As protesters in Madison have been pointing out in recent days, “It’s only class warfare when the workers fight back.” The truth is that class warfare has been going on in America for decades, but we’ve all been too polite to talk about it.
###
03 February 2011
On wealth, income, and power in America
I highly recommend William Domhoff's article below. First written in 2005, he's just updated the data and charts. It's the best single presentation I've seen on this critical issue.
-Dr.DRL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Dr.DRL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
02 February 2011
My latest column: Income inequality needs attention
This will make my congressperson (Michele Bachmann, Nutcase-MN) even more crazy. I hope.
--------------------------------
Income inequality needs attention
St. Cloud (MN) Times
Feb.2, 2011
Last week’s State of the Union address and the two Republican responses overlooked the problem at the very foundation of our economy: rising income inequality.
Extreme income inequality threatens our economic future. Given our consumer-based economy, if the middle and working classes do not have the means to consume the goods they help produce, demand will decline.
-Dr.DRL
--------------------------------
Income inequality needs attention
St. Cloud (MN) Times
Feb.2, 2011
Last week’s State of the Union address and the two Republican responses overlooked the problem at the very foundation of our economy: rising income inequality.
One of the complaints heard from crowds of protesters rocking Egypt in recent days is about income inequality, which has reached record levels in recent years. The fact is income distribution is far more balanced in Egypt than in the United States.
Economists and demographers use a measure called the “Gini index” to calculate income inequality. Though easy to understand it is perhaps too complicated to explain in detail here. Suffice it to say that the calculation reflects the proportional distribution of income, with an index of zero indicating total equality (i.e. every individual has an equal share) and a score of 100 indicating total inequality (i.e. one person receives all income.)
Using this method, the CIA has calculated Gini indexes for 134 nations, producing a list in which higher ranking indicates greater inequality. The worst inequality is found in Namibia (No. 1) while the most positive conditions are in Sweden (No. 134). Within this negative ranking the United States appears in 42nd place for most inequality, while Egypt is 90th.
Americans have historically been complacent about income inequality. After all, a central part of our national mythology is the “up from the bootstraps” belief that with hard work anyone can become wealthy.
But that’s simply no longer true.
Real wages — average weekly earnings corrected for inflation — peaked in 1973 and remained 8 percent below that peak in December 2010. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index increased 490 percent that period.
Even before the housing crisis and recession rocked our economy, families were struggling to pay their bills, save for college and plan for retirement. The number of Americans living in poverty is higher now than at any time since the Census Bureau started keeping track during the Eisenhower administration. Today the deck is stacked against even the middle class, most of whom can only hope for a winning lottery ticket if they aspire to break into the top 10 percent of income distribution.Extreme income inequality threatens our economic future. Given our consumer-based economy, if the middle and working classes do not have the means to consume the goods they help produce, demand will decline.
The corresponding concentration of income at the top does not help either; even the idle rich can only own so many cars or vacation homes.
The results of steeply declining demand for everything from new homes and cars to clothing and luxury items has had an all-too-real impact on our economy the past two years. Some observers, including former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, believe underlying income inequality was in fact the root cause of the recession and Wall Street’s gambling simply a symptom.
In any case, income inequality has grown rapidly the past two decades and is at a level last seen in the 1920s, before the Depression, when the richest 1 percent of the population received 23.9 percent of all income.
The income tax is a good place to start a reform program. In the era of “no new taxes” and budget austerity, this is a hard subject to broach. But public investment, funded by higher tax rates on top earners, could dramatically improve the economy and the standard of living for the bottom 99 percent of the income curve. The top marginal income tax rate has been locked at 35 percent since 2003; couples who earn tens of millions annually pay the same tax rate as those who earn $336,550.
Historically the top rates were 50 percent when Ronald Reagan was president, 70 percent under Jimmy Carter, 91 percent under Kennedy and Ike, and 92 percent under Truman. Revenues from those taxes built the interstate highways, paid for the GI Bill, funded the Cold War, landed men on the moon, expanded public education, and subsidized the information infrastructure and engineering innovations that made the modern economy possible.
