Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/graduates-versus-oligarchs/

Krugman shows clearly that the growth in incomes in the last few decades have focussed not just on the richest 20%, but just to the richest 1%, and most of that has gone to the richest 0.1%. Which is something we probably all should know by now, and isn't really the big deal.

Thing is, the rising inequality has been acknowledged as a real trend for a long time, even on the right wing, but it was believed this increasing gap was filtering towards the top 20%, and could be explained by the growing incomes of college graduates as compared to the rest of the less skilled workforce. At which point the answer was to expand college access, broaden the overall skill base and grow everyone's incomes from there. It's a great theory, but a look at the CBO figures provided by Krugman shows that the theory simply isn't true. The actual growth in incomes has been entirely focused on the top 1%, and even more intensely in the top 0.1% That can't be explained by college access, but only by the ability of the most powerful, and most connected people to command an increasingly large share of the pie.

We've probably all seen articles like this before, but what really struck me was how clearly he stated the final, underlying issue of what is happening;
"The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that’s the real story."

The inevitable result is economic stagnation, and an even greater concentration of wealth.

"The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that’s the real story."

It's amazing how easy that is to see when you don't come at this issue with a pre assembled economic dogma. The system that the wealthiest among us crafted and continue to craft daily plainly indicates to the casual observer that wealth and power is self sustaining outside of the theoretical function of capitalist economics. Every bit of history and logic points to the fact that wealth, influence, and power are self generating. They have been throughout the course of human history and the idea that America is somehow immune is foolish. Wealth gives influence in the creation of laws and the construction of financial systems. Influence of these two things allow those with wealth to mold the system to something that aids them in retaining the final result of the effort and work generated by others. The more they retain the more they are capable of reshaping the system to ensure that they can retain more.

The oroboros is in the shape of a money sign. When you have to invent aggregate alternative theories because the simple suggestion that greed is inherently damaging to capitalist economics flies in the face of standard dogma you lose the perspective required to see the forest for the trees.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's amazing how easy that is to see when you don't come at this issue with a pre assembled economic dogma. The system that the wealthiest among us crafted and continue to craft daily plainly indicates to the casual observer that wealth and power is self sustaining outside of the theoretical function of capitalist economics. Every bit of history and logic points to the fact that wealth, influence, and power are self generating.

Yep, absolutely. And when more money and power goes to someone simply because of the money and power they already have, then you have a system that flies in the face of the meritocracy I think we all assume would be the ideal.

That's kind of the thing with what Krugman was showing. To a large extent, I think it'd be okay if the top 20% were pulling away from the rest, because the technical skills they had really did make them more valuable in our increasingly automated economy. They would be adding more to the economy, and commanding greater incomes as a result. But we aren't seeing that, percentiles 81 to 99 are actually just holding still, accumulating about the same proportion of income they always have. Instead it's just the top 1%, and really just the top 0.1% who are pulling away from the rest.

It's pretty hard to claim those people are commanding greater incomes because they're 10 more productive than they were thirty years ago. It becomes clear they aren't commanding greater incomes because they're more valuable, but because their social position allows it.

Why do you guys hate America?

Whatever. I have a job, I can pay my bills.

WTF do I care what the wealthiest 1% of people are doing, I have a lifestyle I enjoy.

Horst wrote:Whatever. I have a job, I can pay my bills.

WTF do I care what the wealthiest 1% of people are doing, I have a lifestyle I enjoy.

My guess would be that, with stagnation present, it will eventually move to decay, and then ultimately collapse. Whether this happens in 2 generations, or a single day is tough to say, but if it happens, then you won't be able to pay those bills because your "money" won't be worth the stuff it was printed on.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Horst wrote:Whatever. I have a job, I can pay my bills.

WTF do I care what the wealthiest 1% of people are doing, I have a lifestyle I enjoy.

My guess would be that, with stagnation present, it will eventually move to decay, and then ultimately collapse. Whether this happens in 2 generations, or a single day is tough to say, but if it happens, then you won't be able to pay those bills because your "money" won't be worth the stuff it was printed on.

meh, if the world ends, it ends.

