View Full Version : Is Income Inequality Really a Problem?
NPR ran a 5 minute segment this morning in which Steve Inskeep asked two economic professionals if inequality is really a problem. I thought the answers were interesting and it creates a fairly reasonable jumping off point to start a discussion. It plays pretty well with the opportunity discussion we're having in another thread.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/29/142883180/how-to-solve-wealth-inequality
freein05
11-29-11, 12:34pm
I listened to the discussion and also thought it was good. I tend to agree that the wage stagnation of the middle class and poor is a greater problem then the so called Income Inequality.
In my own simplistic way I've always assumed that inequality is in the nature of things, since some people are clearly born with greater gifts and talents than others. In that way, life really is not fair. At an early age I came to understand that my lack of natural physical ability meant that I would never be a highly paid professional athlete. I also came to understand that I have very little musical talent, and that I am somewhat deficient in higher math. As I have grown older I also realized that certain people have a knack at making money that I lack, and that their ability to earn money seems unrelated to intelligence. That also seems unfair. Why should people who are less intelligent than me make more money than I do? The obvious reply is “why not?”
So long as the financially successful obey the law and refrain from defrauding people, why shouldn’t they make as much money as their ability allows? Arguing against income inequality seems akin to arguing that NBA players should wear ankle weights to reduce the national vertical jump inequality, or that talented musicians should not be allowed to play difficult musical scores because musical skill has been declining over the last ten years, resulting in growing musical inequality. In a word, what’s desirable about income equality, and why is it different than these other forced-equalization ideas?
My guess is that some people oppose income inequality because they think any system that allows the rich to get richer while the poor get not exactly poorer, since their incomes also increased, but at a slower rate, so, let’s say– not significantly richer, is inherently unfair. The unspoken assumption of the “equalization proponents” seems to be that the growing income of the rich is somehow causing the poor to be poorer. The usual solution that is recommended to fix this inequality is some form of income redistribution by taxation. But my question is– what’s right about taking money by force from someone who earned it, in order to give that money to someone who did not earn it?
If you're going to have a small pool of people with a large amount of money and a large pool of people with little to no money, what kind of economy are going to have? The only examples I can think of are third world nations.
India and China are exceptions but I think that is primarily driven by US middle class spending. And only temporary. Like Japan.
Maybe this is just the natural progression of capitalism? Maybe it's just like playing Monopoly - eventually one person has all the money and the game ends.
Great discussion, Gregg. Thank you for the link.
I am also not a champion of "income equality" as such. I work very, very hard to make a good income. And I know far too many people who are unwilling to do the hard work of developing their minds, challenging their limitations, and just plain doing what it takes to make more money -- why should I feel as though the playing field should be leveled?
Where I DO take issue is with the power that comes with extreme wealth, especially political power. There are those among us to whom a greater and greater income is an obsession, a drug. To allow that element of society to influence public policy, to skew laws and regulations in their favor (even to the detriment of public health, public safety, the nation's economic health, and the environment) is not something I can take laying down.
I also think that people who devote their lives to making more and more and more money, accumulating possessions, enormous homes, multiple pollutant-spewing vehicles, consuming resources as though the planet were their personal well.......such people make me queasy. But that's not an issue of income equality - that's just a certain personality type I personally find ugly. This addiction to wealth is fascinating, in the way that a professional eating contest is strangely fascinating, as someone tries to convince the world that they NEED a 10,000sf dwelling for two human beings, and that that's perfectly normal human behavior.
In a perfect world, those with more would be driven by an inner compulsion to help elevate those with less, not with handouts but with education, motivation, inspiration. Seems as though it would make for a world that's much more fun and fulfilling. But alas, that doesn't seem to be how most of the species is wired.
But should we pool all of our resources and create income equality for all, regardless of (as Alan so aptly puts it) our gifts, and our willingness to work? I don't think so, personally. But it does make for an interesting conversation.
for me, it's not so much "income equality" as "living wage" and adequate safety nets to provide a basic quality of life for all.
flowerseverywhere
11-29-11, 1:57pm
great link, gregg, although it didn't go quite far enough in explaining solutions.
Education is great, but in the city schools the kids are so far behind before hitting even preschool, I have no idea how you can make it up. If you are struggling to not get evicted, dodge drug dealers, and scramble to get enough to eat how can you prepare kids for school? Contrast that with my grandchildren who grow up with no TV, tons of books and adults to talk to them about colors, numbers, animals, geography etc almost from birth.
Pooling all of our money also may make some people who would normally be high achievers into middle achievers if they cannot see the fruits of their labor. Sometimes I have to go to a government agency (DMV sticks out) and the absolute slow pace and attitude of the workers is appalling- if there is not need to achieve (ie. you will get paid, get raises and have job security regardless of your performance) many lose their momentum.
Boy, I am sure getting tired of this game of shove the liberals into defending something they NEVER asked for or expected. NO ONE is asking to put all money into a pool and redistribute it equally. No one! And until people stand up and demand the right stops doing this, we will never be able to have a serious discussion about the real problems facing our country. People aren't equal. Abilities and ambitions are not equal. No one ever said they were!
Your aw shucks, I'm just a hard working fellow who thinks hard work should be rewarded, doesn't make everyone else in the opposite position. Where is this phantom group who doesn't think hard work should be rewarded? Who are these people who want to redistribute all wealth equally? I really want to know. Who are they? Where are they? I sure wish liberals/moderates would quit going on the defense over these phony 'goals' the right keeps saying we have. But I suppose if they keep us busy over here, we won't see what they are doing over there, which is fast tracking the nations wealth to the top 1% at the expense of the middle class.
Wanting real safety nets for our most vulnerable is NOT EQUAL OUTCOME. Wanting a strong middle class is NOT equal outcome.
Boy, I am sure getting tired of this game of shove the liberals into defending something they NEVER asked for or expected. NO ONE is asking to put all money into a pool and redistribute it equally. No one! And until people stand up and demand the right stops doing this, we will never be able to have a serious discussion about the real problems facing our country. People aren't equal. Abilities and ambitions are not equal. No one ever said they were!
Your aw shucks, I'm just a hard working fellow who thinks hard work should be rewarded, doesn't make everyone else in the opposite position. Where is this phantom group who doesn't think hard work should be rewarded? Who are these people who want to redistribute all wealth equally? I really want to know. Who are they? Where are they? I sure wish liberals/moderates would quit going on the defense over these phony 'goals' the right keeps saying we have. But I suppose if they keep us busy over here, we won't see what they are doing over there, which is fast tracking the nations wealth to the top 1% at the expense of the middle class.
Wanting real safety nets for our most vulnerable is NOT EQUAL OUTCOME. Wanting a strong middle class is NOT equal outcome.
I think a lot of the "liberal" argument is not restricting how high one can fly but how far they can fall. Entitlements (the ones for the poor, anyway) try to set a floor as to how low one can go.
We could set the floor in country as low as many other countries do and allow millions of people to basically starve in the dirt dying from disease and not having access to many of the things we take for granted. Do we want to go there?
ApatheticNoMore
11-29-11, 3:26pm
Who are these people who want to redistribute all wealth equally? I really want to know. Who are they? Where are they?
Quite frankly I've never heard ANYONE argue for that position on absolute terms. Yes we should have complete 100% wage equality, nope never heard anyone argue it (ok maybe someone in some book argues it somewhere (not Marx), but I don't mean that, I mean anyone I've ever met). And being against that sort of absolute isn't even about phantoms like "deserving" and "not deserving", it is just about the price function.
Now worrying about conditions getting worse and worse for the middle class and the poor, well yea. Getting worse? I do believe so. Like for instance: try to afford health insurance without having an employer provide it, it's not just that this costs money, so does everything and where is the expectation that things be free anyway, it's that the cost keep growing and growing far above the rate of inflation. Try to get college classes when they are all being cut back etc..
