• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake.

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are they protecting Clinton?
White House Heavily Redacts Clinton Paper

Mar 19, 5:27 AM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration blacked out almost all the information in hundreds of documents before releasing them to a conservative organization looking into President Clinton's controversial pardons four years ago on his last day in office.
The only items not deleted from the material are the names of the person who wrote the document and the person it was sent to.
The government accountability group Judicial Watch said Friday that it received the Justice Department documents following a court battle that featured a Republican administration fighting to keep secret documents generated by its Democratic predecessor.
The Bush White House has argued that releasing pardon-related documents would have a chilling effect on internal discussions leading up to presidential action on such requests.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called it an instance of the Bush administration covering up a Clinton administration scandal.
The group plans to return to court to challenge the deletions, which cover nearly everything that is written on a total of 915 pages.
A federal appeals court ruled a year ago in the case that the White House can't claim Justice Department records are covered by a special exemption from the law reserved for presidential communications.
Among the 140 people Clinton pardoned on Jan. 20, 2001 was fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich's wife, a Democratic fund-raiser, contributed $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library foundation and more than $100,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign.
Rich's name does not appear on any of the 915 pages.
The department invoked exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act that allow deletions for reasons such as documents being part of internal deliberations or containing personal information.

Source
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Squawker said:
Why are they protecting Clinton?



Source
My guess is that they would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of letting the world know how stupid the US electorate was for having put this person in the White House twice.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
My guess is that they would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of letting the world know how stupid the US electorate was for having put this person in the White House twice.
Clinton was simply, during the 90s, the lesser of the two evils. The Americans had no choice over how their economy would be run, as both the GOP and Clinton pushed the 'free market' agenda i.e. the pro-business agenda. Clinton's handling of foreign policy was indeed terrible at best, but he still looks like a Godsend compared to Bush in this area. I was very young during the Clinton years, and really all I know of him is that he ran a terrible foreign policy and a bad economy...his handling of the economy increased inequality all throughout the 90s and have led, combined with the lunacy of Bush, to the rough economy we see now. But why was he elected twice? I suppose because the people were fed up with Bush I, and saw no hope in Dole, so they chose the only remaining candidate, Clinton.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Clinton was simply, during the 90s, the lesser of the two evils. The Americans had no choice over how their economy would be run, as both the GOP and Clinton pushed the 'free market' agenda i.e. the pro-business agenda. Clinton's handling of foreign policy was indeed terrible at best, but he still looks like a Godsend compared to Bush in this area. I was very young during the Clinton years, and really all I know of him is that he ran a terrible foreign policy and a bad economy...his handling of the economy increased inequality all throughout the 90s and have led, combined with the lunacy of Bush, to the rough economy we see now. But why was he elected twice? I suppose because the people were fed up with Bush I, and saw no hope in Dole, so they chose the only remaining candidate, Clinton.
Now, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but to say both he and the GOP ran a "bad economy?" Then what do you attribute one of the biggest periods of economics growth in our countries history to? Much of it was technological, but a lot is due to the actions of both sides in allowing business to run its path.

The "shaky" economy we have right now is growing at 3.4% per year and has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history. Household income has increased staggeringly over the past 20 years, while inflation was held at bay.

Clinton was a poor president in many, many ways, but to say that he and Bush contributed to a bad economy during the 90's is not arguable.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Now, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but to say both he and the GOP ran a "bad economy?" Then what do you attribute one of the biggest periods of economics growth in our countries history to? Much of it was technological, but a lot is due to the actions of both sides in allowing business to run its path.

The "shaky" economy we have right now is growing at 3.4% per year and has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history. Household income has increased staggeringly over the past 20 years, while inflation was held at bay.

