So, it's Sunday Morning and I'm watching these talking heads "discuss" Obama's plans for stimulating the economy. The reason that is "discuss" and not discuss is because neither of them focus on the issues at hand. In all honesty, it seems like they are using his platform as a way to legitimatize their own narrow beliefs concerning economics.
One dude, Sam Donaldson [former ABC anchor] is like "trickle up". He wants the government to give people more money ($500 tax credit) so that they can spend more.
A couple of people are like. Help small businesses. Give them more money (allow them to write off past debt) so that they can stay competitive.
Another person is saying clean up the credit crisis. In their mind, nothing good can come of any action until we rid the banks of their bad debt, since they control the flow of money.
The Nobel Prize winner in economics is trying to keep the people above from taking things to far into the extreme, but I just read that this is how he believes it all started:
"This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea." - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1
So, I'm sitting here screaming back at the TV, "You fucking idiots, it ain't hard to tell!". We're here because the distribution in wealth is out of wack. The number of rich people has increased and so has the amount of money, they as a group control, meanwhile the number of poor working people has also increased and the amount of money, they as a group control, has continued to dwindle. None of what they are talking about is addressing that core fundamental problem in the economy right now. Obama is. I think. I hope.
And this is a problem for everyone.... Businesses in a capitalistic society are going to target the customers that they can count on providing them with profit. Normally, this means they go after the market that is increasing. And due to the shift I pointed out earlier, this is the reason why we have an overwhelming amount of specialty stores, services, and establishments that the average American can't afford. When this is taken to its extreme you get what a lot of us are experiencing - the choice to be helpless: your only options for groceries (necessities) are Whole Foods or C-Town.
I don't believe for a second that we got here because of a runaway financial industry. I think that was a product of the problem - the government failing to ensure that the economic bottom doesn't drop out.
Working people have to go where the jobs are. Businesses go where the talent and/or customers are. And the government, since the depression, has allowed our demise to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because the country pretty much discourages people from making their states relevant and instead depends on metropolises to supercede the states.
The denser our populations gets the more demand for products and thus the gap between what things are sold at and what people can afford grows larger. People want to go elsewhere, but if the infrastructure is not there then they are taking too big a risk with their families in doing it.
I'm hoping that Mr.... President Obama realizes this and is planning to place funds for infrastructure in this manner. Tax cuts and credits will help grease the wheels but it doesn't change where the money goes and therefore contributes to the problem. We definitely need to rebuild our cities, but we need to rebuild more money in the bridge communities that allow people to spread out from the cities first! We need to encourage business to see the richness in all of America, not just NYC, LA, SF, Atlanta, Seattle, and Dallas.
LiquidJin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can dig it,.. excellent point. We gotta put Wikita, KS on the map. We'll call it the big çorn.. or the golden 'wheat'. Now, I bet your saying to yourself in a sarcastic manner that your glad I can joke about this. Fact of the matter is, I've got no other choice less that of driving to Wikita to purchase my consumables and commodities... Your right though, there is a mass concentration of populous... we need to spread that ish out like peanut butter and jelly and nourish the lands that have been so needlessly neglected.
ReplyDelete+1
Very interesting point regarding the accelerating inequitable wealth distribution in this country! Larry Bartels from Princeton in his new book "Unequal Democracy" points out that from 1950-2005 the top 0.1% of income earners in America has tripled (3.2-10.9%) and the top 1.0% has doubled (10.2-21.8%). Cumulative income growth over the past three decades illustrates increasing gross economic disparities; from 1947-1974 the bottom 20% of families in America saw cumulative income growth of 97.5%, the middle 60% saw 102.9% and the top 5% saw 89.1% cumulative income growth. During the past 3 decades (1974-2005) the same bottom 20% saw 10.3% growth, the middle 60% saw 30.8% and the top 5% saw 62.9% cumulative income growth.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately a significant portion of our society continues to believe that large disparities in wealth and income are necessary for America's prosperity (the trickle down Ronald Reagan folks), even though there is no hard evidence to support that belief. To the contrary the wealthiest individuals have amassed disproportionate amounts of political power to protect their accumulated capital and have enabled non-enforcement of government's duty to protect all its citizens under the guise of free market unconstrained capitalism. For a county to claim it primary belief in Christian doctrines, it appears that we repeatedly gloss over the New Testament scripture in Matthew ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
I believe your premise about unequal distribution of wealth points and government’s responsibility to set and enforce limits is in the right direction. Though, I also believe the real question to be answered was posed by Robert Dahl from Yale in the 1950's. "In a political system where nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials, and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs?" Looking at President Obama's campaign and focus on open and transparent government, means he has found an answer to Robert Dahl.