Also worrying about elite capture of our politicians. This is so obviously going on that I just don't know what to say. And at a certain point it becomes self-reinforcing and we have definitely reached that point IMO. This is the spiral at that point: the rich get richer, they use the money to buy out the politicians, the bought and paid for politicians transfer more wealth to the rich, the rich get richer, they use more money to buy out politicians. Etc. That is the situation now.
Also to what extent does wealth inequality INTERFERE with the ability to solve fundemental problems (by elite capture sure, if BP and Exxon capture our politicians what chance is there for making policy to get off fossil fuels for instance - this is a major major problem we have today, but also by other mechanisms as well). Like can you really have this level of wealth inequality in a functioning STEADY STATE economy? That is a serious question. If the only way to sustain an economy like this is infinite growth, well it seems we have a major problem. Now various government programs at this point are also assuming an economy of infinite growth. So .... both much of the existing government programs AND income inequality can both be problematic if the growth economy is to end.
Boy, I am sure getting tired of this game of shove the liberals into defending something they NEVER asked for or expected. NO ONE is asking to put all money into a pool and redistribute it equally.
Well, since yours is the first post in this thread to mention liberals, I'm assuming you've shoved yourself into the fray.
By the way, income redistribution is not a liberal trait, but rather a progressive one. To my chagrin, progressives have, IMHO, stolen and debased the term liberal from it's roots in libertarianism. A classic liberal believes in equality, the rule of law, the security of private property, the freedom to make individual contracts and limited government.
Progressives have ruined the term.
"Is Income Inequality Really a Problem?"
It depends. On the nature of wealth, income, and the limits of resources.
If there are two men stuck on a 200 square mile island full of fruit trees, salmon swimming up the rivers, hundreds of deer, and that sort of thing, then if one man has an "income" of two apples while the other fellow has only one, I don't see a problem
If the two men are stuck on a 1 acre island, and there's just enough apples to feed them both, and one fellow gathers twice the apples as the other, there may be issues.
If the two men are on a larger island, and one man gathers apples, and the other plants and tends orchards and harvests 10x the apples, I don't see a problem. If the orchard fan decides to claim the land the other fellow is gathering his apples from, then issues arise. Or if the apple-gatherer decides to gather his apples from the orchardist's well-tended trees instead of from the wild, again, a potential problem.
You have to look at the whole system.
In many cases, wealth and income are not zero-sum. In some cases, they are. In some cases, income is the result of fraud or theft of the work or resources of others. In other cases, not.
Boy, I am sure getting tired of this game of shove the liberals into defending something they NEVER asked for or expected. NO ONE is asking to put all money into a pool and redistribute it equally. No one!
One thing that struck me listening to the interview in the car this morning was how Steve Inskeep seemed to be carefully avoiding sticking "liberal" or "conservative" tags on the questions he was asking. This in no way needs to be a partisan issue. Its wrong to think of Democrats as champions of the poor and downtrodden and Republicans as the shield of the aristocracy. The DNC doesn't seem to have any problem selling out $35,000 per head meet & greets. According to Rasmussen reports 34.3% of Americans consider themselves to be Republicans. Even if I just concede the whole 1% as Republican (they're not) that leaves around 104 million Republicans at some lower economic level. It seems like it would be a lot more productive to shed the labeling and examine the real issues.
I don't see this as a partisan issue at all, so I'm a little confused by that tack.
I do like the thought that together (as a society, not as SLN) we could find a way to solve the challenge: How can we build a society where everyone who's willing to contribute can make enough to have (what they consider) a great life, where no one has to go without life's basic needs, and where -- if one chooses -- one can think/plan/work/sacrifice their way to a higher income, without needing to damage the lives of others in the process?
I'm not even sure there IS an answer that makes all of that happen, but it sure would be nice if there were.
Yossarian
11-29-11, 5:04pm
NO ONE is asking to put all money into a pool and redistribute it equally. No one! And until people stand up and demand the right stops doing this, we will never be able to have a serious discussion about the real problems facing our country.
Can you have a double strawman? No one is contending the anyone was contending that money be redistributed equally. But that doesn't mean people aren't looking at the disparity and wanting to redistribute some, to spread the wealth around so to speak. As I've said previously the more important issue is ensuring certain minimum standards and opportunities for middle/lower incomes rather than guaranteeing a certain relative position vis a vis the top levels.
I'm not even sure there IS an answer that makes all of that happen, but it sure would be nice if there were.
I'm not sure there is, at this point in time either.
I look at it as a systems engineering problem.
Given the current population, the natural resources available, and the demands the lifestyle of the population places on those resources, there are some clear problems.
In the old days, you could stump off into the frontier, homestead some land, claim some resources for your own by mingling your labor with the resource and the land, and make a living.
Today, a new infant is born into a world in which, for all practical purposes, all land and resources are already claimed by somebody else. All that child has, to begin with, is his labor and intellect. And he is not in a very favorable bargaining position to sell his labor.
One problem I see is that we as a society allow people to put to detrimental use shared resources, like air, water, topsoil, forests, and land. This may have been acceptable when our population was small, and those resources were "unlimited", but the resources seem to be straining to handle our current demands.
I'm not sure how you dig yourself out of that hole politely. Libertarian theorists argue for private ownership of all such resources as the best way of protecting and distributing resources, other cultures have had some success with jointly-owned resources being managed by the society for the long-term benefit of all.
I've spent a lot of time the past dozen years being involved in water rights allocation issues, and critical areas legislation to protect wetlands, habitat, aquifer recharge areas, and so on. And what I've learned is...there's no easy answer, given our current society and our layers of history, legislation, and bureaucracy.
One disturbing but interesting examination of the problem is Derek Jensen's Endgame 1 & 2. Also Jared Diamond's Collapse.
I think a lot of the "liberal" argument is not restricting how high one can fly but how far they can fall. Entitlements (the ones for the poor, anyway) try to set a floor as to how low one can go.
We could set the floor in country as low as many other countries do and allow millions of people to basically starve in the dirt dying from disease and not having access to many of the things we take for granted. Do we want to go there?
I like the idea of setting the floor. Not that its exactly easy to determine where that should be given the number of variables in a complex society, but it seems like a worthwhile outcome to shoot for. We should be able to determine some compassionate level at which we can insure all of our citizens have decent food, clean water, a reasonable shelter with heat in winter, decent clothing, access to both healthcare and education and, dare I say it, the opportunity to pull themselves up from that floor should they desire to do so. I do not recall any mainstream candidate, or for that matter any reasonable voter, ever saying we should not provide that for anyone less fortunate than most of us in this society. We can do that without any kind of paradigm shift from the way we currently operate. What we will HAVE to do to make it work is make sure we don't (as creaker so aptly said) restrict how high anyone can fly above that floor.
San Onofre Guy
11-29-11, 8:17pm
Nine Nine Nine
Sorry I couldn't help myself. We have not heard that refrain for a while and I don't think we will!
great link, gregg, although it didn't go quite far enough in explaining solutions.
Education is great, but in the city schools the kids are so far behind before hitting even preschool, I have no idea how you can make it up. If you are struggling to not get evicted, dodge drug dealers, and scramble to get enough to eat how can you prepare kids for school? Contrast that with my grandchildren who grow up with no TV, tons of books and adults to talk to them about colors, numbers, animals, geography etc almost from birth.
I agree with you about kids and school. I remember starting kindergarten and being stunned that roughly half the kids didn't know how to read. I'd been taught to read by my mother well before I ever saw the inside of a classroom and couldn't imagine how these kids hadn't had the same experience.
Planet Money had a show a while back where they discussed various programs to help adults develop the basic skills to succeed and found that they basically didn't do anything to improve these people's likelihood of success. The conclusion that the economists studying this had come to is that the necessary social skills to succeed in our work world are obtained at a very young age and that programs like Head Start are incredibly useful at this. Basically the window in the human mind where these skills, like cooperation, negotiation, etc, is only open for a small period of time when we are quite young. The money spent on such programs for little kids will be paid back to the economy at large many many times over, in the form of better productivity, more taxes paid because of higher earnings, etc,, yet these are exactly the programs constantly at threat of budget cuts.