Clinton was a poor president in many, many ways, but to say that he and Bush contributed to a bad economy during the 90's is not arguable.
The economy you speak of as 'growing' is doing so only for businesses...workers continue to see their salaries remain stagnant. Also, we saw such an economy during the 1920's, with it appearing, on the outside atleast, to be doing very well. The rise of inequality is not good for the economy, and the rise of business will inevitably lead to a surplus of goods created, overspeculation in the stock market, and thus the inevitability of the economy turning, as it does under capitalism. We are currently seeing a path eerily similar to that of the 1920's...and we all know how that ended. Also, may I note that the national debt rises continually, so we can easily see that those neat numbers you post do not tell the whole story. Clinton ran a conservative economy, lowering taxes and repealing parts of the New Deal, but Bush's economy, well, I don't know what you call it, as he cuts taxes and then spends in huge amounts. Hardly conservative, and certainly not liberal, the only term that describes his economic practices is lunacy! Clinton's problem is that he chose a pro-business route, lowering taxes, deregulating etc. etc. Just like the twenties, when this New Economy fails, it will do so in a big way. To check out some other neat numbers of the 'marvels' of the New Economy, check out my thread in economics: New Economy and its discontents.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
The economy you speak of as 'growing' is doing so only for businesses...workers continue to see their salaries remain stagnant.

How is the salaries for workers remaining stagnant? The average household income over the past 20 years rose dramatically. Whether you look at the mean or the median, it has risen between 12 and 40%.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

The rise of inequality is not good for the economy, and the rise of business will inevitably lead to a surplus of goods created, overspeculation in the stock market, and thus the inevitability of the economy turning, as it does under capitalism. We are currently seeing a path eerily similar to that of the 1920's...and we all know how that ended.
Actually, the reasons for the Great Depression are far more complex than the ones you mention.

During the 1920's, the Fed increased the money supply by 60%, allowing massive speculation, contributing to a national devaluation.

The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, although it was passed after the initial crash, prevented a quick recovery. "In 1988, the Council of Economic Advisors proclaimed that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was 'probably one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever signed in the United States.' "

The economic conditions now are nothing like they were then, and if you're planning on waiting for the next Great Depression, you'll have a while longer to wait.

While capitalism has the faults inherent to every natural business cycle, it is a lasting and successful system, as opposed to any other alternative.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
How is the salaries for workers remaining stagnant? The average household income over the past 20 years rose dramatically. Whether you look at the mean or the median, it has risen between 12 and 40%.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html
These figures, do they account for inflation? And the 'average' household income could be affected by extremely high salaries, plenty of which existed. In 1990, the worker salary to CEO slary ratio was 1:90, in 2000 it was 1:425. Relative to their employers, workers' salaries have not increased in the least. But, yes, as for those figures, you have to account for inflation, which rises steadily, and also the outliers if you're measuring an average, since CEO's salaries grew throughout the 90's. The median is much more accurate as far as actual workers' salary growth, and these numbers (this is the rise by 12%, I assume) haven't increased much beyond the inflation rate over the decade.



NYU said:
Actually, the reasons for the Great Depression are far more complex than the ones you mention.

During the 1920's, the Fed increased the money supply by 60%, allowing massive speculation, contributing to a national devaluation.

The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, although it was passed after the initial crash, prevented a quick recovery. "In 1988, the Council of Economic Advisors proclaimed that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was 'probably one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever signed in the United States.' "

The economic conditions now are nothing like they were then, and if you're planning on waiting for the next Great Depression, you'll have a while longer to wait.