I can't do gak about it, why worry.

It's not a true oligarchy, there's still some form of representation, however minor.

Plus, if you have more money, it's easier to make money. The top 1 or 0.1 percent can make large amounts of money because they've got tons of it to re-invest.

Horst wrote:Whatever. I have a job, I can pay my bills.

WTF do I care what the wealthiest 1% of people are doing, I have a lifestyle I enjoy.

You missed the point.

It isn't just that someone else is getting richer. I'll say it again, if it was the case that the top 20% of the economy was moving ahead of the rest, because they smarter and more skilled, well then they're delivering more to the economy through the greater value of their skills, and good luck to them. The individual should respond by doing what he can to be part of that skilled section (or what he can to get his kids to be part of that skilled section.

That's the primary reason why an economic system that's as close to a meritocracy as possible is the ideal - because it encourages people to move into those skill areas that are paying the most, because they're delivering the things people most demand.

But that's not what you're seeing in the US. Instead, the growth in income has centred almost entirely into the top 1%. There really isn't a case to be made that these people are inherently more valuable than they were 30 years ago, and certainly not ten times as valuable. Instead, these people are gaining extra income because the system is shifting to increasingly reward the best connected, and the most powerful.

What you'll see is an unravelling of the basic assumptions of work hard, apply your smarts and do something other people want. And that's a very bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cryonicleech wrote:It's not a true oligarchy, there's still some form of representation, however minor.

True, it isn't a pure oligarchy yet, but it seems pretty clear it's trending that way more and more.

Plus, if you have more money, it's easier to make money. The top 1 or 0.1 percent can make large amounts of money because they've got tons of it to re-invest.

Sure. The other issue is that once you have a lot of money, you gain access to other people with lots of money, and you start working with each other in investment deals. And then you become CEO of a company, and guess who's on the board, signing off on your remuneration schemes, but your other mates from among the 0.1%

I think part of the issue is that there was once a natural check on this, because what added value in the economy used to be a lot more clear. If a guy was very good at manufacturing doodads, his boss could see it, and his manager could reward him appropriately. And if one manager was particularly good at managing all the doodad assemblers under him, it was pretty clear to see that in the number of doodads coming out of his line, and he could be rewarded appropriately. But these so much economic activity is based around things that are really, really hard to measure. Look at the entirety of the financial system, how do you measure if a fund manager is investing wisely, or simply taking on high risk investments but hiding the exposures with financial tricks? How do you know if a CEO of a company that has 90% of it's value in intangible assets is growing profits through clever management, or through running down the value of those assets?

As a result, there's no common sense check on any of this, and the wealthy and most powerful are increasingly capable of taking what they can from the system.

Cryonicleech wrote:It's not a true oligarchy, there's still some form of representation, however minor.

Oligarchies and representative systems aren't mutually exclusive. For example, Russia has a system of representative government, but you'll find very few people that don't refer to it as an oligarchy.

Arguing that the US is an oligarchy is certainly legitimate, though its also nowhere near far along that track, to that extent that its on it at all, as a place like Russia. I think the main objection would be that, unlike in Russia, the group of people and corporations that might be considered oligarchic is relatively large; though I think Krugman's (among others) point is that it isn't large enough.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Horst wrote:Whatever. I have a job, I can pay my bills.

WTF do I care what the wealthiest 1% of people are doing, I have a lifestyle I enjoy.

My guess would be that, with stagnation present, it will eventually move to decay, and then ultimately collapse. Whether this happens in 2 generations, or a single day is tough to say, but if it happens, then you won't be able to pay those bills because your "money" won't be worth the stuff it was printed on.

That's why we have guns.






Not for the overtly implied threat of violence, for food of course.

"The love of money is the root of all evil"

Money influences your laws when it shouldn't. You have the choice of party A or party B which for such a big country is hillarious in it's idiocy.

Capitalism is a lie. Work hard and you *can* do OK but actually those born into money do better!

AustonT wrote:
That's why we have guns.