Another Planet Money podcast had on some people who found that in China the cheapest way to improve children's school performance was as simple as getting every kid that needs them glasses. After all, if you can't see the chalkboard you can't learn much. I learned that I needed glasses in 3rd grade when the school nurse did quick eye exams on everyone in my class and sent notes home with the kids like me that failed the exam. A few weeks later several of us had glasses. I'd be curious if this type of basic vision test is still widely done to identify students that need help. And also whether there is money available to struggling parents to help with eye exam and glasses costs for their kids if needed. What a shame if a couple hundred dollars of assistance could be all that's standing between a young student doing well at school and one that falls behind because he doesn't get such a simple thing as a needed pair of glasses to be able to see well.
Planet Money had a show a while back where they discussed various programs to help adults develop the basic skills to succeed and found that they basically didn't do anything to improve these people's likelihood of success. The conclusion that the economists studying this had come to is that the necessary social skills to succeed in our work world are obtained at a very young age and that programs like Head Start are incredibly useful at this. Basically the window in the human mind where these skills, like cooperation, negotiation, etc, is only open for a small period of time when we are quite young. The money spent on such programs for little kids will be paid back to the economy at large many many times over, in the form of better productivity, more taxes paid because of higher earnings, etc,, yet these are exactly the programs constantly at threat of budget cuts.
The results from the Perry Preschool Project present pretty compelling evidence for the important of early childhood education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighScope
If we truly had an equal playing field I'd be fine with income inequality. But we don't. After all, if everyone was allowed to succeed or fail on their merits all of Wall Street would've been done and buried back in 2008.
Instead, what we have is a whole game seems to be rigged to allow a small subset of the very wealthy to basically defraud people, with no repercussions. For example, when Alan Greenspan went public with the recommendation that fixed rate mortgages were a relic that were costing the average person unnecesary interest costs back in 2004 a few months before he proceeded to raise interest rates 17 times one can have a tough time believing that the average person was on a level playing field with the bankers that ended up reaping so much extra income as interest rates rose over the next couple of years. And then the housing bubble burst but the banks got trillions of dollars in assistance to keep from crashing, yet all the little people were left to go into foreclosure and lose their homes. THat's not equality, that's having the deck strongly stacked against the little guy in favor of the very wealthy/powerful banks.
Or when the banks managed to jam through congress the bankruptcy reform bill that made student debt no longer expendable in bankruptcy at the same time that tuition costs are soaring, the amount of college costs that are borrowed to be paid for and 'for profit' schools that don't adequately prepare students for a career are getting a larger and larger portion of education dollars by helping students get these loans that will haunt them for forever if they can't pay them back. Yes, people can avoid these pitfalls (I saw the housing bubble for what it was well before Greenspan acknowledged it) but when most of society, including all the talking heads on tv, are calling what's going on normal a lot of people are going to get sucked in and defrauded. After all the people on tv are supposedly 'experts'. The ability to figure out that these supposed experts are just hucksters trying to rip one off is not something that is taught in school.
puglogic
11-29-11, 11:00pm
One disturbing but interesting examination of the problem is Derek Jensen's Endgame 1 & 2. Also Jared Diamond's Collapse.
Agreed, sadly. I loved "Collapse," as deeply as it frightened me. Derek Jensen I can no longer read, very smart man but his vision is too dark for me to accept. Just a smidgen of idealism left in me, and I don't want it snuffed out just yet. I can only read Chris Martenson for about four minutes a week or I get all itchy :)
Bae, do you disagree that the accelerating consumption of resources by the highest echelons of society -- more land, more structures, more toys, more fossil fuels, more more more -- is a major contributing factor in this dearth of resources remaining for intelligent allocation to future generations? One of Jensen's rallying cries is that these mega-consumers aren't going to stop destroying and consuming "just because we ask nicely" - they will need to be forced to stop, most likely by violent revolution.
Bae, do you disagree that the accelerating consumption of resources by the highest echelons of society -- more land, more structures, more toys, more fossil fuels, more more more -- is a major contributing factor in this dearth of resources remaining for intelligent allocation to future generations?
I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, no.
There are a couple of billionaires down the street from me. They have 3-4 cars each, and nice yachts, and a couple of airplanes. Their impact on non-renewable resources and energy use is pretty large. But, I look around at the 4000 non-billionaires around here, and most of them have 1-2 cars made of 4000+ pounds of steel and aluminum, TVs, cell phones, eat fruit shipped thousands of miles, etc. etc.
I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you :-) We could take all the billionaires, centi-millionaires, and heck, everyone with a net worth more than $1 million out behind the barn tomorrow, and it wouldn't make much difference in our overall consumption.
And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.
With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.
One thing that struck me listening to the interview in the car this morning was how Steve Inskeep seemed to be carefully avoiding sticking "liberal" or "conservative" tags on the questions he was asking. This in no way needs to be a partisan issue. Its wrong to think of Democrats as champions of the poor and downtrodden and Republicans as the shield of the aristocracy. The DNC doesn't seem to have any problem selling out $35,000 per head meet & greets. According to Rasmussen reports 34.3% of Americans consider themselves to be Republicans. Even if I just concede the whole 1% as Republican (they're not) that leaves around 104 million Republicans at some lower economic level. It seems like it would be a lot more productive to shed the labeling and examine the real issues.
You're absolutely right. I hate this bickering and divisiveness that has creeped into our political discourse. if I seem on the defensive it's because of Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and the other hate mongers who have taken over and shouted every one else down. I include Olbermann and others on the left who, in response to Fox and co., simply shout as well. It sickens me to think how many Americans believe the spin that other Americans are their mortal enemies, hate their country and want nothing more than for it to fail. How many people believe this of their own President? Even moderate republicans are being tossed out of office because they aren't fringe enough.
Maybe the real problem lies with us, the voters. We aren't getting out in large enough numbers to demand a stop to this craziness. On both side of the aisle, we need to demand accountability, and more transparency. But to be honest, when a politician is shown to be dishonest, ignorant, or a one trick pony, then we are only to blame for voting for/supporting them anyway. You can't fix stupid, unfortunately. But I digress...
There will always be poor among us and there will always be rich. The problem is the buffer, the middle class, is disappearing. And the middle class is the cushion that softens the way from either direction. I think the problem lies in the unashamed pandering to only the wealthy by our government. They have been bought, and they make no pretense about it. I think term limits is the answer. I think term limits is as important for congress as it is for President. Even more so, really. Congress has more power than the president.
You're right Gregg, the 99% includes plenty of republicans. So why do we let the loud mouth extremist control the conversation?
Maybe the real problem lies with us, the voters. We aren't getting out in large enough numbers to demand a stop to this craziness.
Personally I don't think the problem is with us the voters. I think the problem is with them, the politicians and their handlers who benefit from remaining in charge regardless of whether democrats or republicans run things. After all, has anyhting much really changed since Obama took office? no. not really. Yes, we've gotten a small win on ending don't ask don't tell. But really??? has anything changed? Not at all. The banks still got their bailouts. THe military is still doing thier thing in the middle east. The military contractors are still racking in multiple billions. And on and on and on.
And this is exactly where the real people in charge want us. They want average republicans and democrats dickering about minor details like gay marriage and don't ask don't tell and the legality of abortion, etc etc etc. Meanwhile the people who actually run things are raking in the money from the military industrial complex and from the bailouts of the financial meltdown, etc. But most people aren't paying attention to all that because they're too busy worrying about gay marriage, abortion and every other 'social' issue.
ApatheticNoMore
11-30-11, 2:04am
One of Jensen's rallying cries is that these mega-consumers aren't going to stop destroying and consuming "just because we ask nicely" - they will need to be forced to stop, most likely by violent revolution.