While capitalism has the faults inherent to every natural business cycle, it is a lasting and successful system, as opposed to any other alternative.
Also, we cannot forget the massive success of business throughout the twenties, as a result of the much coveted laissez-faire policies. This in itself lead to mass speculation in the market. It would not be entirely inaccurate to say that the crash of '29 was a direct result of laissez-faire economic policy throughout the decade. I agree that economic conditions are different today, as we see a new form of capitalism emerging: transnational or global capitalism. The danger, of couse, of this is the very little regulation involved in international trade and labor, making cheap labor easily attainable for nearly every large corporation, thus endangering US workers and placing cheap laborers under a system of slave labor. Now, whether capitalism is superior to every other economic system, I very much doubt that. I have often cited that the good living standards we enjoy in the USA are largely thanks to government regulation such as the New Deal, and that countries with laissez-faire plocies today, such as China, more and more, and Argentina, have very poor labor conditions. To think that capitalism can sustain itself without government regulation is quite dangerous, and devoid of any knowledge of history. But is capitalism the best that man can possibly do? I highly doubt it. Democratic socialism has never really been seriously attempted. It would involve the people actually democratically owning their own economy, rather than very few fortunate individuals, as is what we see with capitalism. Perhaps you should open your mind a bit and look into other possibilities, as the global anti-capitalist movement has given new hope to anti-capitalists everywhere and has shown the ills of capitalism as well as the promise of some alternative systems. Socialism is how, I believe, we must begin to overcome capitalism.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
These figures, do they account for inflation? And the 'average' household income could be affected by extremely high salaries, plenty of which existed. In 1990, the worker salary to CEO slary ratio was 1:90, in 2000 it was 1:425. Relative to their employers, workers' salaries have not increased in the least. But, yes, as for those figures, you have to account for inflation, which rises steadily, and also the outliers if you're measuring an average, since CEO's salaries grew throughout the 90's. The median is much more accurate as far as actual workers' salary growth, and these numbers (this is the rise by 12%, I assume) haven't increased much beyond the inflation rate over the decade.
Did you even read the numbers I posted a link to? It lists the figures in real dollars, as well as 2002 dollars, which means that inflation WAS counted for.

You're right that the median is a better system than the mean to look at average family income. How are you going to tell me that increasing the average families median wealth by 12% BEYOND inflation is not a booming economy?

And you're right, the capitalist system failed in 1920. For one year. 85 years ago. And it hasn't happened again since.

You're right that capitalism can't survive without government intervention. The amount we have right now is more than enough. There needs to be some basic intervention, but socialism is NOT the answer.

Much of Europe currently practices a form of socialism, and enjoys a robust 1% GDP yearly increase, as compared to our 3.5%, China's 10%, and India's 20%.

There's no point trying to prove any of this to you though. I deal daily with anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists and communists, and despite a failure rate of 100% and no economic data to back up their theories, they keep on plugging along, not acknowledging pesky things like facts.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Did you even read the numbers I posted a link to? It lists the figures in real dollars, as well as 2002 dollars, which means that inflation WAS counted for.

You're right that the median is a better system than the mean to look at average family income. How are you going to tell me that increasing the average families median wealth by 12% BEYOND inflation is not a booming economy?

And you're right, the capitalist system failed in 1920. For one year. 85 years ago. And it hasn't happened again since.

You're right that capitalism can't survive without government intervention. The amount we have right now is more than enough. There needs to be some basic intervention, but socialism is NOT the answer.

Much of Europe currently practices a form of socialism, and enjoys a robust 1% GDP yearly increase, as compared to our 3.5%, China's 10%, and India's 20%.

There's no point trying to prove any of this to you though. I deal daily with anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists and communists, and despite a failure rate of 100% and no economic data to back up their theories, they keep on plugging along, not acknowledging pesky things like facts.
If you are unwilling to debate, I'm fine with that, I suppose, but to go out of your way and say 'there is no debate' is quite arrogant on your part. The crudeness of the capitalist system as a whole cannot be doubted, and it also cannot be doubted that the US economy currently runs on cheap labor. The market today, since surpluses continually are developed, must be constantly expanded, and this, obviously, cannot go on forever. We see that capitalist countries that do 'well' by some standards like China and India have an extremely poor lower class, and very little gov't regulation, all just to put money into the hands of the fortunate. You seem quite obliged not to acknowledge pesky little facts about the system you so admire. Do not be so quick to put down the anti-capitalist movement as meaningless or inevitably unsuccessful. As a socialist, I today see more anti-capitalist feelings in the world than have existed in quite some time. The very fact that capitalism runs for and of the few at the expense of the many is reason enough for me to not support it. It seems rather odd to me that the very countries you point to as 'economically successful' (China, India) are the same ones with lower living standards, and the GDP seems quite proportional to the regulation in each country, with less regulation having a greater GDP. But, for a very pro-capitalist individual such as yourself, with an obviously closed off mind when it comes to alternative systems that, I don't know, would help the majority of people rather than the minority, perhaps anti-capitalist literature isn't a good read. I would, however, offer to you to read any book by Thomas Frank, as he offers a wonderful critique of the modern New Economy system in America.

