Sunday, October 3, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Runaway Capitalism: The Biggest Threat to America
The United States is reeling. Reeling from the strain of fighting wars in two different countries, reeling from the worst economic crisis in 80 years, reeling from a political climate that makes it extremely difficult to tackle the preponderance of problems facing the country.
With unemployment hovering near 10%, and underemployment much higher, the poor economy is on most people's mind. Many are angry at the government for lack of success in creating jobs. Many are also angry at the amount of money spent to save Wall Street, the Auto Industry, and the Big Banks, allowing CEOs and other millionaires to lavish themselves with huge bonuses while ordinary Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to get by.
The last time income inequality was this high was the Great Depression
Some recent statistics paint an even more dire situation:
Over 43 million Americans live under the poverty line, which goes up to 60 million when other factors are taken into consideration. This is equivalent to one in seven Americans.
50.7 million Americans are uninsured.
In 2005, the income of the top 20% of society was 1,500% higher than that of the lowest 20%, the highest gap ever recorded.
For the latest year that data was compiled, the tax rate for multinational corporations in the United States was about 2.3%, a significantly lower amount than ordinary Americans.
The financial sector's share of domestic corporate profits right before the economic crisis was 41%, up from 16% in 1973.
The share of total income by the top 10% of society went from 34.6% in 1980 to 48.2% in 2008.
The share of total income by the top 1% of society for the same time period went from 10% to over 20%.
Real median income for working-age households has fallen over the same time period.
Income inequality in the United States has widened over the past several decades, making America not only more unequal than other developed countries but one of the most unequal in the world.
Ordinary Americans are struggling to find a job and make ends meet, while those responsible for the financial crisis, Wall Street and the Big Banks, were bailed out by taxpayer money and are able to hand out huge paychecks to CEOs.
The top 25 hedge fund managers earned over $25 billion last year, in the midst of an economic recession larger than any in recent memory.
Over the past several decades, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class and the poor have remained stagnant, and income inequality has increased exponentially. The United States is in danger of becoming a Third World country.
How did this happen? Corporate money and special interest lobbyists have flooded Congress with funds, making politicians beholden to those who have given them the most capital, and not their constituents, the American people. Decades of ever more deregulation and lower taxes, as well as loopholes large enough to drive through, have exacerbated this situation to disproportionately and deferentially help the rich at the expense of the less well-off.
Both parties have encouraged this behavior, and during this most recent crisis, with widespread popular support to hold accountable those responsible for creating this situation, the Democrats and the Obama administration negotiated directly with those they would try to regulate, making concession after concession until the final bill was basically meaningless, as far as real reform was concerned. Of course, this hasn't stopped Wall Street financiers from complaining about Obama's "anti-business" policies, though this sentiment could not be farther from the truth.
Wall Street and other corporate influences need to be reformed
This is the result of runaway capitalism, whose corporate and special-interest influence extends over the U.S. government, basically running the economy and shaping policies that directly benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country.
Capitalism is not evil. Its ability to create wealth can be used to help people from all strata of society, not just the rich. It only becomes cruel when it is allowed to run its logical path, with profit as the only motivating factor and ever-increasing wealth going to an ever smaller circle of those at the top of the pyramid.
The influence of private money on Congress, elections, and politics in general in the United States is out of control. Many on the left point the finger mainly at the Republican Party, but the Democrats are guilty of the same crime. It is impossible to either gain or maintain political power in the United States without corporate or private money of some kind.
As a result, American democracy is under attack, with the voice of the people unable to be heard over the drone of private money. If this trend of increasing income disparity and corporate and special-interest money influence over political policies continues, the United States will become substantially weakened and degrade into a Third World country.
This vicious cycle is what is truly at stake in America.
The American people want to reform Wall Street, so that they can never again have the ability to bring down the rest of the country's economy. They want universal health care. They want better public education. They want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to help the environment. They want job security, unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages, and other things that Big Business would not agree to otherwise.
