Originally Posted by James50

I like to know where people are coming from before I start telling them they are wrong (or evil.)

I don't think they *want* a return to what TGB is mentioning. I just don't think they particularly care that it's an inevitable side-effect of what they *do* want, which is to do everything in their power, including buying government, to acquire as much wealth and profit as they can. Then again, this is a problem with the concept of publicly-traded companies; they do have a responsibility to maximize profits to shareholders and do whatever is legal in order to do so, and that is often at odds with advocacy for the middle/working class interests.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... look at the steepness of the curve again -

The GWB Administration made a huge mess through its own crony-capitalist policies, and ensured that when things went bad they would go really bad. Think of alcoholism. One can go through weekend benders and then dry out enough on Sunday afternoon and evening to be presentable at work. But the alcohol causes a little more cirrhosis every bender. Imperceptible at first, the cirrhosis eventually causes cumulative and eventually irreversible damage if one doesn't eventually give up the bad drinking habit.

The Bush Administration put profits first. It pushed the offshoring of industrial jobs so that Americans could rely increasingly on a service economy. It got a profitable war -- and financed it with, of all things, tax cuts for the profiteers among other rich people. It pushed a speculative boom based on predatory lending and assumptions that real estate could never be underpriced.

Drunks can get sober, but they can't undo the cirrhosis. The economy is strong enough to put up with some abuse through bad business practices. But eventually a healthy hard drinker gets sick.

- there's no way that even the most stupefied of Idiot America are going to assume that momentum of the greatest downturn since the Great Depression stopped on the day of Obama's inauguration and anything could be done by either he or anyone else to impede that momentum in matter of a couple of years.

You would be surprised at how stupid people can be. Many people voted for Dubya, and pluralities have voted for such people as Scott Walker and Rick Scott.

If that is not the case, then Americans deserve exactly what they will get - another deflationary downturn that will make the last one seem like a cakewalk, an acceleration of permanent job loss, an increasing divergence in incomes that will devastate the bottom 90% incomes and begin to reach deep into the bottom tiers of the top 10%, and social unrest that will make the 60s seem quaint. All leading to a Progressive landslide in 2016.

The Hard Right still believes that it can entrench its power -- and probably form the "Permanent Republican Majority" through culling the electorate and then perhaps sundry forms of repression. No Progressive backlash will ever be possible -- unless by "progressive" one means either a military coup, defeat by one or more foreign powers, or a leftist insurrection.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Did anyone else watch any of the Republican debate? It is mind-boggling. It was in New Hampshire, the questions came from voters, and many of the questions were from what I would call a centrist perspective. One guy, a businessman, had the temerity to ask whether the Tea Party might scare some independents off. The candidates fell all over each other praising the TP. All they can talk about is how the magical private sector will save us as soon as the government is more or less eliminated. Romney came across as slightly more reasonable--Pawlenty came across as a complete jerk because he wasn't willing to defend his use of the word "Obamneycare" on Fox News Sunday, where my old roommate Chris Wallace really did himself proud, giving Pawlenty quite a going over. Bachman got a big applause line by announcing that she is now in the race.

I couldn't decide whether they will inevitably self-destruct or whether this is the end of America as I have known it.

Ron Paul, of course, wants to do away with the Fed and go back to gold-based currency.

Incidentally, I learned today that Rick Perry wants to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, which makes him politically insane, if you are wondering, James, in my opinion.

Anyone else tune in?

Detroit Tigers vs. Tampa Bay Rays. The Tigers are worth watching... and I can see them as a playoff team. I expected to see the debate as a transcript, and I am glad that I got to see the Tigers pull off an extra-inning win of a pitching duel. Pitching duels arguably have the most drama.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't think they *want* a return to what TGB is mentioning. I just don't think they particularly care that it's an inevitable side-effect of what they *do* want, which is to do everything in their power, including buying government, to acquire as much wealth and profit as they can. Then again, this is a problem with the concept of publicly-traded companies; they do have a responsibility to maximize profits to shareholders and do whatever is legal in order to do so, and that is often at odds with advocacy for the middle/working class interests.

I thought "they" were the Republican candidates or the Tea Party, not corporations in general.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

And I do not think a Glided Age is what they want. You may have some good reasons to oppose them on the basis that their policies will lead to a Gilded Age. What bothers me is the conclusion that a Gilded Age is their goal.

If I were to step into the head of a Tea Partier, I think what I would find is someone who is tired of government intrusion into their lives, tired of government that is always asking for more in resources while doing a poor job with what they currently have, and tired of a disrespectful tone for their beliefs. Government appears as a hungry beast on the prowl, a great machine that cares for no one except its masters. The Tea Party has strong traces of anarchy.

I see no evidence that they actually yearn for more inequality.

