tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post4815814929900806989..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Harvey on PikettyDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-18089377638058560692014-05-17T12:24:56.383-07:002014-05-17T12:24:56.383-07:00I was reminded a bit here of the fictional book _T...I was reminded a bit here of the fictional book _The Theory and<br />Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism_ by Emmanuel Goldstein<br />(from Orwell's _Nineteen Eight-Four_). The bit about "the<br />High, the Middle, and the Low":<br /><br />http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html<br />---------------<br />The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of<br />the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low,<br />when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic<br />of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more<br />than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily<br />lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society<br />in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a<br />struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over<br />and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely<br />in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when<br />they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity<br />to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by<br />the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to<br />them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon<br />as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the<br />Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves<br />become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from<br />one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle<br />begins over again.<br />====<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-9186751178980351912014-05-17T12:23:44.850-07:002014-05-17T12:23:44.850-07:00http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/business/economy...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/business/economy/the-politics-of-income-inequality.html<br />---------------<br />The Politics of Income Inequality<br />Eduardo Porter<br />MAY 13, 2014<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />The income of a typical American family has barely risen since<br />the 1970s. The share of national income captured by the<br />richest 1 percent of Americans is even higher than it was<br />at the dawn of the 20th century. . .<br /><br />Can democracy stop inequality from rising? Despite the<br />gains of the Progressive Era, the answer echoing down the<br />halls of history is not encouraging.<br /><br />Basic models of political economy hold that inequality<br />self-corrects. . .<br /><br />But that isn’t quite how the world works. For starters,<br />the poor vote less than the rich. And they don’t vote exclusively<br />based on their economic self-interest. Many Americans, rich<br />or poor, mistrust government. They support free-market capitalism<br />and view the distribution of the nation’s economic fruits as<br />roughly fair.<br /><br />The growing concentration of income can, in fact, make<br />inequality more difficult to correct, as the wealthy bring<br />their wealth to bear on the political process to maintain<br />their privilege.<br /><br />What’s more, disparities in income seem to produce political<br />polarization and gridlock, which tend to favor those who<br />receive a better deal from the prevailing rules. . .<br /><br />The American political system may eventually act against the<br />interests of the fortunate few at the very top of the pyramid<br />of success. But that may be only because many affluent,<br />powerful people just below the top notch see themselves as<br />losers. . .<br /><br />“The really upset people are those that are well in the top<br />of the distribution. . . There could be a populist uprising,<br />but that is less likely than a battle within the top 1 percent.”<br /><br />This is, indeed, reminiscent of the Progressive movement,<br />which was led not by pitchfork-wielding populists, but by<br />lawyers, college professors and others in the upper middle<br />class who saw their future prosperity and social standing<br />at risk. . .<br /><br />"The Progressive era established the basic grammar and vocabulary<br />and syntax of the American policy discussion for a century. . .<br />All the main themes of equity and access to democratic institutions<br />and workplace regulations came up then. . .<br /><br />But in terms of real redistribution. . . relatively little was<br />accomplished. . ."<br /><br />Justifying hefty taxation of the wealthy required a more<br />compelling argument than inequality. The immiseration caused<br />by the Great Depression helped. But winning the argument required<br />war. Only the prospect of many thousands of poor young men<br />contributing their lives to the national project could justify<br />taking more of the elite’s money in the service of the national good.<br /><br />“The idea was conscription of wealth and income. . ."<br /><br />For all the struggle on the part of the White House, the income<br />gap keeps growing. Maybe this means that, in the absence of war,<br />democracy can’t do much more.<br />====jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com