You have claimed throughout this little debate that working class families are seeing a golden age. Apparently you missed my 1:90 ratio in '90 compared with the 1:425 in '00. In the UK, part of the EU, which you say is quite inefficient, that ratio is 1:24, and in Japan it is 1:11. I'd appreciate it is you simply acknowledged these facts.

As for you having apparent problems with anti-capitalists, and I agree, many are quite ignorant, but I have the same problems with many a capitalist. It seems that you use the facts you deem important to support your case, just as I do, but there are so many capitalists out there who have no evidence for capitalism being beneficial, and a few times in this very forum I have come across arguments for capitalism that go like this: 'Capitalism is beneficial to the worker, and it is beneficial to the majority of society'. Coming from a United States perspective, most of them, this obvious ignorance of the system as a whole is somewhat expected. Although the facts you list can be countered easily by others, which I have previously listed, atleast you make a more logical attempt to defend your cherished economic system.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
If you are unwilling to debate, I'm fine with that, I suppose, but to go out of your way and say 'there is no debate' is quite arrogant on your part.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was no debate, but only that it's not one that I think would be productive. There is no way I will change your mind about the economic systems, so there's not really a point to staying up past 2 to argue it.

The fact of that matter is that that capitalist system that you decry is the reason you have your job, the reason that you live in a house, the reason why you can enjoy all the pleasures of life that we as Americans have.

You can say that capitalism hurts the majority of the people, but tell that to the 95% of our country which is currently employed because of that capitalism.

The bottom line is this:

The United States, a capitalist society, has the highest standard of living and best living conditions in the history of the modern world. The only evidence I need for capitalism being successful is all around us.

You can talk about the pitfalls of the system all you want, but point out to me even ONE place where socialism has worked? There is no successful socialist utopia out there, and there never will be.

China WAS communist, and had massive human rights violations and a stagnant economy. It became more capitalist, it retained its human rights violations, and the economy boomed.

They had abuse problems long before they were a capitalist nation, so to blame their condition on their current economic policies is like saying America is a rich nation because of the internet.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Regarding the CEO salary ratio:

What does that point prove? It proves that America has better paid CEO's.

Say Company A pays its workers an average of 40,000, and it's CEO 400,000.
Company B pays its workers an average of 50,000, and it's CEO 5,000,000.

Which company would you rather work for?
B.

The GDP per capita in 1999 was 31500 for the US and 21500 for the UK. Say you're a Briton. Would the knowledge that your CEO only made 24 times as much as you rather than 400 make up for the fact that you're living on 50% less than your American counterpart? NO!

Each corporation can pay its employees, which a CEO is, whatever it wants.

These facts are completely unrelated to the fact that the US worker IS experiencing a "Golden Age" as the numbers I gave you proved.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was no debate, but only that it's not one that I think would be productive. There is no way I will change your mind about the economic systems, so there's not really a point to staying up past 2 to argue it.

The fact of that matter is that that capitalist system that you decry is the reason you have your job, the reason that you live in a house, the reason why you can enjoy all the pleasures of life that we as Americans have.

You can say that capitalism hurts the majority of the people, but tell that to the 95% of our country which is currently employed because of that capitalism.

The bottom line is this:

The United States, a capitalist society, has the highest standard of living and best living conditions in the history of the modern world. The only evidence I need for capitalism being successful is all around us.

You can talk about the pitfalls of the system all you want, but point out to me even ONE place where socialism has worked? There is no successful socialist utopia out there, and there never will be.

China WAS communist, and had massive human rights violations and a stagnant economy. It became more capitalist, it retained its human rights violations, and the economy boomed.

They had abuse problems long before they were a capitalist nation, so to blame their condition on their current economic policies is like saying America is a rich nation because of the internet.
I agree that we won't resolve this, as we both have some evidence we deem important. But I would like to correct you on some points. First, socialism, regardless of what numbers you throw out there, has worked in certain places in Europe. It's not complete socialism, but it's obviously far 'more' socialist than anything in the USA. Again, I'd like to point out that I find that the reason we live 'the good life' in the USA is partly due to our Pax Americana, where we, living in the country, do not experience war, and simulated prosperity can have as profound effect on the economy as actual prosperity. Also, it is entirely due to gov't regulation that today we live the 'good life', thanks to such thangs as minimum wage, and other apects of FDR's New Deal. The countries where capitalism exists unregulated have a much lower standard of liing than does the USA or the EU.