Ok haven't read Jensen but I doubt the argument is that the rich just *consume* so much ... I rather doubt they do. I think it is less about consumption and more about *power*. I think a better argument goes like this: the main beneficiaries of the economic system are the super rich and the whole economic system *doesn't seem to work* in terms of long term environmental survival. Clarification on main beneficiaries: the super rich hold VASTLY disproportionate wealth compared to everyone else. This includes ownership of stocks, including huge corporations, which are the very economic entities that make up our economic system and of course some of which are involved in destroying the planet. But this does not mean the rich are the only beneficiaries of the status quo. Anyway, we seem to be on a runaway train of environmental problems at the very least (this is inarguable), and if you take the extreme position environmental catatrophe, with no way to slow down. What blocks slowing down? Well the difficult nature of some of the problems doesn't help (some may have no solution) but .... we're at the point where we want to transport crude in pipelines over major aquifiers. This is just brain dead. And why, why must we do that? Because it is the cheapest path and well the major corporations sure like cheap? (and hey they own the politicians don't they?) Because people need jobs no matter how destructive those jobs are (it is not a job I would blame someone for taking, but risking the destruction of a major aquifier on which much FOOD depends for temporary jobs in your state - is just very destructive public policy!). Is there something wrong with an economic system that drives people to desperately take a job, any job, just to survive, no matter the long term consequences on their world?
How would more equal income distribution help? Well I think those who think it can are working off some kind of ideal vision (but in the real world I do think more equal socities actually do consume less), where people who otherwise have enough money to retire don't keep working just because they need the healthcare, where the average person is not a debt slave to some bank for pretty much his whole life (what with mortgages and tuitions and healthcare bills - anyone who runs up massive debt on clothes or something is just plain stupid) anyway a world in which houses are more reasonably priced. A world in which the average person is just under a lot less of the pressure that DRIVES so much of his consumption (commuting long distances burning gas in desperate need of a job, any job, consuming convenience food in plastic because of lack of time, heck even not recycling because of lack of time, consuming to make himself feel better, never mind not being politically informed due to lack of time - see the book Take Back Your Time on how this happens).
And then you get into the distribution not of abstract wealth but of concrete things like land and whether it is better to have this widely distributed to small farms or concentrated in agribusiness (although I can't say forced redistribution generally works, it definitely doesn't, but look the desk is rigged currently and could be changed to encourage small farmers instead)
So I think an environmental argument for more equality is all this:
1) the rich, especially in the form of corporations buy out our politicians and cause them to act in ways that are destructive to the environment because it benefits those corporations. More wealth inequality concentrates this power.
2) The rich are the major beneficiaries and thus (assumed) defenders of the status quo and that status quo means certain continued environmental destruction. An economic system based on neverending growth is unsustainable.
3) Desperate economic conditions in the middle class and poor DRIVE some of their high consumption. Not all of it because iPads are shiny regardless, but some of it ....
4) Other problems with the economic system such as few ways for society as a whole to take productivity gains in terms of leisure rather than more and more stuff. Not strictly an issue of income equality of course.
flowerseverywhere
11-30-11, 8:09am
Some people just plain don't want to work or feel entitled to handouts. Even if this is a small number, I bet everyone here has worked in an organization with someone who is habitually late, always has excuses, never gets their work done then claims they are being discriminated against or picked on. Once I worked with some welfare to work people, it was a nightmare. There are also some people who have low intelligence and cannot reach a high level of work.
In times of low unemployment and low underemployment these people are not much of a problem. A certain percentage of the population in every society since the beginning of time is going to be poor and not want to better themselves or be unable to better themselves. No matter what you do there are people who just don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Early education has the potential to break the chain, and some kids make it out, but the odds are against them.
I see the problem now is we have many people who want to work, but are making way less than historically they have made according to their education and work ethic and cannot contribute as much in taxes and sometimes need to tap into government services. And we have several posters here who just cannot even find a job, despite wanting to work. At the same time the people at the top are making huge bonuses and many organizations are top heavy with vice presidents, managers etc. who make a good buck while the worker bees get behind.
The government can only do so much. Unless people will change their habits from buying cheap junk made overseas with cheap labor, eating at huge chain restaurants where most of the food is prepared offsite, and eating chemical laden genetically modified food produced on giant farms and shipped long distances we don't have a chance. These habits benefit the owners and managers of large corporations instead of people who produce quality things for a price.
Peggy,
I watched my 80 year old parents change attutudes and for not the best on topics, that kinda surprised me . Then I found out they were taking the only word of truth to be that of Beck.
I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you...
And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.
With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.
It does seem like expanding our scope makes sense when talking about resource allocation. In my experience the "super rich" do tend to consume, per person, a disproportionate share of just about everything, but viewed individually how much does that really matter? The first world, and obviously the United Stated to an even larger degree, consumes planetary resources at a disproportionate rate and that not only jeopardizes everyone living today, but future generations in every part of the world. Even the lower economic classes in the US live at "the highest echelons" of wealth on a global scale. I'm not saying that's all bad and I don't at all mind benefiting from living here. What I do think is valuable is to gain a little perspective on how the other six billion live. That might lead those of us lucky enough to live in the first world to realize we have responsibilities at several different levels. Maybe, in the bigger picture, its less about income inequality than it is about what is done with that income.
Peggy,
I watched my 80 year old parents change attutudes and for not the best on topics, that kinda surprised me . Then I found out they were taking the only word of truth to be that of Beck.
I know. Unfortunately these are the ones who watch, vote, and send them money (or 'invest' in whatever they hawk) I see it in my own elderly parents. Educated, very aware people, still politically savvy, but suffering from diminished thinking powers. In little things they say or do that I know wouldn't have happened even 10 years ago. These media types are very aware of sales tactics, and the right key words, or dog whistles, to say to get us to 'buy' whatever it is they are selling, whether it is gold or a political point of view. My dad, for instance, is at the point that he believes almost anything he is told (fortunately my mom controls the check book) but he has other issues and has started that long, sad spiral down into himself.
Ok haven't read Jensen but I doubt the argument is that the rich just *consume* so much ... I rather doubt they do. I think it is less about consumption and more about *power*. I think a better argument goes like this: the main beneficiaries of the economic system are the super rich and the whole economic system *doesn't seem to work* in terms of long term environmental survival. Clarification on main beneficiaries: the super rich hold VASTLY disproportionate wealth compared to everyone else. This includes ownership of stocks, including huge corporations, which are the very economic entities that make up our economic system and of course some of which are involved in destroying the planet. But this does not mean the rich are the only beneficiaries of the status quo. Anyway, we seem to be on a runaway train of environmental problems at the very least (this is inarguable), and if you take the extreme position environmental catatrophe, with no way to slow down. What blocks slowing down? Well the difficult nature of some of the problems doesn't help (some may have no solution) but .... we're at the point where we want to transport crude in pipelines over major aquifiers. This is just brain dead. And why, why must we do that? Because it is the cheapest path and well the major corporations sure like cheap? (and hey they own the politicians don't they?) Because people need jobs no matter how destructive those jobs are (it is not a job I would blame someone for taking, but risking the destruction of a major aquifier on which much FOOD depends for temporary jobs in your state - is just very destructive public policy!). Is there something wrong with an economic system that drives people to desperately take a job, any job, just to survive, no matter the long term consequences on their world?
..
I know! Isn't that pipeline over aquifer insane! :0! I couldn't believe anyone would even consider it for a moment. And from what i heard, it won't even really bring that many jobs. The point of a pipeline is that it doesn't need to be tended to that much, once it's built. But this is a perfect example of the inequality of power-by-money. I guarantee you the 99% who rely on that water the pipe would go over don't want it, but let's see who wins.
I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, no.
There are a couple of billionaires down the street from me. They have 3-4 cars each, and nice yachts, and a couple of airplanes. Their impact on non-renewable resources and energy use is pretty large. But, I look around at the 4000 non-billionaires around here, and most of them have 1-2 cars made of 4000+ pounds of steel and aluminum, TVs, cell phones, eat fruit shipped thousands of miles, etc. etc.
I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you :-) We could take all the billionaires, centi-millionaires, and heck, everyone with a net worth more than $1 million out behind the barn tomorrow, and it wouldn't make much difference in our overall consumption.
And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.
With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.