James50

I think it depends on who you're talking about. I've never seen the Tea Party as a monolith but as a loose coalition of paleoconservatives, libertarians, and fundamentalists held together by a disdain for New Deal social engineering. Out of those groups, libertarians are the only people that seem to romanticize the pre-Progressive era but I would hesitate to say that this means they're for greater inequality.

I think that most libertarians I've met or conversed with online don't want more inequality because they believe that inequality comes about when the government favors some individuals more than others, and that otherwise every person has an equal amount of potential and should be judged by how they realize it. These people see human nature as good in its base form but quick to be goaded into doing what is easy instead of applying itself. Therefore a great deal of them romanticize the pre-Progressive era because it created men like Carnegie who started out poor, applied themselves into prosperity, and then voluntarily gave some of what they earned to the needy. They don't want a 'new Gilded age' only in the sense that they believe that the old one in its current form is a boogieman taught in government funded US history classes.

I think that there are conservatives in this country that think it is justifiable for this country to take a hit if it benefits both themselves and other countries but while they're incredibly powerful, they're few in number.

OMG! Look, look at this! Look at this!!!

Medicare Costs are going crazy!!!


OMG, we have to end Medicare! The country can't afford this! We need to listen to bold, smart people like Ryan and all those GOP folks!

OMG, we have to turn this over to the private insurers! Give gramps a coupon to shop some really great insurance policies!

Wait what is this????



Oh, ah, ah, gee, well, ah ah
- never mind.

Huntsman takes a page from the Reagan playbook Uh Oh!

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman will join the race for president next Tuesday.

Sources familiar with the plans told POLITICO Tuesday morning that Huntsman will announce at Liberty State Park in New Jersey, with the Statue of Liberty in the background. The park is the same site where Ronald Reagan formally kicked off his 1980 general election campaign.

Huntsman said that his time viewing the country from the outside while serving as U.S. ambassador to China helped convince him to run.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1PHt5mmSk

James may well be right that most Tea Partiers do not actively desire a return to the Gilded Age. But that's the beauty of the propaganda that the Republican Party has been pushing since Reagan: they have convinced millions of well-meaning people that the free market will serve everyone best. They have convinced them that government is evil and parasitic. In any case, however, we are well on our way to the Gilded Age already--the day isn't far off when it will be harder for a poor kid to go to college than it was in 1900--indeed it might already be here. The results, not peoples' intentions, are what count.

The effective rebound may well not come until the next Awakening, and then, like the Progressive Era, it will be tentative and quite incomplete.

Nice job on the graph, Playwright. Very nice.

The Republican debate was pretty tame (boring) and Michele Bachmann made a nice showing.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think it depends on who you're talking about. I've never seen the Tea Party as a monolith but as a loose coalition of paleoconservatives, libertarians, and fundamentalists held together by a disdain for New Deal social engineering. Out of those groups, libertarians are the only people that seem to romanticize the pre-Progressive era but I would hesitate to say that this means they're for greater inequality.

I think that most libertarians I've met or conversed with online don't want more inequality because they believe that inequality comes about when the government favors some individuals more than others, and that otherwise every person has an equal amount of potential and should be judged by how they realize it. These people see human nature as good in its base form but quick to be goaded into doing what is easy instead of applying itself. Therefore a great deal of them romanticize the pre-Progressive era because it created men like Carnegie who started out poor, applied themselves into prosperity, and then voluntarily gave some of what they earned to the needy. They don't want a 'new Gilded age' only in the sense that they believe that the old one in its current form is a boogieman taught in government funded US history classes.

I think that there are conservatives in this country that think it is justifiable for this country to take a hit if it benefits both themselves and other countries but while they're incredibly powerful, they're few in number.

Thanks, that article in The Atlantic is very interesting (The Rise of the New Global Elite)

The good news —- and the bad news —- for America is that the nation’s own super-elite is rapidly adjusting to this more global perspective. The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.

I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”

More $$$billions for Egypt

Originally Posted by James50

I thought "they" were the Republican candidates or the Tea Party, not corporations in general.

Unfortunately, while it may not have started out that way I think Big Business has hitched its wagon to the Tea Party Express in many areas, as they see an awkward toddler of a movement they can co-opt. I don't know that the current Tea Party-endorsed set of candidates can be separated from the economic elites who stand to personally benefit (at least for a while until the people have really had it) from continued shifts of wealth to the wealthiest people and Big Business at the expense of regular folks and small businesses.

Originally Posted by James50

And I do not think a Glided Age is what they want.

Depends on who you're talking about. The rank and file Tea Party dupe, no. But he or she IS a dupe. A new Gilded Age is what the corporations that fund the program and control their puppets in the Republican Party (and a sizable percentage of the Democratic Party, too) want -- and what they want is what matters. Until it becomes obvious enough to run afoul of what everyone else wants in a way that can't be ignored any longer, which seems to be happening.

