October 10, 2008
silver lining?
Finally, an optimistic note. I was reminded yesterday that the vast bulk of “wealth” created during the Greenspan/Bernanke bubble years accrued to the very top percentiles of population – with many in the OECD middle class and lower class either stagnating or getting poorer as they mired themselves in unsustainable debt. While opportunity and employment grew strongly in emerging countries, there too the elites gained disproportionately as income inequalities surged. The crash of global financial markets therefore will have disproportionate effect on the elites, impoverishing them to a far greater extent, although it will be felt throughout society as employment, pensions, investments and public services contract.Once we hit bottom of this downturn, some years hence in all probability, we may experience a democratisation of wealth and opportunity like none seen since the end of World War II when education reforms and unionisation laid the groundwork for the rise of the American and OECD middle classes. Those who have lost economic and political power during the boom years, are likely to organise and retake authority within economic and political systems during the bust years. This could provide reorientation of economic progress toward more equitable, sustainable and democratic outcomes in coming generations. I hope so, it’s the only bright spot of the week.
more from RGE Monitor here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:52 AM | Permalink
Comments
All this sounds very optimistic. It would be great if it would actually be the plutocrats that paid the price for their own behavior. Unfortunately, history has shown us that those in power have ways of remaining on top of the heap.
Ways worth roughly 700 billion, one might add.
Posted by: odd | Oct 10, 2008 4:19:21 PM
Until society gets stirred, the scum will remain on top.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 10, 2008 7:49:23 PM
Unfortunately, the scum always rises to the top, whether society is shaken or stirred because money and power attract the ruthless. The result is that the putative American democracy is a de facto plutocracy, just like every other country. This has never been more evident than now. While the rich get golden parachutes, the rest of us get the golden shower.
Posted by: Jared | Oct 10, 2008 8:01:33 PM
Jared-
You need a little Bakunin or Goldman in your life!
Health anarchism, organized horizontally, with hierarchies made powerless, is a possible solution.
in the Ukraine during the revolution, society flourished until the Bolsheviks put a end to it.
Spain during the Civil War also had a anarchist experiment that functioned until the traditional left let it die.
Stir it up, put don't have a system where sociopaths can gain vertical influence.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 10, 2008 9:56:53 PM
A perfect time to tax the rich. If we can't stop the top 1% from collecting all that loot, at least we can tax it for the general good.
A progressive consumption tax is the way to go. Like an income tax but with savings tax exempt. Sort of like allowing unlimited contributions to IRA's with no penalties for early withdrawals.
There are practical problems with the implementation of such a tax. It would involve the registration of all bank and brokerage accounts around the world, and would thus require the cooperation of our major allies. In other words no more secret banking in offshore tax havens. That has the disadvantage of making it harder for the super-wealthy to avoid paying their taxes. But on the plus side, it would make it harder for international drug cartels and terrorist organizations to operate.
Posted by: Luke Lea | Oct 10, 2008 10:56:20 PM
"A progressive consumption tax is the way to go."
Except the wealthy consume only a small portion of their wealth, so only a small fraction would be subject to tax, whereas for the poor and middle classes, all of their income is consumed, and so all of it would be taxed.
I'm sure it is excessively Marxist to suggest a progressive asset tax rather than a consumption tax. In fact though, consumption should be encouraged and rewarded, since that makes the economy hum.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 11, 2008 12:09:53 PM
I'm surprised that we haven't yet heard from Elatia, who knows a thing or two about stews.
If the scum didn't rise to the top, it couldn't be skimmed away, and your soup would be forever bitter. Now that sounds horribly eugenical, unless we decide that no human, no matter how rich, is 100 percent scummy (and conversely none of us are so free of scum as to cast the first stone).
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Oct 11, 2008 2:51:20 PM
Chris, I wouldn't want to let you down as a cook, but I know even more about political economy than I do about cuisine. Stew-wise, however, it's not enough to skim the furzy particles from the surface. One must first, using a slotted spoon, gently lift the stewed meat from the cooking liquid and arrange it in a warm serving dish -- the better to skim efficiently from the cooking pot, for skimming an interrupted surface is a violently stupid kitchen practice. Next, strain the skimmed liquid over the meat, for undesirable particles are lurking throughout it -- as you will see when you examine your strainer. In the long search for metaphors -- society as a cauldron, etc. -- economists need to be careful of their language; not only scum but cream rises to the top. What one seeks in a political economy is a colloidal suspension such as one finds in a sauce like beurre blanc -- fluffy unmelted milk solids evenly distributed throughout a mildly acidic base.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 11, 2008 4:31:56 PM
Now Elatia, I have cooked many a stew, and if not stirred, the scum does rise to the top. I don't like scum. Stirring will prevent this.
Cream does rise to the top also, but that is from fresh, whole milk.
One must not continually drift into relativism. It really is not hard to understand simple cooking.
If you do not want suspended particles (a stirred pot), but dislike scum, as you point out, there is a solution.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 11, 2008 8:30:42 PM
Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a foodie myself, although it does not go along with my proletarian spiel.
I was out today harvesting wild oyster mushrooms and intense huckleberries.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 11, 2008 8:41:57 PM
Mmm! Dave, the reason not to over-stir a stew is not to redistribute infelicitous stuff when you could be skimming it off. Merely agitate it gently, taking care to reach to the bottom of the vessel with your wooden spoon. This helps prevent burning. The reason to strain it is to impart a gloss to the liquid as well as to remove tiny ugly bits. Much depends on what kind of stew -- or, economy -- is envisioned. For certain situations, the methods under discussion constitute over-refinement.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 11, 2008 10:12:54 PM
I also strain stew, but Edward Abbey apparently did not on a regular basis. "Over-refinement" when one lives outdoors in primitive surroundings, which Abbey did. One of our great writers. Desert Solitude a true classic. One of Americas anarchists, along with Thorea, and Chomsky.
My wife said my true calling was to be a chef, but I think that would of spoiled the fun. I'm more of a hunter gather, who appreciates colors, textures and temperatures, not to mention flavors.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 12, 2008 1:04:46 AM
I should really read my posts for errors--
Make that DESERT SOLITAIRE.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 12, 2008 1:07:14 AM
Have we moved on to dessert now?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 12, 2008 3:11:08 PM
Post a comment