Also, you say China was 'Communist' and perhaps they did have a Communist party, but they were not communist. Communism is production strictly for human use, not profit, so we can see that China was socialist i.e. nationalisation of the economy, with a dictator. Can you point to me one place throughout the course of human history where a dictatorship, or any form of tyranny, was able to be sustained and was successful? All I wish to do is to democratize the economy, instead of seeing it in the hands of the few. The only thing that has 'failed' that was under the name of 'socialism' was Stalinism. Stalin, as you may know, destroyed Lenin's dream of democratic socialism. He killed Trotsky, and then appointed himself dictator. And with a growing Soviet military, who would oppose him? China followed him as did North Korea. But, there were some bright spots, where Stalin's influece was, for a time atleast, not felt. Che Guevaro in Cuba helped establish a socialist state which, even today, is a huge improvement over Batista's Cuba. Ho Chi Minh led a revolutionary movement in Vietnam that nearly united the country, and in the north, redistributed land for peasants, making him immensely popular. We all, of course, know what happened there, n 1964-72, though.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.
It's in a Thomas Frank book called One Market Under God. Also, it may help you to type in 'Gini index' into google to see how inequality has risen, and is high as it ever was during the '20s.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.
Small businesses however are not what is at issue here...big business is so they don't count. Those small business could become bigger, but to those business, CEO is just a name and they don't make nearly the ratio, hell, not even close.

And as to that information, you work with what is given to you, and if that is all there is, then you have to use it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Socialism has worked in Europe, in that it taxes the population up to 70% and has caused a widespread economic slump.

I'm in agreement with you on the necessity of government intervention to a point, but the market has to be free to work how it will.

If you want to attribute US success to pax americana, then recent european success can be attributed to the pax europa that has lasted for the past 60 years.

You're right, in that dictatorships cannot be sustained, but I fail to see how our government is a dictatorship. As to socialism, it was tried, and has never worked. If you want to try again, fine, but do it elsewhere. I'm looking forward to having a steady job and a decent standard of living.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You work with that information because that is all you have, but that doesn't mean it's true.

And who decides what is big business and what is small? What's the threshold? I know of plenty of small businesses that have CEO's, CFO's, etc...
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Regarding the CEO salary ratio:

What does that point prove? It proves that America has better paid CEO's.

Say Company A pays its workers an average of 40,000, and it's CEO 400,000.
Company B pays its workers an average of 50,000, and it's CEO 5,000,000.

Which company would you rather work for?
B.

The GDP per capita in 1999 was 31500 for the US and 21500 for the UK. Say you're a Briton. Would the knowledge that your CEO only made 24 times as much as you rather than 400 make up for the fact that you're living on 50% less than your American counterpart? NO!

Each corporation can pay its employees, which a CEO is, whatever it wants.

These facts are completely unrelated to the fact that the US worker IS experiencing a "Golden Age" as the numbers I gave you proved.
It would be nice if it were so simple as you describe. Workers wages, especially blue collar, have remained very stagnant during the '90s. Bush's mad economic practices certainly haven't helped them. But, during this golden age you describe (it certainly is a golden age of consumerism) CEOs have seen a tremendous increase in cash flow, making wage 'increases' of workers look completely insignificant by comparison. And ask any sociologist, a wide gap between rich and poor is not good for a country's society or economy, and doesn't it bother you in the least that the middle class is disappearing? Me, I prefer the old liberal/socialist idea of caring about worker's interests (the majority) more than those of rich people. Call me insane, but that's how I, and many others on the left, think. We support the 'common man' rather than the rich man, because the rich man will not become 'unrich' through gov't action, but the worker certainly will become impoverished through a lack of it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
inequality isn't the end all and be all for economic growth.

Again, if I make 50,000 and you make 40,000 is that better than me making 20,000 and you making 19,000?