The only thing standing in the way of real progressive reform is the ruling-class of millionaires, billionaires, corporations, and special-interests, all of whom have the most to lose from their loss of privilege.
The solution is to take the money out of politics: Clean elections, clean politics, clean politicians.
Publicly-financed campaigns would make politicians beholden to the people, not the corporations.
Lobbyists are not inherently bad. They only become so when the difference in disposable income to spend means that an environmental lobby can spend $10 million for all of Congress while a corporation who pollutes the environment can spend the same amount on a single senator. Putting a cap on the amount of money lobbyists can spend would equalize the playing field.
The battle to implement clean elections will not be easy, as the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations the same amount of free speech as an individual citizen shows. This is something that every American should want, in order to reclaim political power for those whose right it innately is.
True, progressive reform of campaign financing and economic-political structures is absolutely vital for a better, more prosperous, more equal, more democratic America.
With unemployment hovering near 10%, and underemployment much higher, the poor economy is on most people's mind. Many are angry at the government for lack of success in creating jobs. Many are also angry at the amount of money spent to save Wall Street, the Auto Industry, and the Big Banks, allowing CEOs and other millionaires to lavish themselves with huge bonuses while ordinary Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to get by.
The last time income inequality was this high was the Great Depression
Some recent statistics paint an even more dire situation:
Over 43 million Americans live under the poverty line, which goes up to 60 million when other factors are taken into consideration. This is equivalent to one in seven Americans.
50.7 million Americans are uninsured.
In 2005, the income of the top 20% of society was 1,500% higher than that of the lowest 20%, the highest gap ever recorded.
For the latest year that data was compiled, the tax rate for multinational corporations in the United States was about 2.3%, a significantly lower amount than ordinary Americans.
The financial sector's share of domestic corporate profits right before the economic crisis was 41%, up from 16% in 1973.
The share of total income by the top 10% of society went from 34.6% in 1980 to 48.2% in 2008.
The share of total income by the top 1% of society for the same time period went from 10% to over 20%.
Real median income for working-age households has fallen over the same time period.
Income inequality in the United States has widened over the past several decades, making America not only more unequal than other developed countries but one of the most unequal in the world.
Ordinary Americans are struggling to find a job and make ends meet, while those responsible for the financial crisis, Wall Street and the Big Banks, were bailed out by taxpayer money and are able to hand out huge paychecks to CEOs.
The top 25 hedge fund managers earned over $25 billion last year, in the midst of an economic recession larger than any in recent memory.
Over the past several decades, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class and the poor have remained stagnant, and income inequality has increased exponentially. The United States is in danger of becoming a Third World country.
How did this happen? Corporate money and special interest lobbyists have flooded Congress with funds, making politicians beholden to those who have given them the most capital, and not their constituents, the American people. Decades of ever more deregulation and lower taxes, as well as loopholes large enough to drive through, have exacerbated this situation to disproportionately and deferentially help the rich at the expense of the less well-off.
Both parties have encouraged this behavior, and during this most recent crisis, with widespread popular support to hold accountable those responsible for creating this situation, the Democrats and the Obama administration negotiated directly with those they would try to regulate, making concession after concession until the final bill was basically meaningless, as far as real reform was concerned. Of course, this hasn't stopped Wall Street financiers from complaining about Obama's "anti-business" policies, though this sentiment could not be farther from the truth.
Wall Street and other corporate influences need to be reformed
This is the result of runaway capitalism, whose corporate and special-interest influence extends over the U.S. government, basically running the economy and shaping policies that directly benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country.
Capitalism is not evil. Its ability to create wealth can be used to help people from all strata of society, not just the rich. It only becomes cruel when it is allowed to run its logical path, with profit as the only motivating factor and ever-increasing wealth going to an ever smaller circle of those at the top of the pyramid.