EDIT: Actually, let me qualify that. There's an economic philosophy that believes that inequality is good for the economy, that its driving force is the desire of the rich to get richer and that encouraging them to do so makes the economy perform better and is, in the long run, better for everyone. Someone who sincerely believes in that philosophy might well desire a return to the Gilded Age because he or she sincerely believes that that was when things were run the way they should be.

Originally Posted by James50

And I do not think a Glided Age is what they want. You may have some good reasons to oppose them on the basis that their policies will lead to a Gilded Age. What bothers me is the conclusion that a Gilded Age is their goal.

If I were to step into the head of a Tea Partier, I think what I would find is someone who is tired of government intrusion into their lives, tired of government that is always asking for more in resources while doing a poor job with what they currently have, and tired of a disrespectful tone for their beliefs. Government appears as a hungry beast on the prowl, a great machine that cares for no one except its masters. The Tea Party has strong traces of anarchy.

I see no evidence that they actually yearn for more inequality.

James50

Most of the Republicans I am around think either:

1. That they will be rich eventually, only if the "evil gummit" quits "stealing" their money.

2. That ALL rich people deserve their wealth and any attempt to tax it is "Communism" and a result of envy by "lazy people that want to take other people's money".

3. Poor people are lazy and deserve no help

4. Or, they support a strong social safety net and progressive taxation, but vote Republican anyway because of social issues.



So they are either selfish jerks or so scared of gay people getting married that they would rather let the poor starve than let gay people get married.

Originally Posted by Odin

Most of the Republicans I am around think either:

1. That they will be rich eventually, only if the "evil gummit" quits "stealing" their money.

2. That ALL rich people deserve their wealth and any attempt to tax it is "Communism" and a result of envy by "lazy people that want to take other people's money".

3. Poor people are lazy and deserve no help

4. Or, they support a strong social safety net and progressive taxation, but vote Republican anyway because of social issues.



So they are either selfish jerks or so scared of gay people getting married that they would rather let the poor starve than let gay people get married.

One of my favorite comments of those who watched the Republican shin dig last evening.

If they were puppets, we could see the strings, but the big corporations have their hands so far up these Republican butts, they qualify as Muppets.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Unfortunately, while it may not have started out that way I think Big Business has hitched its wagon to the Tea Party Express in many areas, as they see an awkward toddler of a movement they can co-opt. I don't know that the current Tea Party-endorsed set of candidates can be separated from the economic elites who stand to personally benefit (at least for a while until the people have really had it) from continued shifts of wealth to the wealthiest people and Big Business at the expense of regular folks and small businesses.

Don't forget that what really set the Tea Party types off was TARP which was designed to help the "big boys". They were as much anti-corporate as anti-government at their inception. Indeed, it was the seeming combination of the two in the passing TARP that proved the overweening nature of government was going to new heights.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

Most of the Republicans I am around think either:

1. That they will be rich eventually, only if the "evil gummit" quits "stealing" their money.

2. That ALL rich people deserve their wealth and any attempt to tax it is "Communism" and a result of envy by "lazy people that want to take other people's money".

3. Poor people are lazy and deserve no help

4. Or, they support a strong social safety net and progressive taxation, but vote Republican anyway because of social issues.

So they are either selfish jerks or so scared of gay people getting married that they would rather let the poor starve than let gay people get married.

You need to get out more. Or perhaps you are just seeing what you want to see.

Or on the other hand, politics in Minnesota may be the most unfathomable in the country. Maybe that puts you at a disadvantage when you try to lay that template across the rest of the country.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

You need to get out more. Or perhaps you are just seeing what you want to see.

Or on the other hand, politics in Minnesota may be the most unfathomable in the country. Maybe that puts you at a disadvantage when you try to lay that template across the rest of the country.

James50

Actually, Odin's list pretty much sums up the political beliefs I run into in Pennsyltucky. #4 especially. Democrats made a very big mistake in the Awakening when they scared away Catholics which is usually what #4 tends to be.

It also doesn't help when the poor are portrayed as being racial minorities who are drug-addicted & near sociopathic as television shows like Law & Order does.

But then again Law & Order openly shows police over stepping their bounds unapologetically, which is quite disgusting IMO.

Quite frankly this is the direction that everything has been going in since the Awakening, culturally, socially, economically, etc. Being a saeculum of anti-authoritarian values has its consequences... especially when government is seen as the major authority.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by James50

Don't forget that what really set the Tea Party types off was TARP which was designed to help the "big boys". They were as much anti-corporate as anti-government at their inception.