We're more unequal, but we're both richer.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
You work with that information because that is all you have, but that doesn't mean it's true.

And who decides what is big business and what is small? What's the threshold? I know of plenty of small businesses that have CEO's, CFO's, etc...
You deny my info because it doesn't suit your position? Again, just look up Gini index to see that inequality is sharply on the rise. The ratio of which I speak simply compares CEO's of companies, their average salary, to the average salary of workers, namely blue collar workers. The ratio is rising in the USA.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
inequality isn't the end all and be all for economic growth.

Again, if I make 50,000 and you make 40,000 is that better than me making 20,000 and you making 19,000?

We're more unequal, but we're both richer.
I imagine if that happened, the cost of living would rise sharply as well, making any monetary gains we see insignificant. In a culture, its easy to see that wealth is relative, that wealth is relative to those who make the most. If my CEO made 1 mil a year and I made 20,000, does it really benefit me to see my salary raise to 30,000 if my CEO's will raise to 20 million? Undoubtedly the cost of living will rise, making the only important thing the ratio between me and him.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
It would be nice if it were so simple as you describe. Workers wages, especially blue collar, have remained very stagnant during the '90s.
No, they have not. For the third time, look at the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

1990 - Median Household income -29,943
2000 - Median Household income -42,151
1990 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 39,324
2000 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 43,327

Even AFTER inflation, that's a 10% increase in household wealth!
That's fantastic.

Explain to me again, how because the rich in our society are richer now than they used to be that that means there is no middle class? I'd really like to see some proof for that.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Socialism has worked in Europe, in that it taxes the population up to 70% and has caused a widespread economic slump.

I'm in agreement with you on the necessity of government intervention to a point, but the market has to be free to work how it will.

If you want to attribute US success to pax americana, then recent european success can be attributed to the pax europa that has lasted for the past 60 years.

You're right, in that dictatorships cannot be sustained, but I fail to see how our government is a dictatorship. As to socialism, it was tried, and has never worked. If you want to try again, fine, but do it elsewhere. I'm looking forward to having a steady job and a decent standard of living.
I never said the US was a dictatorship. And where are you getting the info that people are taxed '70%' in Europe? If this is true,we may look on the brightside and see what taxes are paying for..better police, better roads, healthcare, redistribution policies...things you may not want but I do. And I'd certainly love to try socialism elsewhere, but you must understand that the US is the most committed defender of capitalism in the world, and thus, is the key to any anti-capitalist developments. And whose to say you 'decent job' and decent standard of living won't be improved somewhat under socialism?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
You deny my info because it doesn't suit your position? Again, just look up Gini index to see that inequality is sharply on the rise. The ratio of which I speak simply compares CEO's of companies, their average salary, to the average salary of workers, namely blue collar workers. The ratio is rising in the USA.
I don't deny it because it doesn't suit my position, I question its credibility. If I was spitting statistics that the only backing was from Cato, I'd expect you to call me on that too.

And again, just because CEO salary increases, doesn't mean its bad.

It's a meaningless red herring. Think of this: There are maybe 5,000 CEO's in the country. If all 5,000 of them become 10 times richer, it makes that ratio 10 times worse. Does that really have an impact on the other 299,995,000 people in this country? Not a perceptible one.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
No, they have not. For the third time, look at the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

1990 - Median Household income -29,943
2000 - Median Household income -42,151
1990 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 39,324
2000 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 43,327

Even AFTER inflation, that's a 10% increase in household wealth!
That's fantastic.

Explain to me again, how because the rich in our society are richer now than they used to be that that means there is no middle class? I'd really like to see some proof for that.
Yeah, I saw those numbers. I specifically said workers wages, and blue collar workers, specifically. I'll looktomorrow for numbers on that. And it simply means the middle class is disappearing, as the disparity between rich and poor increases. It ued to be that there was a defitnite lower, middle, and upper class, but now, with this vast inequality on the rise, the middle class is being divided, with the upper middle class joining the upper class, and the lower middle class joining the lower middle class. Redistributive policies, noticeably unpopular during the '90s, usually keep this from happening.
 
Top Bottom