This is true. Our consumption of energy outpaces everyone, and it's also true the rest of the world looks at us and says, I want that! so what do we do? We are stuck, really. We can choose to buy some little thing or not, shop at thrift stores, grow some of our own food, etc...but we need energy. In this modern society, we need lights and heat, and gas for the car. But we can't put an oil well in our backyards. We can put solar panels on the roof, but the price is so exorbitant, this isn't really a viable option for most people. But it is.
We are a smart bunch, we can do this, technologically, we can do this. But big energy doesn't want us to. Sure, they make noise about developing these things for the future, yada yada yada, but they don't really want us to be energy independent. They want us to be dependant, on them.
We have enough energy in this country, in the form of solar, wind, waves, and other alternative energy sources. There is plenty to go around, for everyone. And we even know how to capture it, and have the infrastructure to use it. Don't even need to re-invent the wheel. But big energy has invested a whole lot of money in our politicians to keep us from having that. They keep distracting us with excuses that the whole country can't run on a solar panel. What do you do when it's night? This is a distraction. if we keep looking for that one big solution, we'll never find it. But, if we use many little solutions, then it works. You have wind and waves, I've got wind and solar.
I just rambling now, I don't really know what we can do. I do know there is plenty of energy, but try to champion that and you are portrayed as a bit of an eccentric.
Now, if we pull our troops back and reduce the military, the savings could be applied to these technologies. And really, once we get off this oil addiction, a whole lot of world political problems go away.
puglogic
11-30-11, 10:26am
Well, I suppose it all comes down to what individuals are willing to do about income inequality.
For my part, here's what I do:
--Support small industry, micropreneurs, and local business all I can, especially if they're contributing something I consider valuable to my community, and especially if their business is their sole source of income.
--Support small farmers all I can. There was a recent study in Boulder county that showed that most of the non-corporate farmers could, at their income level, qualify for food stamps. I find that ridiculous, and so I do my part.
--Support people who want to work. We employ local people all we can, and I employ them for my business exclusively (although I would make more profit if I outsourced to Rajasthan). Not one of my subcontractors earns less than $40.00/hour from me, and I can physically see the effects that has on their quality of life, and on how their families live.
--Educate and elevate people every chance I get. I have helped several people who were despairing over under- or unemployment start small businesses that now help them make it financially. I've helped many more retool their lives so that they can survive making less money, and still have rich, fulfilling lives (thank you YMOYL)
We can talk about sweeping social and political change, and it's a great dream to have. But while all of the bickering continues in Washington, I want to continue to make my make here, in my own life. I'll do without fancy cable, an iPad, an expensive cell phone plan, etc., because I pour that disposable income back into my community instead.
There's a lot of talk about making sure that the bottom doesn't drop out of the safety net. What are others doing to help counter this in their own communities?
flowerseverywhere
11-30-11, 11:41am
Well, I suppose it all comes down to what individuals are willing to do about income inequality.
For my part, here's what I do:
--Support small industry, micropreneurs, and local business all I can, especially if they're contributing something I consider valuable to my community, and especially if their business is their sole source of income.
--Support small farmers all I can. There was a recent study in Boulder county that showed that most of the non-corporate farmers could, at their income level, qualify for food stamps. I find that ridiculous, and so I do my part.
--Support people who want to work. We employ local people all we can, and I employ them for my business exclusively (although I would make more profit if I outsourced to Rajasthan). Not one of my subcontractors earns less than $40.00/hour from me, and I can physically see the effects that has on their quality of life, and on how their families live.
--Educate and elevate people every chance I get. I have helped several people who were despairing over under- or unemployment start small businesses that now help them make it financially. I've helped many more retool their lives so that they can survive making less money, and still have rich, fulfilling lives (thank you YMOYL)
We can talk about sweeping social and political change, and it's a great dream to have. But while all of the bickering continues in Washington, I want to continue to make my make here, in my own life. I'll do without fancy cable, an iPad, an expensive cell phone plan, etc., because I pour that disposable income back into my community instead.
There's a lot of talk about making sure that the bottom doesn't drop out of the safety net. What are others doing to help counter this in their own communities?
an excellent post. Exactly what I have been trying to say. You have inspired me to do more than I do to spread the word and help others, I'll need to be really creative as I no longer work outside the home.
I try very hard when I buy something to have it made or grown in the USA. Local community first, then state then country. Local dairy, meats, beer and wine, vegetables and fruit are available to me. I won't be eating bananas but instead blueberries, strawberries, apples and peaches all grown here by me or local farmers and preserved by me. Other local crops are potatoes, tomatoes, onions, squash and corn. They are the basis of our diet.
I also do a lot of bartering, helping neighbors and friends and they do the same for me.
every day I strive to live by the motto live simply so others may simply live and set a good example. when people realize that I am over 60 and ride my bike everywhere unless it is snowing they are amazed. Riding my bike over 1000 miles this year really made me think about transportation and combining trips and saved a bunch of wear and tear on the car, gas and improved my health. all of these things serve to help to reduce pollution and consumption.
I know! Isn't that pipeline over aquifer insane! :0! I couldn't believe anyone would even consider it for a moment. And from what i heard, it won't even really bring that many jobs. The point of a pipeline is that it doesn't need to be tended to that much, once it's built. But this is a perfect example of the inequality of power-by-money. I guarantee you the 99% who rely on that water the pipe would go over don't want it, but let's see who wins.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but this is a good example of what the media is capable of. I'm in Nebraska, which was the only state to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and also sits on top of a major portion of the Ogallala aquifer. There are some things that didn't get much play in other parts of the country...
First: the viscosity of the oil in the pipeline would have kept it from ever leaching far enough into the ground to contaminate the aquifer even in the event of a major rupture in the pipeline. It just is not physically possible for oil to do that. That is the consensus from a panel discussion held at the University of Nebraska. The panel was made up of professors and engineers who were not associated with TransCanada and one representative of the company. Some participants were petroleum engineers, but with no interest in the pipeline. Regardless of who was there it just didn't seem necessary to challenge the laws of physics to understand the real risks. The threat to the aquifer appears to be a work of fiction created by... The media on a slow news day? Environmental groups without a current cause? The few ranchers who didn't want to give up land to eminent domain?
The second point is that a lot of the opposition here, in Nebraska, was aimed at not at the aquifer, but at saving the sandhills region. It's a beautiful and fragile part of our state and a part that many of us here readily identify with. A major leak in the pipeline could have done significant damage to the surface features in the area. The opposition was strong enough that the route of the pipeline will now be shifted far enough east to avoid this part of the state.
A little misinformation and a little emotion can create quite a spin on ANY topic (even the effects of income inequality). That can make it hard to tell what the true effect is. It never hurts to remember that.
Isn't the Ogallala primarily "old" water, with a very very low recharge rate, and in many placed overlaid with mostly-impermeable materials?
I've been working on critical aquifer area protection legislation here, and one thing that comes to mind is that geology really does matter, all aquifers are not the same, and the recharge rate varies significantly depending both on input and the ability of the ground layers to alllow water to move through.
While I haven't looked at this pipeline in particular, are they routing it over particularly sensitive areas, or is the claim that areas of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas that are atop the Ogallala shouldn't have pipelines?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/3/c/43cebe2c099469da45dfbf51798e1f5d.png
when people realize that I am over 60 and ride my bike everywhere unless it is snowing they are amazed. Riding my bike over 1000 miles this year really made me think about transportation and combining trips and saved a bunch of wear and tear on the car, gas and improved my health. all of these things serve to help to reduce pollution and consumption.
You go, flowers!!!! I hope to learn to be more like you, be more self-sufficient with my feet and my bike as I head into my 50's and beyond. Another thing that saves money I can then pour into my neighbors' lives.
What I do not understand is why they don't build refineries in South Dakota instead of building a pipe line across 7 or 8 states. The possibility for spills seem large for a pipeline running something like 1000 miles and the cost to maintain it let alone build it can not be less than building new refineries.