It’s not that anyone is suggesting our economy should be like Egypt’s. Nor that we should necessarily look to the countries with the highest income equality (Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg) for inspiration. But the company we keep in these rankings — Nigeria, Iran, Uruguay, Uganda and Argentina are near us — should at least give us pause.
If we were to address some of the core causes of income inequality by improving our trade balance, creating disincentives for companies to outsource jobs overseas, increasing wages, investing in education and most importantly returning to a more progressive tax structure, the economy would improve along with our Gini index. But first we need the leaders of both political parties to recognize the inherent problem.-Dr.DRL
05 January 2011
My January newspaper column: what's wrong with Facebook (and America?)
Here's my January newspaper column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:
Monday’s financial headlines were dominated by Goldman Sachs’ $500 million investment in Facebook, raising the value of the privately owned Internet social media company to an estimated $50 billion.
What do we do now? Facebook
Jan. 5, 2011Monday’s financial headlines were dominated by Goldman Sachs’ $500 million investment in Facebook, raising the value of the privately owned Internet social media company to an estimated $50 billion.
All those connections between high school classmates, former colleagues and people who share an interest in online farm simulations are apparently worth more than anyone could have imagined when Facebook began as an undergraduate’s side project at Harvard in 2003.
With more than 500 million users worldwide, Facebook’s value now exceeds that of US Bank, Ford, Target, Monsanto or Visa. When Facebook goes public, as many assume it will in the next year, its market capitalization could exceed that of Boeing, Home Depot, Kraft or 3M, placing it within striking distance of Disney and McDonald’s among America’s largest corporations.
And Facebook doesn’t make a thing.
Fifty years ago, the largest corporations all made stuff. In 1961, the top 20 slots in the Fortune 500 were held by oil/chemical companies, automobile manufacturers, defense contractors, steel producers and food processors. Only one media company — CBS — was even in the top 100.
In 1961, 38 percent of American workers were producing something tangible: cars, steel, appliances, houses, oil, airplanes, bombs, etc. Today that number has fallen to 21 percent; about one in five of us actually makes something for a living now. The rest of us? Apparently we’re on Facebook.
This raises some basic questions about the future of our economy and the middle class.
The post-war American economic boom was based on the production of goods consumed domestically, relatively high wages in the manufacturing sector and public investment in education and infrastructure. The GI Bill, expansion of public universities and increased spending on K-12 education helped lift veterans and their children into the middle class, while those who did not pursue higher education could still get there by holding a union job. Still more families climbed into the middle class by sending mom into the work force, a shift that conveyed great advantages for the first generation to do so — but much less on subsequent generations when dual incomes became the status quo.Today a $50 billion company makes no products at all, but rather supplies a virtual space in which people chatter, share pictures and play games. Facebook employs a few thousand people, has no factories, no warehouses, no distribution centers, no retail arm and no maintenance shops. Its founder did not graduate from college but was a billionaire before the age of 25.
Of course, this is all legal and proper; Facebook would not have 500 million users if people didn’t want its services.
What is wrong with the bigger picture is lack of counterbalancing stories for Facebook. When was the last time you read about a hugely profitable new product — an actual manufactured good — invented by, developed in, produced by and sold to Americans that wasn’t a drug? What was the last new industry that employed thousands of Americans at wages that would ensure a place in the middle class? When was the last massive public investment in our collective future, or that of our children?
America has long been in a state of slow decline. We have become a nation of consumers, rather than producers. Incomes have stagnated, and income inequality is growing. The middle class is eroding under a mountain of debt and fears that unemployment or illness could end their American dream.
We have stopped investing in schools, instead choosing to “train” children and young adults in skills that aren’t needed for careers that may not exist when they enter the job market. Few, if any, of our elected leaders appear to think beyond the next election cycle, and horizons beyond the next quarter don’t matter to Wall Street. Today’s children may well be the first generation in American history to collectively end up worse off than their parents when they reach middle age.
That, more than the $50 billion valuation of Facebook, should be dominating the headlines as we enter 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)