Which generally mean little if the government has the support of the military. And, if the military remains predominantly conservative, and the government couches its policies in terms of pro-business, capitalist rhetoric, it probably will. At least insofar as the military isn't ordered to shoot anyone without provocation.

dogma wrote:Arguing that the US is an oligarchy is certainly legitimate, though its also nowhere near far along that track, to that extent that its on it at all, as a place like Russia. I think the main objection would be that, unlike in Russia, the group of people and corporations that might be considered oligarchic is relatively large; though I think Krugman's (among others) point is that it isn't large enough.

True, as well as having a much broader base of wealthy people, and moving into the powered elite is still much more viable than it was is in Russia.

The US could be better described as a system with strong elements of an oligarchy, and a trend showing that more elements will develop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:That's why we have guns.

The people in Saddam's Iraq had guns as well. Revolutions come out of instability, and like the dictatorship in Iraq, there's no reason an oligarchy can't be stable. Just manifestly unfair, with very limited economic growth.

Phototoxin wrote:Capitalism is a lie. Work hard and you *can* do OK but actually those born into money do better!

It's never been implied that those with money won't do better than the person who works hard. But at the end of the day, when you walk home with sweat on your back to a loving family who knows what struggle is - your struggle to survive, as well as theirs, and share your day with you, who is the one who can walk upright and at the same time say he/she is proud? You or the one counting his money and wondering why he can't fit into those pants he bought last week?

LumenPraebeo wrote:
It's never been implied that those with money won't do better than the person who works hard. But at the end of the day, when you walk home with sweat on your back to a loving family who knows what struggle is - your struggle to survive, as well as theirs, and share your day with you, who is the one who can walk upright and at the same time say he/she is proud? You or the one counting his money and wondering why he can't fit into those pants he bought last week?

Why, both of them of course.

Sebster normally I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them, but I meant exactly what I said. We have guns to feed ourselves when/if the system collapses. I just wanted to lead with an ominous tone because it sounds much more "mainstream" and that is that sad state of American politics.

What do you mean slipping? It basically is one in disguise as long as political campaigns continue to get funded primarily by the upper class...

AustonT wrote:Sebster normally I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them, but I meant exactly what I said. We have guns to feed ourselves when/if the system collapses. I just wanted to lead with an ominous tone because it sounds much more "mainstream" and that is that sad state of American politics.

There aren't enough deer and wabbit in this country to feed 350 million people. Unless we're eating eachother or plowing dirt with those guns then they're not going to help us feed ourselves after some sort of theoretical collapse (a collapse that doesn't really have any basis for occurring).

Phototoxin wrote:"The love of money is the root of all evil"

To paraphrase a great song, people who say that have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:"The love of money is the root of all evil"

Money influences your laws when it shouldn't. You have the choice of party A or party B which for such a big country is hillarious in it's idiocy.

Capitalism is a lie. Work hard and you *can* do OK but actually those born into money do better!

And yu receommend what as a replacement.

And yu receommend what as a replacement.

The same thing but with controls on the financial influence in lawmaking? Oh, also social healthcare.

Frazzled wrote:And yu receommend what as a replacement.

How about eco-fascism? We can develop bio-fuels from locally grown herbs and use them to power super-efficient public transportation.

You could be as popular as Mussolini: "At least he made the trains run on thyme."

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And yu receommend what as a replacement.

How about eco-fascism? We can develop bio-fuels from locally grown herbs and use them to power super-efficient public transportation.

You could be as popular as Mussolini: "At least he made the trains run on thyme."

I can get you some locally grown herbs that will take you on a super efficient ride if you want. They'll give you the fuel to be transported wherever you need to go.


Why do ya'lls have to pretend like the only options are on the other side of the color wheel from one another?

ShumaGorath wrote:

And yu receommend what as a replacement.

The same thing but with controls on the financial influence in lawmaking? Oh, also social healthcare.

Again what do you recommend? And no to social healthcare. I could give a if people's social well being is healthy.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And yu receommend what as a replacement.