There is one scheduled for construction in SD. The first one built in the US in 35 years. http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/28/3798/new-oil-refinery-south-dakota-says-it-will-use-alternative-toxic-acid
I think the issue is that the finished product will still need to be shipped to various parts of the world, making a seaport refinery ideal. I believe the pipeline is scheduled to deliver oil to refineries in Illinois, Oklahoma and various spots along the Gulf Coast. Over the long term, I suspect efficiency is at play in it's route.
Isn't the Ogallala primarily "old" water, with a very very low recharge rate, and in many placed overlaid with mostly-impermeable materials?
In my understanding that is correct. I thought it was interesting that, because of the properties of heavy crude, the oil would not even be able to reach the impermeable cap.
There was a rather vocal contingent claiming no pipeline should be allowed to cross over the Ogallala aquifer, but there are already several dozen oil and gas pipelines of various size that do. Not that adding another is justified simply because someone else already did it, but it did take a little wind out of the protective argument.
What I do not understand is why they don't build refineries in South Dakota instead of building a pipe line across 7 or 8 states. The possibility for spills seem large for a pipeline running something like 1000 miles and the cost to maintain it let alone build it can not be less than building new refineries.
As Alan said, they do have a refinery in the works in SD, but you still have to transport the refined fuels to where the users are. Pipelines are a FAR more efficient way of doing that than tanker trucks or train cars and far safer, too. As far as leaks and spills from the pipeline; TransCanada was planning to encase the entire line in concrete through Nebraska. I'm not sure if that was planned for the entire length or just through NE as an olive branch to the opposition.
Well, since yours is the first post in this thread to mention liberals, I'm assuming you've shoved yourself into the fray.
By the way, income redistribution is not a liberal trait, but rather a progressive one. To my chagrin, progressives have, IMHO, stolen and debased the term liberal from it's roots in libertarianism. A classic liberal believes in equality, the rule of law, the security of private property, the freedom to make individual contracts and limited government.
Progressives have ruined the term.
Yes, just another way progressives have ruined everything! They stole the word "liberal!"
Hey man, things change! Words change over time! That's life. Get over it already.
I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, no.
There are a couple of billionaires down the street from me. They have 3-4 cars each, and nice yachts, and a couple of airplanes. Their impact on non-renewable resources and energy use is pretty large. But, I look around at the 4000 non-billionaires around here, and most of them have 1-2 cars made of 4000+ pounds of steel and aluminum, TVs, cell phones, eat fruit shipped thousands of miles, etc. etc.
I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you :-) We could take all the billionaires, centi-millionaires, and heck, everyone with a net worth more than $1 million out behind the barn tomorrow, and it wouldn't make much difference in our overall consumption.
And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.
With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.
Unfortunately, true. Collapse was a very instructive book, one that stayed in my mind long after I finished it.
.....Hey man, things change! Words change over time! That's life. Get over it already.
It's sort of like defining millionaires and billionaires (for taxation purposes) as anyone making over $200,000. Words are just words, definitions just get in the way of a favored meaning. :laff:
Words are just words, definitions just get in the way of a favored meaning. :laff:
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Exactly!
Exactly!
No, the question is, what is the dictionary definition. On that point, I win, Alan.
But hey, if you want to call yourself a liberal, good luck with that.
No, the question is, what is the dictionary definition. On that point, I win, Alan.
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_liberal
If I had referenced classic liberalism's progeny, social liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), you'd be right, but I didn't. And since my comment was many posts back, I'll copy it for you in order to provide clarity.
A classic liberal believes in equality, the rule of law, the security of private property, the freedom to make individual contracts and limited government.
Ya see, that's why definitions matter.
Sorry to sidetrack the political label discussion back the the sidetrack of the XL Pipeline....
But to set the record straight, part of the opposition was indeed the risk of a pipeline spill or other local damage. There is also a significant opposition based on a projected increase in greenhouse gasses. Spokesmen included well know environmental writer, Bill McKibben, and former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is one of the country's leading climatologists. The tar sands involve the extraction of exceptionally dirty crude using huge amounts of water and heat, which when eventually burned would add a large new source of greenhouse gasses. To quote Hansen, “Essentially, it’s game over for the planet.”
As I understand it, Canada has proposed to pipe the crude to a coastal port and ship it to China if we don't approve some form of the XL pipeline, so the green house gas portion of the arguement is probably mute.
mute should be moot, but that's just for clarification, not to be snarky. :)
i have no specific opinion on the pipeline, except that oil companies do a lot of very stupid things is seems. lots more errors that they seem not to account for or plan for on the outset.
i'm interesting in peak-oil issues. nz feels that it's getting kinda close, but i don't know what we're going to do with our cars, then. :) people take really, really good care of cars here, and don't usually pack on the milage that americans do, so cars last. without oil, a lot of people would be . . . not able to go very far. :)
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_liberal
If I had referenced classic liberalism's progeny, social liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), you'd be right, but I didn't. And since my comment was many posts back, I'll copy it for you in order to provide clarity.
Ya see, that's why definitions matter.
Gosh darn it, isn't it terrible the way them homosexuals stole the word gay! They RUINED it I tell ya!
Gosh darn it, isn't it terrible the way them homosexuals stole the word gay! They RUINED it I tell ya!
Well, attaching new meanings to words can have consequences. When I was a kid, in my home town, there was a small entertainment center called The Gay 90's Village, which showcased nickelodeon music and a large collection of the machines themselves. It was a moderately successful tourist draw in the 50's, 60's & early 70's, although was out of business by the late 70's. Not sure why.
Well, attaching new meanings to words can have consequences. When I was a kid, in my home town, there was a small entertainment center called The Gay 90's Village, which showcased nickelodeon music and a large collection of the machines themselves. It was a moderately successful tourist draw in the 50's, 60's & early 70's, although was out of business by the late 70's. Not sure why.
Perhaps Disney gave him enough for the machines that he thought it was a logical decision financially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikeston,_Missouri
# In the 1950s, the "Gay 90's Village Museum," a music machines, owned by Paul Eakins was established. The museum was closed in the mid 1970s, when Eakins sold the bulk of his collection to Walt Disney World.[11]
Perhaps Disney gave him enough for the machines that he thought it was a logical decision financially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikeston,_Missouri
# In the 1950s, the "Gay 90's Village Museum," a music machines, owned by Paul Eakins was established. The museum was closed in the mid 1970s, when Eakins sold the bulk of his collection to Walt Disney World.[11]
As I recall, business was pretty bad for them at that time so it was probably a smart move to sell off items he had spent his entire life acquiring and displaying. My point was that when the meaning of words change, there are consequences. I recall a diet suppressant candy called Ayds (pronounced aids) back in the 70's and 80's, which went out of business due to confusion over Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayds
But enough of these sidelines, my original point was that those who consider themselves "liberal" are historically anything but, and it's a shame that people who actually are can no longer claim the term.
i have no specific opinion on the pipeline, except that oil companies do a lot of very stupid things is seems. lots more errors that they seem not to account for or plan for on the outset.
I've dealt with quite a few oil service companies over the years. I can tell you that there are very few industries better at long term strategic planning than the petroleum industry. Regarding what they provide; with some products, like highly processed foods, you can argue the paradox of whether the demand was created to sell the product or the product was created to fill the demand. I don't think that's really true with oil. Consumers demand what oil can do for us. So far oil is the only source of highly concentrated, highly transportable, affordable energy we have discovered. No substitute exists (again, so far). The oil companies do what they do because we, consumers, place a very high value on their product. If we change our buying habits and begin to demand something different the mix of available products in the marketplace will change accordingly.
As I recall, business was pretty bad for them at that time so it was probably a smart move to sell off items he had spent his entire life acquiring and displaying. My point was that when the meaning of words change, there are consequences. I recall a diet suppressant candy called Ayds (pronounced aids) back in the 70's and 80's, which went out of business due to confusion over Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayds
But enough of these sidelines, my original point was that those who consider themselves "liberal" are historically anything but, and it's a shame that people who actually are can no longer claim the term.