The influence of private money on Congress, elections, and politics in general in the United States is out of control. Many on the left point the finger mainly at the Republican Party, but the Democrats are guilty of the same crime. It is impossible to either gain or maintain political power in the United States without corporate or private money of some kind.
As a result, American democracy is under attack, with the voice of the people unable to be heard over the drone of private money. If this trend of increasing income disparity and corporate and special-interest money influence over political policies continues, the United States will become substantially weakened and degrade into a Third World country.
This vicious cycle is what is truly at stake in America.
The American people want to reform Wall Street, so that they can never again have the ability to bring down the rest of the country's economy. They want universal health care. They want better public education. They want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to help the environment. They want job security, unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages, and other things that Big Business would not agree to otherwise.
The only thing standing in the way of real progressive reform is the ruling-class of millionaires, billionaires, corporations, and special-interests, all of whom have the most to lose from their loss of privilege.
The solution is to take the money out of politics: Clean elections, clean politics, clean politicians.
Publicly-financed campaigns would make politicians beholden to the people, not the corporations.
Lobbyists are not inherently bad. They only become so when the difference in disposable income to spend means that an environmental lobby can spend $10 million for all of Congress while a corporation who pollutes the environment can spend the same amount on a single senator. Putting a cap on the amount of money lobbyists can spend would equalize the playing field.
The battle to implement clean elections will not be easy, as the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations the same amount of free speech as an individual citizen shows. This is something that every American should want, in order to reclaim political power for those whose right it innately is.
True, progressive reform of campaign financing and economic-political structures is absolutely vital for a better, more prosperous, more equal, more democratic America.
Social Democracy in Sweden is Far From Dead
The September 19 general election in Sweden pitted the incumbent Alliance of moderates, centrists, and conservatives against the traditional heavyweights Social Democrats, in a bloc with the Greens and far left. The talk leading up to the election had been all about the Sweden Democrats, the far-right, anti-immigration party which had arisen out of neo-Nazi groups in the 1980s.
The Alliance had hoped for an increase in votes for its largest member, the Moderate Party, so that a majority government could be formed. In a country where the social welfare state is renowned and a source of pride, the architects of the "Swedish Model", the Social Democratic Party, were faced with the possibility of not only not regaining power (something they'd held for some 63 out of the previous 75 years) but also with going below the 30% threshold for the first time ever.
When the votes were finally tallied, the results were both expected and unexpected: While the Moderate Party's share of the vote increased, its partners' went down, leaving a razor-thin gap of 16 seats for the Alliance to form a majority in the 349-seat Riksdag. The Social Democrats did not do as badly as some had predicted, coming in at 30.8%, along with a further 7.2% for the Greens and 5.6% for the Left.
The Alliance has 172 seats, the Red-Green coalition 157 in the new Riksdag
It would seem then, that the nationalist Sweden Democrats, who gained 20 seats and 5.7% of the vote, would hold the balance between the Alliance and the Red-Green coalition. Except that neither party has stated they are willing to negotiate with them at all, meaning that the Alliance will have to rely upon at least some support from the Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.
With this historic result, a conservative coalition has maintained political power after an election for the first time in since before World War Two. It is also the worst electoral result for the Social Democrats in almost a century, with some questioning whether this marks the demise of socialism and the welfare state in Sweden.
Such conjecture is premature, at best. Social democracy in Sweden is far from dead.
The economy in Sweden has remained quite stable throughout the global economic recession, and when the economy is going good, the party in power will reap the benefits. The Alliance coalition has been in power since 2006, and their limited privatization policies have helped to stimulate jobs at a time when other countries are unable to. Many have pointed to the combination of lower taxes and reduction in social benefits spending that the Moderates have implemented since they gained power as a sign that Swedes no longer appreciate the safety nets that the Social Democrats had put in place over several decades.
Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderate Party
Again, this type of conjecture is premature at best. Social democracy, and the Swedish people's appreciation for socialist policies, is far from dead.