The same thing but with controls on the financial influence in lawmaking? Oh, also social healthcare.

Again what do you recommend? And no to social healthcare. I could give a if people's social well being is healthy.

It's cheaper and provides better care. I don't care what your politics are, just use the reality. Also, I'm a graphic designer but if you give me a few thousand I'll write up some laws to help fix this gakky system. Until then I'm not going to be able to hire the learned individuals required to pump this stuff out.

It'll look hella cool though. 3d animated infographics and everything.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And yu receommend what as a replacement.

The same thing but with controls on the financial influence in lawmaking? Oh, also social healthcare.

Again what do you recommend? And no to social healthcare. I could give a if people's social well being is healthy.

It's cheaper and provides better care. I don't care what your politics are, just use the reality. Also, I'm a graphic designer but if you give me a few thousand I'll write up some laws to help fix this gakky system. Until then I'm not going to be able to hire the learned individuals required to pump this stuff out.

It'll look hella cool though. 3d animated infographics and everything.

Again why do I care about your social well being. People arguing about healtchare is one thing. Social well being is just coockoo.

On the finnaial-so you don't know. Excellent. Lets start at the beginning then. Do you know who you're trying to regulate? Do you know what you're actually trying to regulate against?

How about, only individuals may donate money to a party? Does that work?

Again why do I care about your social well being. People arguing about healtchare is one thing. Social well being is just coockoo.

Because our standard of healthcare is low compared to many nations with socialized healthcare, yet we pay significantly more. I don't care if you're a lone wolf, why don't you want better and cheaper care?

On the finnaial-so you don't know.

My degree is in new media, not fixing every screwup your generation ever made (im assuming you were working financially stuff in the 80s). That's going to take a bit more then I can drop down on the fly.

Lets start at the beginning then. Do you know who you're trying to regulate? Do you know what you're actually trying to regulate against?

I can identify a problem and I'm willing to learn to fix it and to lobby for the placement of individuals who can and will. I likely know slightly less then you for financial law but I'd probably be better with the causal relationships of macro economics and the sociology of programs (broad terms!).

How about, only individuals may donate money to a party? Does that work?

No, the structural issues are already present. We need severe reformation of the financial sector into something that once again benefits society and capitalism. The stock market hasn't been about investing in longterm growth since the 80's.

The idea of an Oligarch in the USA, is historically, speaking, not a new thing. From it's onset, there was a power imbalance between white americans, native americans, african americans etc. Then you 'dynasties' such as John Adams/Quincy Adams The Kennedys and of course, everybody's favourite - the Bush family. And that's just off the top off my head.

Agree with the above poster. there is no need for Americans to pay more for healthcare and receive poorer service than other nations.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Again why do I care about your social well being. People arguing about healtchare is one thing. Social well being is just coockoo.

Because our standard of healthcare is low compared to many nations with socialized healthcare, yet we pay significantly more. I don't care if you're a lone wolf, why don't you want better and cheaper care?

Because it isn't "better" than what we have?? There are dozens of documentaries out there (not by michael moore) that showcase the horrible wait lists, and general poor care of patients, as well as hospital deaths due to incompetent surgeons... these things are all much higher and more dangerous to you in other countries. A true governmental health care system would end up looking alot like the military's currently does: long waits for doctor care, limited time with care providers, 'skimmed' care (by that I mean that doctors have such limited time with patients that they really cannot investigate real problems timely, so issues may be lingering for months or years before being treated because they can't be brought up at each visit), as well as terrible providers (case in point, the doctor at Fort Carson who was under investigation for his role in the death of four soldiers who died of drug complications from prescription medications that he proscribed).

Plus, most law makers of a certain persuasion aren't happy unless my tax dollars that go into a health care system will also protect criminals (and by that i mean illegal aliens).. Really, this is a whole other thread, and 'fixing' health care will not fix the economy.. not in the least bit.

Because it isn't "better" than what we have??

The WHO ranks us 37th in quality of care. So we spend twice what the next highest does for number 37. Sure does sound like a great system that you should protect! Free market!