Really, it is not a shame. It just is what it is, Alan. As you concede, the meanings of words change over time. There really are no consequences to this particular item of etymology other than the rest of the world not agreeing with your personal preference. Nobody else really cares. Progressives did not "ruin," "steal" or "debase" the word. And BTW, Alan, AYDS is not to AIDS as liberal is to progressive. We are not a disease. We are not an unfortunate consequence of any kind. We haven't ruined the country, we haven't ruined your life, we aren't demonic or evil or scheming to install a totalitarian regime. The impetus for "progress" in society has led to many things that have improved the lives of peole and that people take for granted today. We have safer food, medicine, housing, consumer products and work conditions thanks to the efforts of reformers and progressives. I for one am comfortable with the label liberal or progressive. But really, to go on and on about how we ruined a word you would like to apply to yourself as a label, but no longer can because a group of people you don't like stole it is very insulting and veers into crank territory.
ApatheticNoMore
12-2-11, 1:12pm
But to set the record straight, part of the opposition was indeed the risk of a pipeline spill or other local damage. There is also a significant opposition based on a projected increase in greenhouse gasses. Spokesmen included well know environmental writer, Bill McKibben, and former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is one of the country's leading climatologists. The tar sands involve the extraction of exceptionally dirty crude using huge amounts of water and heat, which when eventually burned would add a large new source of greenhouse gasses. To quote Hansen, “Essentially, it’s game over for the planet.”
Rodger that is scary :(
As for the discussion on the meaning of words which isn't scarely but frankly just ridiculous. Look if someone was trying to change the meaning of a word in their politicing and debating and pushing for some policy or other TODAY it might be relevant and interesting and worth pointing out as yes a form of propaganda (and yes politicians do this all the time). But fighting over words whose meaning was changed 80 years ago or something, is just um give it up already. Those words already mean what they mean now. Though you can call it historical propaganda, and take historical interest in it, it is no longer active propaganda, it's no longer alive if you will, the life is gone from it, give it up.
But really, to go on and on about how we ruined a word you would like to apply to yourself as a label, but no longer can because a group of people you don't like stole it is very insulting and veers into crank territory.
Seems more like discussion territory to me, but if you want to get cranky about it, be my guest. :D
Though you can call it historical propaganda, and take historical interest in it, it is no longer active propaganda, it's no longer alive if you will, the life is gone from it, give it up.
Good advice. It was just thrown in as a "by the way, did you know" sort of thing. Who knew it would inflame so many?
As I recall, business was pretty bad for them at that time so it was probably a smart move to sell off items he had spent his entire life acquiring and displaying. My point was that when the meaning of words change, there are consequences. I recall a diet suppressant candy called Ayds (pronounced aids) back in the 70's and 80's, which went out of business due to confusion over Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayds
But enough of these sidelines, my original point was that those who consider themselves "liberal" are historically anything but, and it's a shame that people who actually are can no longer claim the term.
Fair enough. I was just hassling you to hassle you since you set yourself up for it so perfectly. Truth be told I was well aware of the older definition of liberal and am fine with it. I may not agree with everything lew rockwell and murray rothbard have to say, but I understand where they're coming from and don't have any major issues with the older, traditional, definition of liberal. I have much bigger issues with the way the country is being run right now, but I don't think those issues are at all related to minor semantic things like the definition of liberal. My issues with our governance are a much bigger thing then semantics and certainly would warrant a completely different discussion thread so I won't even try to address them here.
I've dealt with quite a few oil service companies over the years. I can tell you that there are very few industries better at long term strategic planning than the petroleum industry.
i would agree with this. relatively, there are few incidents to be concerned about. but the i think of the gulf of mexico. messy. fracking. also messy.
Regarding what they provide.... Consumers demand what oil can do for us. So far oil is the only source of highly concentrated, highly transportable, affordable energy we have discovered. No substitute exists (again, so far). The oil companies do what they do because we, consumers, place a very high value on their product. If we change our buying habits and begin to demand something different the mix of available products in the marketplace will change accordingly.
true indeed.
when you are afraid to go to the nearest city for Christmas shopping because of the growing violence, then yes, it is a problem. Young men prowling the parking lots with guns and knives for an easy score. Many of these young men would be working if given the opportunity for a living wage. No one wants to hear this or face it.
For anyone who is interested in the practical effects of income inequality, I recommend 'The Spirit Level' by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. They are university epidemiologists and the book is a review of a large number of academic and government studies into inequality from all over the world.
The interesting thing is that so many problems appear to be worse in more unequal countries. For example, here are infant deaths per 1,000 live births, graphed against inequality:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/infant-mortality.gif
Here are teenage births:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/teenage-births.gif
This is the graph for homicides:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/violence.gif
Some of the measures are clearly more closely related to inequality than others, but they all apparently have links which are statistically significant and they appear to be applicable within countries as well as between countries. For example, here is a graph showing the percentage of high school dropouts by US state:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/560/education.gif
Fascinating, no?
Kevin
loosechickens
12-10-11, 3:22pm
Very much so, Kevin. There is a lot of effort to cloud the problems with systemically high levels of income inequality as "class warfare", but the dangers to a society of having really huge levels of inequality affect everyone, even the rich who cannot completely insulate themselves from the effects with their money.
Societies work best when the majority of their citizens have a reasonably good quality of life, access to good schools, education and opportunity. And lower levels of societal inequality mean a large, as well as vibrant and healthy middle class.
The level of societal inequality in the U.S. approaches that of many Third World nations, and is far more similar to that world than to the world of the other developed Western democracies.
It's just not good for our society. However good it might be for the top percent or so of our citizens.
Thanks for those graphs......they show a very interesting side of some of the effects of societal inequality. And, I'm sure, things that many would not realize can be so dramatically shown to have a correlation with it.
Correlation. Causation. They both begin with the letter "C". But they don't mean the same thing.
Consider reading:
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e300e676bb3f7ef1a000007/image.gif
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/vdqi_bookcover.gif
I appreciate these graphic illustrations. They put in picture form my immediate response to Gregg's query... When I saw the question "is income inequality really a problem?", my reply is that the impacts of income inequality is what is the problem.
I live in SE Seattle, with a mix of incomes in our immediate neighborhood, and many very low income neighborhoods in the area. I have seen up close and personal what the impacts of this recession/depression have been on my neighbors of color - except that for many of them, it started 5 years prior to the official announcement of 'recession'. Job loss, home loss, and obvious poverty in families who had been working class yet with a stable home, enough food, & car in good repair.
The foreclosures in my neighborhood have been a result of job loss, not the stereotype (and I believe, false) blaming-the-victim stories of using one's home as a cash machine. Example: a Honduran immigrant family raising their darling girls, now in college, in a Habitat house. Their father worked as a merchant marine. He lost his job, fell behind on his payments, and could not get help refinancing due to the disaster that is banking today, so his family lost their home. Predatory, high profit unregulated vampires... I detest big banks.
The impacts of income inequality mean that many familes cannot meet their basic needs. Kids go to school hungry, their brain development suffers, they grow up impaired, they raise their kids in less than optimal circumstanes, and we have generations of problems.
Profit at the expense of the basic health & well being of each other is wrong, immoral, and should be prosecuted as criminal. Human societies exist to make life better for ALL of us. I look forward to the day that income, in other words, basic resources needed to make life work, is equalized across all the divisions we have invented that treat others as less than.
PS...Bae, do you know that the graphs posted do not have data behind them, or are you assuming that?
loosechickens
12-10-11, 11:31pm
You might find some of this information helpful, redfox.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/methods
and here's the main page, where you can branch out to the various links:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why
Correlation. Causation. They both begin with the letter "C". But they don't mean the same thing.
Consider reading:
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e300e676bb3f7ef1a000007/image.gif
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/vdqi_bookcover.gif
Nice book covers. What assumptions have you made about the charts shown that led to posting these?
Correlation. Causation. They both begin with the letter "C". But they don't mean the same thing.
Consider reading:
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e300e676bb3f7ef1a000007/image.gif
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/vdqi_bookcover.gif
I know how touchy you get when people assume that you've said something, so I won't assume anything. Instead I'll just ask what your thoughts are about Kevin's charts. Based on your post I have not the faintest idea what you think.