While the Social Democrats scored only 0.8% higher than the Moderates on the national level, the local electoral results paint a rosier picture, with 32% and a six point lead over the Moderates for municipal and county results. Additionally, polls as late as the week before the election had been showing a probably majority for the Alliance, but this popularity seemed to go down after a debate over health care insurance seemed to paint the Moderates as forcing patients with severe illness and pain to work.
Swedes like the Moderates' handling of the economy, and see Fredrik Reinfeldt as a better leader for the country than his Social Democrat opponent. While the Moderates can make slight modifications to the welfare state, pruning the excessive branches from the socialist tree, as it were, any kind of deeper, more fundamental change would be most unwelcome among the Swedish population at large.
A case can be made in saying that the Social Democrats maybe had enforced too rigidly their ideology, and as a result were unable to react well enough to the political and economic climate they found themselves in in the mid-2000s, but general, widespread support for the social framework they had placed in Swedish society will remain.
The Alliance had hoped for an increase in votes for its largest member, the Moderate Party, so that a majority government could be formed. In a country where the social welfare state is renowned and a source of pride, the architects of the "Swedish Model", the Social Democratic Party, were faced with the possibility of not only not regaining power (something they'd held for some 63 out of the previous 75 years) but also with going below the 30% threshold for the first time ever.
When the votes were finally tallied, the results were both expected and unexpected: While the Moderate Party's share of the vote increased, its partners' went down, leaving a razor-thin gap of 16 seats for the Alliance to form a majority in the 349-seat Riksdag. The Social Democrats did not do as badly as some had predicted, coming in at 30.8%, along with a further 7.2% for the Greens and 5.6% for the Left.
The Alliance has 172 seats, the Red-Green coalition 157 in the new RiksdagIt would seem then, that the nationalist Sweden Democrats, who gained 20 seats and 5.7% of the vote, would hold the balance between the Alliance and the Red-Green coalition. Except that neither party has stated they are willing to negotiate with them at all, meaning that the Alliance will have to rely upon at least some support from the Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.
With this historic result, a conservative coalition has maintained political power after an election for the first time in since before World War Two. It is also the worst electoral result for the Social Democrats in almost a century, with some questioning whether this marks the demise of socialism and the welfare state in Sweden.
Such conjecture is premature, at best. Social democracy in Sweden is far from dead.
The economy in Sweden has remained quite stable throughout the global economic recession, and when the economy is going good, the party in power will reap the benefits. The Alliance coalition has been in power since 2006, and their limited privatization policies have helped to stimulate jobs at a time when other countries are unable to. Many have pointed to the combination of lower taxes and reduction in social benefits spending that the Moderates have implemented since they gained power as a sign that Swedes no longer appreciate the safety nets that the Social Democrats had put in place over several decades.
Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderate PartyAgain, this type of conjecture is premature at best. Social democracy, and the Swedish people's appreciation for socialist policies, is far from dead.
While the Social Democrats scored only 0.8% higher than the Moderates on the national level, the local electoral results paint a rosier picture, with 32% and a six point lead over the Moderates for municipal and county results. Additionally, polls as late as the week before the election had been showing a probably majority for the Alliance, but this popularity seemed to go down after a debate over health care insurance seemed to paint the Moderates as forcing patients with severe illness and pain to work.
Swedes like the Moderates' handling of the economy, and see Fredrik Reinfeldt as a better leader for the country than his Social Democrat opponent. While the Moderates can make slight modifications to the welfare state, pruning the excessive branches from the socialist tree, as it were, any kind of deeper, more fundamental change would be most unwelcome among the Swedish population at large.
A case can be made in saying that the Social Democrats maybe had enforced too rigidly their ideology, and as a result were unable to react well enough to the political and economic climate they found themselves in in the mid-2000s, but general, widespread support for the social framework they had placed in Swedish society will remain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)