Initially, the Tea Party was a libertarian phenomenon and Ron Paul was heavily involved in it. Today's Tea Party, while it bears the same name, isn't the same movement.

This is a very interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Initially, the Tea Party was a libertarian phenomenon and Ron Paul was heavily involved in it. Today's Tea Party, while it bears the same name, isn't the same movement.

The tea party is not a coherent set of interests. It's merely a re-branding of "conservatives" of various stripes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James may well be right that most Tea Partiers do not actively desire a return to the Gilded Age. But that's the beauty of the propaganda that the Republican Party has been pushing since Reagan: they have convinced millions of well-meaning people that the free market will serve everyone best. They have convinced them that government is evil and parasitic. In any case, however, we are well on our way to the Gilded Age already--the day isn't far off when it will be harder for a poor kid to go to college than it was in 1900--indeed it might already be here. The results, not peoples' intentions, are what count.

The effective rebound may well not come until the next Awakening, and then, like the Progressive Era, it will be tentative and quite incomplete.

Nice job on the graph, Playwright. Very nice.

And nicely stated of you of the discernment of the sheep being lead to slaughter from their not-so-benevolent herders.

I am in DC this week and took in the National Portrait Museum. Highly recommended. (Saw the original Obama hope portrait from the campaign). It's Smithsonian so its free; the courtyard alone is worth more than the admission.
They have rooms with displays from various American eras. Off in one corner were a couple of rooms with representations of the Gilded Age with a gold-plated grand piano, some rather large gaudy bedroom furniture, and various Roman knock-offs along with the portraits of the various brats of some railroad or finance king.

Even taking away all the technology differences, I can tell you there is still no comparison to what the Gilded did in gilding their cages to what today's gilded have done to their own - not even close. Our gilded have already arrived and they win hands down.

The saddest part of the last quote from jpatrick is that productivity is very high in the US. But it doesn't mean that most of us have "value." If the attitude regarding value isn't similar to the Gilded Age, I don't know what is. Value according to what?

Originally Posted by annla899

The saddest part of the last quote from jpatrick is that productivity is very high in the US. But it doesn't mean that most of us have "value." If the attitude regarding value isn't similar to the Gilded Age, I don't know what is. Value according to what?

"Productivity" is defined as getting the most work done with the least labor. Therefore, the individual worker does not have value. S/he is something they want to get out the door as fast as possible, so they can do more with fewer people and get their 'productivity' numbers up. A loss sink, a liability.

And besides, they can always reach into the cage and pull out another rat, or mouse, depending on what level of employee they;re looking for. They have a huge surplus, after all.

This does not, you note, apply to the executive class, each and every member of which is so infinitely valuable they have to offered huge bribes to stay with you and not go to your competitor. Or the unemployment office. Unless, of course, they are over a certain age and get fired.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Actually, Odin's list pretty much sums up the political beliefs I run into in Pennsyltucky. #4 especially. Democrats made a very big mistake in the Awakening when they scared away Catholics which is usually what #4 tends to be.

It also doesn't help when the poor are portrayed as being racial minorities who are drug-addicted & near sociopathic as television shows like Law & Order does.

But then again Law & Order openly shows police over stepping their bounds unapologetically, which is quite disgusting IMO.

Quite frankly this is the direction that everything has been going in since the Awakening, culturally, socially, economically, etc. Being a saeculum of anti-authoritarian values has its consequences... especially when government is seen as the major authority.

~Chas'88

Yup, in my experience, #4 is by far the most common here, we are a communitarian bunch. I know a guy ( '61 cohort Joneser) one would think would be very much a liberal Dem based on his economic attitudes, but he considers himself a conservative. Why? He's a socially conservative Baptist. Oddly enough, he is a caregiver at a group home for disabled people, and is emphatically against any cuts to funding for the disabled. Yet he will vote for a Republican every time because he doesn;t want gay people getting married.

Originally Posted by Silifi

The tea party is not a coherent set of interests. It's merely a re-branding of "conservatives" of various stripes.

And Koch Family Astroturf.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"Productivity" is defined as getting the most work done with the least labor. Therefore, the individual worker does not have value. S/he is something they want to get out the door as fast as possible, so they can do more with fewer people and get their 'productivity' numbers up. A loss sink, a liability.

And besides, they can always reach into the cage and pull out another rat, or mouse, depending on what level of employee they;re looking for. They have a huge surplus, after all.

This does not, you note, apply to the executive class, each and every member of which is so infinitely valuable they have to offered huge bribes to stay with you and not go to your competitor. Or the unemployment office. Unless, of course, they are over a certain age and get fired.

BINGO! Pat gets a cookie! I feel like smacking the next talking head that says that corporations must pay their CEOs exorbitant salaries in order to "attract good talent". "Talent" at what? Corporate Graft?