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-11, 2:32am
The foreclosures in my neighborhood have been a result of job loss, not the stereotype (and I believe, false) blaming-the-victim stories of using one's home as a cash machine.
Nah, I think it was real. Even with a good job,very few can actually afford say a 1/2 million dollar house (and the average housing price in many parts of southern CA was up to around 700k at one point). And yet someone was buying. All rich people or was maybe someone buying beyond their means? You need at least a 6 figure combined income to realistically afford here even now really, not that many have it ...
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2011-11-30/etc_correlation50__01__960.jpg
http://teachingofscience.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/correlation.png
bae, of course correlation is not the same as causation, but when the correlation is so consistent across a range of 10 or 12 different social problems, then it's reasonable to infer some causation. Wilkinson and Pickett discuss that briefly here:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/frequently-asked-questions#causality
The more interesting question is what does lie behind such a striking correlation, if there is no causation. 'The Spirit Level' came out in 2009 and received all kinds of challenges, including various alternative views about what might be going on, to which the authors responded in the second edition, and also here:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/other/response-to-questions
And if you are interested in statistical methods (which I assume you are from your recent posts) then you may find it useful to read this rebuttal of some of the criticisms aimed at Wilkinson and Pickett, written by a statistician:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/hughnobletslrevisited.pdf
This PDF also includes some very interesting comments about spurious correlation (which is kind of what your graphs attempt to illustrate) and how that concept can be simplified to suggest what it seems you are suggesting about correlation and cause, but pointing out how statistical significance comes into play too. See section 2.4.
http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R256.pdf
http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R256.pdf
Yes, that's one of the points made in the PDF I linked to. Interesting paper though, thanks for mentioning it.
Yossarian
12-11-11, 11:56am
Profit at the expense of the basic health & well being of each other is wrong, immoral, and should be prosecuted as criminal. Human societies exist to make life better for ALL of us. I look forward to the day that income, in other words, basic resources needed to make life work, is equalized across all the divisions we have invented that treat others as less than.
Wow, so bitter. Maybe you should focus on making more money since more money makes everyone happy, but keep it to yourself because inequality makes people happier- it's proven by statistics.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/TE8NkZ6-tRI/AAAAAAAAAac/yEPuEM80nfI/s1600/happy_gni+for+pub.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/TE8N-depKMI/AAAAAAAAAak/uKoUSrAPlKQ/s1600/happy.jpg
I don't care if a few people have a whole lot of money, but I do care that everyone has a decent standard of living. I agree that some people just have a knack for making money, but I believe, for many of those people at least, money is THE thing that is important to them. I certainly believe I'm easily as smart and capable as the people on Wall Street with the million dollar bonuses, but I would not want that kind of life. I would rather live in shack and write poetry than work on Wall Street and live in a penthouse apartment. I have enough money to worry about, and that's good enough for me.
I will admit that the complexity of economics is something that I do not spend much time on. I don't like that the economy is so dependent on consumerism, nor do I like that it always needs to grow. Ideally, we would take the money we're pouring into complex global things, like iPods and MacBooks, and spend it instead in our communities, hiring local musicians and going to local gathering places for concerts. We really don't use the money we have to support each other in our communities. Keeping money local would be a better thing to protest for than protesting against income inequality. The cynic in me says that's never going to happen. Even when you want to do it yourself, it gets ridiculously costly just because that's not the way our system is set up. I'm just not in a position to go from buying clothes made in Taiwan at the local Goodwill to having a local tailor make my clothes from cloth made from New Mexico raised wool and cotton.
But imagine having a billionaire in your community that spent 75% of his yearly budget on locally made products and goods. What would be wrong, then, with his having more money than you? It's not the inequality that's the problem, it's the way the money if flowing.
This Energy Bulletin article makes a lot of points showing that inequality impacts everyone.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-12-09/everyone-victim-inequality
Quotes:
It’s a book from England called “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger,” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, a pair of English academics. (It doesn’t have anything to do with spirituality — in Britain, carpenters apparently use a spirit level to see if things are even.)
It’s a book about the effects of inequality that have been measured by years of research. The authors gathered all the research and came up with some surprises. What is particularly surprising is that it’s not just the poor who suffer from inequality — we’re all victims.
If you want more information, as I expect you will, see their website, The Equality Trust, at www.equalitytrust.org.uk.
Yossarian
12-11-11, 5:23pm
The authors gathered all the research and came up with some surprises.
It's more like they squeezed the numbers until they fit a political agenda. And that makes great fodder for the apparatchiks, but doesn't really give us a good foundation to discuss because you don't know if the numbers are reflective of reality or their agenda. Which is too bad, because while it's presumptively silly to think you can analyze and reduce a complex society this way, my guess is some objective research might give us some pointers on where to look further to understand our world and societies a little better and look for some good changes. But these guys are not objective.
If you look at the data some of the "inequality" problems are better identified as income problems. And you can't jsut pick the measures that go your way, you have to look at all of them. I thought we did a better job amongst ourselves. Set a floor, not a ceiling.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/S_AM_xJvvyI/AAAAAAAAAS8/NDDNBlMUOgw/s1600/us+income_problems2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/S9GKuIFs03I/AAAAAAAAAO8/kdC1GM4EL7Q/s1600/lifeexpectancy+2009.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/S-_33nHpzmI/AAAAAAAAASU/1G8AOEGxDO4/s1600/QOL.jpg
I'm sorry dude, but there just isn't enough information to read your grafts. They really don't mean squat. Circles on a sliding scale don't really have any context without more info. Give us a simple, easy to understand conclusion of your grafts. Or a key or something.
iris lily
12-11-11, 6:52pm
...I look forward to the day that income, in other words, basic resources needed to make life work, is equalized...
And I hope that day never comes. I vote and donate to campaigns accordingly.
iris lily
12-11-11, 6:54pm
The Ava factor is hilarious, the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
Nah, I think it was real. Even with a good job,very few can actually afford say a 1/2 million dollar house (and the average housing price in many parts of southern CA was up to around 700k at one point). And yet someone was buying. All rich people or was maybe someone buying beyond their means? You need at least a 6 figure combined income to realistically afford here even now really, not that many have it ...
The huge majority of homes being foreclosed are under $300k. The one in my neighborhood was 200k. I can imagine there are half mil homes in this mess too.
And I hope that day never comes. I vote and donate to campaigns accordingly.
Now I really wish we were neighbors. It would be wonderful to garden with you & debate politics and economics. It's clear to me that you're a person who considers her stances, and I would like to hear more about your opinions. I'll make the coffee!
Despite overwhelming "statistics" to the contrary I'm forced to conclude that inequality itself really doesn't make much difference. Poverty, however, does. We need to raise the floor rather than being so obsessed with how high the ceiling goes.
Despite overwhelming "statistics" to the contrary I'm forced to conclude that inequality itself really doesn't make much difference. Poverty, however, does. We need to raise the floor rather than being so obsessed with how high the ceiling goes.
That makes a lot of sense to me. However, I doubt you'd be able to get the diehard class warriors to agree. I've heard it said that the 1% fetish is very attractive from a sustainability standpoint. No matter how many economic enemies get disgusted and leave the country, there will always be a top 1% to rail against.
freein05
12-12-11, 11:52am
Romney shot himself in the foot with his $10,000 bet on national TV. Many people do not make that much money in a year and it showed real income inequity on national TV.
Despite overwhelming "statistics" to the contrary I'm forced to conclude that inequality itself really doesn't make much difference. Poverty, however, does. We need to raise the floor rather than being so obsessed with how high the ceiling goes.
I think the issue gets muddled by calling it income inequality - I think the main concern (at least my main concern) is the floor is being lowered in the US and Europe. Which I think is moving us to 3rd world standards - a small very wealthy class, a small middle class and a huge sea of poverty.
If that's what everyone wants, fine. It works that way in a lot of countries. But things are going to look very different here - you can't drive a consumer based economy with a tiny pool of consumers. Or support a 1st world infrastructure on it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.